The Gospel according to Matthew: A Commentary 9781481313308, 9781481313322, 1481313304

Table of contents :
Cover
Half-title Page, Title Page, Copyright
Contents
Author’s Preface to the English Edition
Translator’s Preface
Author’s Preface to the German Edition
Introduction
1. The Prologue (1:2– 4:16)
2. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciplesto Israel (4:17– 11:1)
3. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and Their Results (11:2– 16:20)
4. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah— Suffering and Service as Signs of Discipleship to Christ (16:21– 20:34)
5. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the
6. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus and the Commissioning of the Disciples to the Universal Mission (26:1– 28:20)
Bibliography
Subject Index

Citation preview

The Gospel according to Matthew

This page intentionally left blank

The Gospel according to Matthew A Commentary

Matthias Konradt Translated by M. Eugene Boring

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PRESS

English translation © 2020 by Baylor University Press Waco, Texas 76798 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 Kasey McBeath Book design by Baylor University Press. Book typeset by Scribe Inc. Originally published as Matthias Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Göttingen, 2015 © Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Konradt, Matthias, author. | Boring, M. Eugene, translator. Title: The Gospel according to Matthew : a commentary / Matthias Konradt ; translated by M. Eugene Boring. Other titles: Evangelium nach Matthäus. English Description: Waco : Baylor University Press, 2020. | Originally published in German in Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. | Includes bibliographical references. | Summary: “An exegesis of Matthew focusing on scriptural and cultural influences that shaped the narrative of Jesus the Christ”-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020022507 (print) | LCCN 2020022508 (ebook) | ISBN 9781481313308 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781481313322 (pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Matthew--Commentaries. Classification: LCC BS2575.53 .K66 2020 (print) | LCC BS2575.53 (ebook) | DDC 226.207--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020022507 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020022508

The Gospel according to Matthew has been made possible in part by a major grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities: NEH CARES. Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this book do not necessarily represent those of the National Endowment for the Humanities. This ebook was converted from the original source file. 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 ereaders. To inquire about permission to use selections from this text, please contact Baylor University Press, One Bear Place, #97363, Waco, Texas 76798.

CONTENTS

Author’s Preface to the English Edition Translator’s Preface

xi xiii

Author’s Preface to the German Edition A. Introduction

xv 1

1. Basic Characteristics of the Gospel of Matthew and Its Structure 2. Basic Themes of Matthew’s Theology 2.1 The Messiah as Son of David and Son of God, and Matthew’s Narrative Conception of Jesus’ Mission to Israel and the Gentiles 2.2 Immanuel and His Community 2.3 Jesus the Teacher and the Torah 3. The Author and His Addressees 4. Matthew and His Sources 5. Place and Time of Composition

1 5 5 11 15 17 20 22

B. Commentary

25

Title (1:1)

25 v

vi

Contents

I. The Prologue (1:2– 4:16) I.1 The Genealogy of Jesus (1:2–17) I.2 The Birth, Adoration, Endangerment, and Preservation of the Son of David and Son of God (1:18–2:23) I.2.1 The Incorporation of the Son of God into the Family Line of David (1:18–25) I.2.2 The Magi Venerate Jesus as King of the Jews (2:1–12) I.2.3 The Flight to Egypt, the Murder of the Children of Bethlehem, and the Move to Nazareth (2:13–23) I.3 Jesus Prior to His Public Ministry (3:1– 4:16) I.3.1 The Ministry of the Baptist (3:1–12) I.3.2 The Baptism of Jesus and His Proclamation as Son of God (3:13–17) I.3.3 The Temptation/Testing of the Son of God (4:1–11) I.3.4 Jesus, the Light for Galilee (4:12–16) II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel (4:17–11:1) II.1 The Beginning of Jesus’ Public Ministry (4:17) II.2 The Call of the First Disciples (4:18–22) II.3 Introductory Summary of the Ministry of Jesus (4:23–25) II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29) II.4.1 The Narrative Framework: Opening Bracket (5:1–2) II.4.2 The Introduction (5:3–16) II.4.3 The Main Body (5:17–7:12) II.4.4 Concluding Warnings (7:13–27) II.4.5 The Narrative Framework: Closing Bracket (7:28–29) II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority (8:1–9:34) II.5.1 Jesus’ Ministry of Healing (8:1–17) II.5.2 Following Jesus into the Storm and His Rejection by Human Beings (8:18–9:1) II.5.3 Jesus’ Care for Sinners and the Practice of Discipleship-Community in Its Relationship to Jesus (9:2–17) II.5.4 Further Healings in Israel (9:18–34) II.6 Concluding Summary of Jesus’ Ministry (9:35) II.7 The Mission of the Disciples (9:36–11:1) II.7.1 Introduction to the Mission Discourse (9:36–10:4)

26 27 31 33 38

42 45 45 50 52 56 58 58 59 60 63 64 65 72 120 127 127 128 136

142 147 152 153 154

Contents

II.7.2 The Mission Discourse (10:5– 42) II.7.3 Conclusion of the Mission Discourse (11:1) III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and Their Results (11:2–16:20) III.1 John the Baptist and the Question of Jesus’ Identity (11:2– 6) III.2 The Call to Decision (11:7–30) III.2.1 Instructing the Crowds about the Baptist (11:7–15) III.2.2 The Similitude of the Playing Children (11:16–19) III.2.3 Woes on the Galilean Cities (11:20–24) III.2.4 Jesus’ Call as Invitation (11:25–30) III.3 The Intensification of the Conflict with the Pharisees, and the Community of Disciples as the Family of Jesus (12:1–50) III.3.1 Sabbath Conflicts and the Healing Son of God (12:1–21) III.3.2 Jesus’ Reckoning with the Hostile Pharisees (12:22– 45) III.3.3 Jesus’ True Family (12:46–50) III.4 The Parable Discourse (13:1–52) III.4.1 Speaking in Parables to the Crowds (13:1–35) III.4.2 The Continuation of the Speech to the Disciples (13:36–52) III.5 The Authority of the Son of God and the Further Profiling of the Reactions to His Ministry (13:53–16:12) III.5.1 Rejection and Danger (13:53–14:12) III.5.2 Jesus Demonstrates His Divine Authority (14:13–36) III.5.3 Dispute with the Pharisees and Scribes about Purity (15:1–20) III.5.4 The Mission of Jesus to Israel and the Universality of Salvation (15:21–39) III.5.5 The Second Demand for a Sign and the Warning of the Disciples against the Teaching of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (16:1–12) III.6 Peter’s Confession of Jesus as Son of God and the Promise to Him (16:13–20) IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah—Suffering and Service as Signs of Discipleship to Christ (16:21–20:34) IV.1 The First Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection, Peter’s Rebuke, and Discipleship as Cross-Bearing (16:21–28)

vii

157 170 170 171 174 174 177 179 181 184 184 192 199 201 202 214 219 220 224 231 238 245 249

256 257

viii

Contents

IV.2 Jesus’ Coming Glory and the Little-Faith Disciples’ Inability in View of the Absence of Jesus (17:1–20) IV.2.1 The Transfiguration of the Son of God and the Suffering of God’s Messengers (17:1–13) IV.2.2 The Healing of the Epileptic Child and the Little-Faith of the Disciples (17:14–20) IV.3 The Second Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection (17:22–23) IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God (17:24–20:16) IV.4.1 The Temple Tax (17:24–27) IV.4.2 The Discourse about the Community Life of the Church (18:1–35) IV.4.3 The Radicality of Discipleship and Its Promise (19:1–20:16) IV.5 The Third Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection, the Question of the Sons of Zebedee, and Instruction about Being Great and Service (20:17–28) IV.6 The Healing of the Two Blind Men at Jericho (20:29–34) V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment (21–25) V.1 Jesus’ Procession into Jerusalem and His Action in the Temple (21:1–17) V.2 The Power of Faith (21:18–22) V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and his Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple (21:23–22:46) V.3.1 The Question of Authority (21:23–27) V.3.2 The Parable Trilogy (21:28–22:14) V.3.3 The Trilogy of Conflict Stories (22:15– 40) V.3.4 Jesus’ Question about the Sonship of the Messiah (22:41– 46) V.4 The Discourse against the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1–39) V.4.1 Thirst for Glory versus Relating to People as Brothers and Sisters (23:1–12) V.4.2 The Seven Woes (23:13–36) V.4.3 The Lamentation over Jerusalem (23:37–39) V.5 Transition: Jesus Leaves the Temple (24:1–2) V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment (24:3–25:46) V.6.1 The Eschatological Events and the End (24:3–31) V.6.2 The Unknown Time of the End and the Admonition to Be Alert (24:32–25:30) V.6.3 The Judgment of the World (25:31– 46)

261 261 266 268 269 269 271 285 300 306 308 308 313 314 315 317 329 337 340 341 344 352 354 355 355 362 375

Contents

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus and the Commissioning of the Disciples to the Universal Mission (26:1–28:20) VI.1 Introduction (26:1–16) VI.1.1 Jesus’ Announcement of His Death and the Decision of His Opponents to Put Him to Death (26:1–5) VI.1.2 The Anointing of Jesus in Bethany (26:6–13) VI.1.3 The Betrayal by Judas (26:14–16) VI.2 The Last Passover Meal of Jesus (26:17–29) VI.3 The Announcement of the Scattering of the Disciples and Peter’s Denial (26:30–35) VI.4 Jesus in Gethsemane (26:36–56) VI.4.1 Jesus’ Prayer in Gethsemane (26:36– 46) VI.4.2 Jesus’ Arrest (26:47–56) VI.5 Jesus’ Trial before the Sanhedrin and Peter’s Denial (26:57–27:2) VI.6 The End of Judas and the Purchase of the Field of Blood (27:3–10) VI.7 The Trial before Pilate and the Mocking of Jesus (27:11–31) VI.7.1 The Trial before Pilate (27:11–26) VI.7.2 The Mocking of Jesus by Pilate’s Soldiers (27:27–31) VI.8 The Crucified Son of God (27:32–56) VI.9 The Burial of Jesus (27:57– 61) VI.10 The Guarded Empty Tomb (27:62–28:15) VI.10.1 The Guard at the Tomb (27:62– 66) VI.10.2 The Empty Tomb and the Encounter of the Two Marys with Jesus (28:1–10) VI.10.3 The Lie about the Theft of the Corpse (28:11–15) VI.11 The Commissioning of the Disciples for the Universal Mission (28:16–20) Bibliography A. Literature Referenced in the Commentary B. Commentaries for the General Reader C. Technical Academic Commentaries D. Histories of Research E. Selected Literature Subject Index

ix

380 381 381 383 385 386 392 394 394 398 402 409 413 413 420 421 431 433 433 435 438 440 449 449 450 451 452 452 455

This page intentionally left blank

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

I am very grateful that, six years after my monograph Israel, the Church and the Gentiles was published as a part of the series Baylor–Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity, the English translation of my commentary on the Gospel of Matthew which originally appeared in the series Das Neue Testament Deutsch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015) is being published by Baylor University Press as well. Compared to the German version of the commentary, I have made a small number of changes. The exegesis of Matthew 11:28–30 has been revised more closely—here, the insights presented in my essay “‘Nehmt auf euch mein Joch und lernt von mir!’ (Mt 11,29): Mt 11,28–30 und die christologische Dimension der matthäischen Ethik” (ZNW [2018]: 1–31) have been incorporated. I am much obliged to everyone who has made this project possible and participated in its realization. Jörg Pesch and, later, Dr. Jörg Laakmann on the part of Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, and Carey Newman on the part of Baylor University Press initiated the project of translating the commentary. I thank all three of them very warmly for their efforts. Furthermore, Carey Newman won over Eugene Boring as translator, whom I thank for the pleasant and constructive collaboration which has greatly enriched me personally and academically. The German language offers the possibility to form long and complex sentences—I am in the habit of doing so extensively—and simultaneously enables a writer to formulate their thoughts in fine nuances. Eugene Boring is deserving of my deep respect for finding fitting translations for long, convoluted German phrases xi

xii

Author’s Preface to the English Edition

while preserving the nuances to the point. I also thank my student assistant Carina Kammler, who helped me in the process of reviewing the initial draft of the English translation, as well as my doctoral student Annette Weippert, who assisted me in making the subject index. Last, but not least, I warmly thank Cade Jarrell and the team at Baylor University Press, especially Jenny Hunt, for their excellent work in the production of the volume. Matthias Konradt Heidelberg, March 2020

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

At one of the sessions of the Matthew Seminar in the 2015 meeting of the Society of New Testament Studies in Amsterdam, I chanced to sit by Prof. Dr. Matthias Konradt, whom I had never met. I was impressed by his contribution to the seminar and his participation in the discussion, but we had no opportunity to get better acquainted at that time. Immediately upon my return home, I ordered my own copy of his outstanding commentary, a volume very much in step with my own ideal of making undiluted top-of-the-line scholarship more available not only to scholars, but to pastors and teachers in the church. A few months later, I received an unanticipated invitation from Carey Newman, then director of Baylor University Press, to translate the volume into English. I immediately accepted, Carey put the three of us into email contact, and Professor Konradt agreed to review my translation as it progressed. This was a very happy and rewarding relationship. Professor Konradt carefully read the initial draft of each section and made detailed suggestions, not only noting some serious lapses and misunderstandings, but very often refining my grasp of the nuances of the German text. I am grateful for this careful proofreading, as I am sure the readers of this commentary will be. A word about the translation of the biblical texts: In LXX, I have followed NETS, except occasionally rendering Konradt’s German translation of the Greek into English, where the subtleties of his translation are important for the context. The commentary is based on Konradt’s own translation of the Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew. In rendering his translation into English, xiii

xiv

Translator’s Preface

I have used the NRSV as a basis, substantially modifying it to accord with Konradt’s translation in vocabulary, syntax, and style. He intentionally preserves a somewhat “biblical-sounding” style, neither reproducing the Luther Bible nor making an idiomatic translation into contemporary German. I have tried to preserve this, including punctuation. Punctuation is tricky, since, e.g., German uses exclamation marks more frequently than English, particularly in many imperatives when there is nothing especially exclamatory, merely indicating the sentence is formally an imperative. I have tried to more-or-less accommodate this to English, preserving the German emphasis, but not mechanically. Professor Konradt has also reviewed this translation of the biblical texts, affirms its goals, and I am pleased to send it forth with his approval. All abbreviations of biblical and ancient works as well as modern series and journals in the bibliography conform to The SBL Handbook of Style, 2nd edition. This commentary is a splendid achievement, and will be welcomed by interpreters of the Gospel of Matthew at all academic levels. I am pleased to have had a part in making it available to the international English readership. M. Eugene Boring Fort Worth, Texas February 2020

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION

Commentaries on such texts as the Gospel of Matthew, which is certainly to be counted among the central writings of the New Testament, usually have a long gestation period. This is definitely the case with the present commentary. Throughout the good ten years I have been able to devote to intensive studying and teaching the Gospel of Matthew, my fascination has continued undiminished. The first thing to say about writing the commentary is that the work itself was a great joy. One reason for this joy is that, as at the beginning of the task I became especially aware of the limitations imposed by the format of the NTD series to which it belongs (no Greek, no footnotes, and such), it gradually dawned on me that these challenges also included opportunities and advantages. For example, explicit participation in the many streams of academic debate had for the most part to be left aside. At the same time, this had the advantage that commentary on the biblical text itself all the more assumed its central position. In discussing particular passages in which I take up the theses of other scholars, good academic practice meant that I could not ignore proper documentation, and, since this commentary can have no footnotes, I have arranged with the publisher to insert bibliographical references into the text in a limited number of instances. For detailed treatment of the exegetical discussion, see my monograph Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew, translated by Kathleen Ess (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2014), as well as the collection of xv

xvi

Author’s Preface to the German Edition

my Matthean studies, Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, vol. 358 [Tübingen: Mohr, 2016]). Even without explicit documentation of the academic discussion, the limitation of the commentary’s scope requires a concentration on the central exegetical aspects and the theological main line. In the course of working on the commentary, I have accumulated an extensive list of such issues that I have had to bracket out or discuss with only minimal details. On the other hand, I have repeatedly revised and shortened the drafts of the commentary on individual pericopes. I hope that in each case the book has been improved and that a commentary has emerged in which readers find both adequate discussion of the aspects of the text important for their understanding and reflection on the theological convictions mediated by the text, and of a length that can be used productively in the limited time available for preparation of sermons, class lessons, and other work in the congregation. The circle of those I need to thank is too large for me to mention them all by name. I look back on discussions in lectures, and especially in seminars on the Gospel of Matthew that I have had since 2003, at first at the University of Bern, then, since 2009, at the University of Heidelberg. I thank the University of Heidelberg for granting me an extra sabbatical term in the winter semester of 2013/2014, which considerably accelerated the completion of the commentary. In the summer semester of 2014 the participants in my advanced seminar invested their time in working carefully through the draft of the commentary section by section. I am grateful to them for the numerous helpful suggestions that emerged from these discussions, and their emails resulted in a significant reduction of typographical errors. I thank Caroline Ziethe for careful perusal of the introduction, Rahel Brandt and Stefan Opferkuch for checking the translation of the Greek text, and Rahel Brandt also for checking the references to Scripture and other ancient literature. Johanna Körner then carefully read through and corrected the final draft once again. For help in revising and making the index I am grateful to my assistant Annette Dosch, and for help in procuring bibliography, thanks go to my student assistant Anja Steinberg. I thank each of the editors of this commentary series, Prof. Dr. KarlWilhelm Niebuhr (Jena) and Prof. Dr. Samuel Vollenweider (Zürich), for their constructive and very pleasant cooperative work with me and their helpful suggestions incorporated in the final version of the commentary. My thanks also go to the publisher, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, especially to Jörg Persch and Moritz Reissing, for seeing the book through the press in a friendly and professional manner. Last but not least, I thank my wife, Beate, for all her support. She has accompanied the work on the commentary not only with much understanding, often being my first conversation partner with whom I

Author’s Preface to the German Edition

xvii

discussed the draft of individual pericopes, but also has kept me free from other obligations—despite her own multifarious responsibilities—so that I could work on the commentary. That is why this commentary is dedicated to her. Matthias Konradt Heidelberg, November 2014

This page intentionally left blank

A. INTRODUCTION

. B C   G  M  I S One of the most important insights of recent study of the First Gospel is that Matthew is much more than a collection of individual stories about Jesus, arranged in more or less random order. On the contrary, the Gospel presents itself as an artfully arranged whole, a tightly integrated intratextual network comparable to a musical composition in which new music is composed for each verse while remaining a united whole. Later sections are alluded to in advance, earlier themes are taken up again, patterns are repeated in such a way that they become common coin, while at the same time such repetitions are embedded in lines of development that drive the narrative forward and infuse it with dynamic power. This thought-through construction shows the Gospel is written for repeated reading/hearing by an attentive audience that knows how to appreciate such a work—otherwise, the tightly woven connections will not unlock their meaning. This perspective stands alongside the intertextual observation that Matthew’s Jesus-story, from 1:1 through 28:20, is told with constant reference to the Scripture later known as the Old Testament. The familiar fulfillmentquotations (1:22–23; 2:15, 17–18, 23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35; 21:4–5; 27:9–10) are only a particularly notable expression of the relevance of Scripture that permeates the Matthean Jesus-story as a whole. Not only does Matthew 1

2

Introduction

present us with a further series of explicit citations, but, even more importantly, these stand alongside a wealth of allusions that lead the reader to reflect on the whole story within the horizon of Scripture. The Matthean Jesus-story rings out within the echo chamber of Scripture, and gains in resonance and tone when heard in a context permeated by biblical reverberations. By so doing, Matthew not only reveals and illuminates the meaning of Jesus’ advent, he also provides context and contour to the authorities’ opposition to Jesus. In them Ezekiel’s or Jeremiah’s critique of the false shepherds of the people finds its fulfillment (Ezek 34; Jer 23:1– 4; cf. the commentary below on 9:36), as do the godless of Psalm 22 who mock the righteous one (see on 27:43), to mention only two examples. When one relates this intertextual dimension of Matthew’s Jesusstory to its social context, in which the debate with the synagogue dominated by the Pharisees plays a central role (see below under 3.), Matthew’s biblical references show themselves to be an important part of his strategy of communication: by the dense recourse to Scripture his addressees are to be assured that the community of Christian believers is the true custodian of the theological traditions of Israel. The present commentary seeks to take into account both of the recent developments mentioned above. On the one hand, the intent is to attune the individual texts to the narrative flow of the Gospel as a whole, attending to the rapport between the individual texts generated by the fine network of cross-references among the individual texts. On the other hand, the intertextual dimension of the narrative is to be brought into play. The latter does not mean totaling up the (probable or possible) allusions to the Old Testament in the style of an accountant, but is intended to show how the references to Scripture underscore, enhance, or even expand the text. A third essential characteristic rightly emphasized in recent research is that Matthew is an “inclusive” story (see, for example, Luz, Matthew, 1:1, 15–18). The Gospel narrates a past story, but tells it in a way that reveals the experience of the church and reflects its situation in many ways. So, for example, the leitmotif of “little-faith” in the depiction of the disciples’ conduct (see on 8:26 below) is transparent to analogous problems in the congregations addressed by Matthew, and the tone of Matthew’s portrayal of the disputes between Jesus and the religious authorities is sharpened by the conflicts in which the evangelist and his congregations see themselves involved. This “inclusive” character of Matthew’s Jesus-story is seen especially in the five extensive discourses (Matt 5–7; 10; 13; 18; 24–25), which the evangelist has identified by a repeated stereotyped conclusion (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). In these discourses, the story opens directly into the world of the real addressees. In the Sermon on the Mount (5–7), they receive the necessary ethical instruction

Introduction

3

for life according to the will of God. The mission discourse (10) instructs them about their missionary mandate and the resistance they may expect, and the speech of Matthew 18 orients them to the ethos of the Christian community. If one asks about the structure of Matthew, the basic decision is connected with the insight that the five long speeches are indeed a striking and important characteristic, but are not appropriate as the main criterion for determining the macrostructure of Matthew. The outline must rather be oriented to the narrative. As the following sketch will make clear, the five speeches are thereby embedded in the narrative flow; no speech can be exchanged with any other. Despite considerable critique, it is still best to regard the two phrases “from that time Jesus began to proclaim . . .” (4:17) and “from that time Jesus began to show his disciples . . .” (16:21) as basic structural signals. These section markers are by no means to be understood as though 4:17–16:20 deals with “Theme A” and 16:21–28:20 with “Theme B.” Rather, the phrase signals that on the basis of the preceding, a new moment emerges in the narrative and effectively determines it. These aspects are named in 4:17 and 16:21 almost as though they were headings for their respective sections. After Jesus the Son of God has proven to be obedient in his baptism and temptation, in 4:17 he begins his public ministry in which he calls people to repentance and proclaims the nearness of the kingdom of heaven. On the basis of this portrayal of Jesus’ acts and deeds in 4:17–16:20, in 16:21 the first passion prediction brings the passion theme into the foreground, without severing the continuity with the preceding narrative. In short: 4:17 and 16:21 are hinges rather than division markers. We must, however, go beyond this rough outline. Thus 4:17–16:20 is divided into the two blocks 4:17–11:1 and 11:2–16:20. At the center of 4:17–11:1 stands 4:23–9:35, the fundamental presentation of Jesus’ ministry in Israel, framed by the calling of the first disciples (4:18–22) and the mission of the Twelve (9:36–11:1), two discipleship texts that make clear Matthew’s ecclesiological concern: the disciples are called and instructed in order to continue Jesus’ mission. With the Baptist’s question in 11:2, the issue of the response to Jesus’ works steps more strongly into the foreground. The hostility of the authorities now comes forward in massive style (11:16–19; 12:1–14, 24–45; 15:1–14; 16:1–12). The crowds are challenged to deepen their interest in discipleship and to make a decision (11:7–30; 12:43–45); in them the awareness is germinating that Jesus is the Son of David (12:23), and Jesus teaches them (15:10–11). At the same time, the difference between them and the disciples becomes more and more clear, which already surfaces in 14:33 as their recognition of Jesus as Son of God. The corresponding confession of Peter in 16:16 closes the bracket that began with the Baptist’s question. The promise to Peter attached in 16:17–19 once again makes clear the close interweaving of Christology and ecclesiology characteristic of Matthew. In view of the five speeches,

4

Introduction

it is to be added that the parable speech in Matthew 13 is coordinated with the differentiation between the disciples and the crowds, and has the function of driving it forward. In 16:21–28:20, the first section is 16:21–20:34, its theme designated by the three passion predictions in 16:21, 17:22–23, and 20:17–19. Jesus is now on the way to Jerusalem to face his passion. Accordingly, in his instruction to the disciples the aspects of suffering and service become prominent as signs of the meaning of discipleship. The speech in Matthew 18 about life together in the community lines up with this concern, by developing an ethos of humility and unlimited readiness to forgive. Both are directly related to the Matthean understanding of the meaning of Jesus’ death. Chapters 21–25 follow as a thoughtfully structured composition that portrays Jesus’ actions in Jerusalem (detailed in the introduction to 21–25). The healings on the day of his procession into the city and in the temple (21:14), and his teaching in the temple on the following day (21:23) are only mentioned; in the foreground stands the conflict with the authorities and Jesus’ criticism of them. In line with the theology of judgment that forms the horizon of this criticism, these chapters flow into the speech about the eschatological events and the Last Judgment—in which the church will also be involved (24–25). Since this judgment also applies to the church, Matthew’s ecclesiological orientation emerges once again. Finally, in chapters 26–28, the passion story and the Easter narratives conclude the Gospel, culminating in commissioning the disciples for the universal mission. Matthew is introduced by an extensive, bipartite prologue. After the genealogy and birth story in 1:2–2:23, in 3:1– 4:16 Matthew goes directly to the appearance of the Baptist and Jesus’ baptism by John, followed by the temptation in the wilderness and his relocation in Capernaum. The common denominator of these two sections is found in the fact that Jesus is here presented in a way that lays the foundation for the following narrative, before he begins his public ministry. The central christological feature is that Jesus’ Messiahship is portrayed in the double aspect of Son of David and Son of God (see under 2.1). The commentary is thus based on the following outline. 1:1 1:2–4:16 4:17–11:1 11:2–16:20

Title Prologue: The presentation of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah and Son of God Jesus’ ministry in Israel and the mission of his disciples to Israel Between opposition and confession as Messiah. Responses to Jesus’ work in Israel and its consequences

Introduction

5

16:21–20:34 The passion as the central aspect of the way of the Messiah—suffering and service as signs of discipleship 21:1–25:46 Jesus’ final controversy with his opponents and the Last Judgment 26:1–28:20 The passion and resurrection of Jesus and the commissioning of his disciples for the universal mission . B T  M’ T The following makes no attempt to present a comprehensive discussion of Matthean theology. However, we will discuss three theological subjects of great importance to Matthew, and thereby develop a coherent overview of characteristic theological aspects of the theological agenda that guided the evangelist in his new formulation of the Jesus-story. 2.1 The Messiah as Son of David and Son of God, and Matthew’s Narrative Conception of Jesus’ Mission to Israel and the Gentiles One of the greatest exegetical problems in interpreting Matthew is the question of how to explain the transition from the mission of the disciples limited to Israel in 10:5– 6, which has its counterpart in Jesus’ own work in 15:24, to the universal mission in 28:19. At the same time, this issue leads into the center of the theological agenda that has essentially shaped Matthew’s retelling of the Jesus-story. The very first verse of Matthew’s Gospel already brings into focus the appositional definition of Jesus Christ as Son of David and son of Abraham. The presentation of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah goes along with the emphasis on the mission to Israel; the relation to Abraham, however, not only emphasizes the placement of Jesus in the history of Israel as the elect people of God. At the same time, the evangelist allows the audience to hear the overtone of universal mission present in the blessing of the nations in Genesis 12:3. The “classical” model, which still has its advocates, is that, with the cry of the people assembled before Pilate (“His blood be on us and on our children!” 27:25), Matthew blamed the death of Jesus on the people of God as a whole. The people of Israel, who at the end of the story collectively reject the Messiah sent to them, had forfeited the privilege of election, and Matthew 28:19 is the response to this rejection and forfeiture. This model harbors manifold difficulties. In the first place, it remains nebulous why Matthew goes beyond his sources to programmatically and emphatically limit the earthly work of Jesus to Israel (see besides 15:24, e.g., 2:6; 4:23, 25; 9:33; 15:29–39)—the three pericopes in which Jesus has dealings with non-Jews (8:5–13, 28–34; 15:21–28) are carefully worked out as exceptions. This procedure is considerably easier to understand if

6

Introduction

it is related to a positive concern, especially since Matthew has also consolidated his concentration of Jesus’ earthly activity, with its emphasis on the Davidic Messiahship, through an encompassing christological goal. In the second place, one should note the manner in which Matthew has prepared in advance for 28:19. To be sure, on the plane of the narrative world, the mission to all nations is a new assignment for the disciples. For the reader, however, it by no means presents a sudden change of direction, but has been in the making since 1:1, in that the narrative of God’s devotion to Israel is told within a comprehensive hermeneutical framework. On the one hand, this occurs through signals given in the Prologue, concretely by the insertion of four non-Jewish women into the genealogy of Jesus (1:2–16) and through the story of the magi in 2:1–12, which takes up and transforms the motif of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion (see on 2:11 below). On the other hand, this is illustrated by the fulfillment-quotations in 4:15–16 and 12:18–21, which provide overtones on a metanarrative level that the fulfillment of the promise of salvation connected with the work of Jesus is at the same time the way through which, in the end, salvation is also opened up to the Gentile nations. For Matthew, seeking the lost sheep of the house of Israel (10:6; 15:24) and the fulfillment of the nations’ hope for salvation belong together as two sides of the same coin. In the third place, the portrayal of the conflict is more differentiated than it appears in the “classical” model: Jesus by no means encounters a collective rejection in Israel. Rather, Matthew places great value on distinguishing between the crowds on the one hand and the religious and political authorities, including Jerusalem, on the other. On the whole, the crowds react positively to Jesus. When they are said to “follow,” such language at least associates them with the disciples (see 4:25). They let themselves be instructed by him (5:1; 7:28; 15:10) and bring the sick to him (14:13–14; 15:30; 19:2). Jesus’ deeds evoke awe (9:8), amazement (9:33, 15:31), and astonishment (12:23), and lead them to praise and worship (9:8, 15:31). They respond positively and with astonishment to the ring of authority in Jesus’ teaching (7:28, 22:33). Particularly noteworthy are the three passages in 9:33; 12:23; 21:9, in which the evangelist presents the estimation of Jesus among the crowds in their own words, in which one can detect progressive christological insight (see the commentary on these texts). The authorities, on the other hand, are constantly depicted in dark colors: they have failed as shepherds of the people (see 9:36). Their opposition to Jesus and his disciples reveals their abysmal wickedness (see, for example, 12:24– 45). The city of Jerusalem, which Matthew by no means pictures as representing the whole people of God (see 21:9–11), is placed in league with the authorities (2:3; 16:21; 21:10–11; 23:37–39). After

Introduction

7

guiding the readers’ understanding thus far, in 27:25 Matthew pictures the people of Jerusalem taking responsibility for the death of Jesus, which in Matthew’s understanding leads to the destruction of the city. Matthew uses them as literary means to an end, to present visible evidence of whose side God is on and to demonstrate that those who commit themselves to the false authorities can expect God’s judgment. There is, however, not a word about the end of Israel. This means that 28:16–20 cannot be read as a response to Israel’s supposedly collective rejection of Jesus. In the fourth place, especially (but not only) 10:23 shows that the mission of the disciples to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6) is an assignment that remains valid until the parousia of Jesus. The theological horizon of this mission is expressed by the insertion of the list of the twelve disciples just before the speech (10:1–4). The mission is concerned with the eschatological restitution of the whole people of God, the twelve tribes of Israel. As already suggested, in christological perspective the concentration of the earthly ministry of Jesus on Israel goes along with Matthew’s developing the Davidic Messiahship of Jesus into a leitmotif of his Jesus-story. The introduction of this motif in 1:1 is followed by 1:18–25, which explains how Jesus is in fact a Davidide, even though Joseph is not his biological father (see below). In 2:1–12 the Davidic sonship continues to be reflected in the talk of a “king of the Jews” and by the mixed citation in Matthew 2:5– 6 (Mic 5:1, 2 Sam 5:2). Moreover, the latter also introduces the shepherd metaphor as a leitmotif to characterize Jesus’ devotion to Israel: Jesus is the Davidicmessianic shepherd of his people (cf. 15:24). His mission comes into sharp profile against the background of the flock (the people of Israel) who have been deserted by their former shepherds (= the former religious authorities; 9:36; 10:6; 15:24). This fits in with Matthew’s incorporation of the image of Jesus as healer into his Davidic sonship (9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:[9, ]15; cf. Mark 10:46–52), which also includes a noticeable concentration on healings of blind people. This has metaphorical overtones: Jesus’ healings include removing the blindness caused by the religious authorities, who are “blind leaders” (15:14; 23:16, 24). Furthermore, it is important for Matthew that Jesus can be recognized as the promised Davidic-messianic shepherd on the basis of his healings (cf. 11:2– 6), and that he was in fact so recognized— by the crowds and the children in the temple (12:23; 21:9, 15). In the context of early Jewish understandings of Messiahship, Matthew’s focus on the healing Son of David is indeed a new accent, but the emergence of this dimension of the messianic hope can be adequately explained by its connection with the pictures of messianic salvation found in the Old Testament and early Judaism (see below on 11:4–5). And finally, the presentation of Jesus as messianic Son

8

Introduction

of David constitutes an essential element in view of the opposition that formed against Jesus (2:1–12; 9:27–34; 12:22–24; 21:9–11, 15–16): if Jesus was in fact the Davidic-royal Messiah, they would have to respond in obedience, but instead, they seek to maintain their own positions by their opposition to Jesus—as did King Herod in 2:1–12. Interpreters get to the heart of Matthew’s conception when the double development of Jesus’ Messiahship comes in view, which places Son of God and Son of David together and in parallel. Matthew was able to build on the motif of the divine sonship of the Davidic ruler, which appears from time to time in the Old Testament (2 Sam 7:11–14; Pss 2:7; 89:27–28). At the same time, the special status of the messianic Davidide is expressed in the reversal of the relation of Davidic and divine sonship. In the case of Jesus, it is not the descendent of David who is then accepted by God as his son. According to Matthew, it is rather the case that the Son of God begotten by the Holy Spirit is integrated into the Davidic line by Joseph the descendant of David (Matt 1:18–25; cf. 1:20). While divine sonship thus appears as the overarching christological predicate, Davidic sonship is by no means marginalized, for the emphasis is placed on the fact that Jesus the Son of God is placed within the history oriented to God’s promise to Israel. Accordingly, the earthly ministry of the mission he receives as Son of David is devoted to Israel. The relevance of the Davidic Messiahship of Jesus in Matthew is confirmed by a diachronic observation: Matthew found the motif of divine sonship in Mark as the major christological concept (cf. esp. Mark 1:11; 9:7; 15:39). The emphasis on the Davidic sonship is then seen as going back to his own hand. Besides the aspect of the unique nearness of Jesus to God (see esp. 11:27), the idea of the divine sonship is mainly shaped by the aspects of Jesus’ participation in divine authority and the renunciation of the exercise of this authority in obedience to the salvific will of God. The obedience motif takes up the ethical orientation involved in designating faithful Israelites as “sons of God” found in early Jewish wisdom tradition (Sir 4:10; Wis 2:18; 5:5; cf. Matt 5:9, 45). As we have seen, even for the crowds to whom his ministry is directed, Jesus is recognized as Son of David on the basis of his works of healing. The disciples, however, confess Jesus as Son of God after his manifestation of divine power by his walking on the water and saving the sinking Peter (14:22–33). On this basis, Matthew then supplements Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah by extending the confession to include “Son of God” (16:16), which Jesus’ response attributes to a special divine revelation (16:17). In 16:20, however, Jesus charges his disciples to be silent about his messianic identity as Son of God. This is repeated in the story of the transfiguration (17:5, 9), now amplified by the explicit temporal limitation of the command to silence until the

Introduction

9

resurrection of the Son of Man from the dead. Even though in Matthew the confession of Jesus as Son of God by any human being does not first happen at the crucifixion, as in Mark (Matt 27:54 par. Mark 15:39), prior to Jesus’ appearance in Jerusalem this confession nonetheless remains confined to the circle of disciples, who are to keep silent about it. While, in the light of 14:33, Peter’s confession is oriented to Jesus’ divine majesty, he has not yet integrated into his understanding of Jesus as Son of God the manifestation of this divine sonship in Jesus’ obedient walk of the path of suffering (see on 16:21–23). Matthew has placed the passion story christologically under the leitmotif of the passion of the Son of God (26:63– 64; 27:39– 43, 54). The task posed here of harmonizing the participation of the Son of God in divine power, illustrated by the walking on the water, with what actually happened in the life of the earthly Jesus, leads conceptually to placing the obedience motif at the center. The prelude to this conceptuality is already found in the temptation story in 4:1–11. Jesus’ way to the passion is represented as his intentional renunciation of the power that belongs to him as Son of God: Jesus could have escaped arrest by summoning twelve legions of angels (26:53), or he could have descended from the cross (see on 26:53 and 27:39– 43), yet he accepts suffering and death in obedience to the will of God (26:39, 42). This is connected with the soteriological meaning, which Matthew (too) ascribes to the death of Jesus, as indicated by the expansion of the eucharistic interpretation of the chalice in 26:28—Jesus’ blood is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus’ obedience to the salvific will of the Father does not save Jesus himself (cf. 27:42), but his death saves others. Matthew interprets the “many” in the word over the chalice in a universalistic sense. The saving death of the Son of God, his resurrection, and his installation as Lord of the universe who announces to his disciples after Easter his universal authority encompassing heaven and earth (28:18), constitute the soteriological presupposition for the universal mission of the disciples which concludes the Gospel. Significantly, the messianic identity of the exalted Lord as the Son of God appears in the missionary charge, when it is said that the disciples should baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28:19). The programmatic exclusion of the Gentiles from the messianic mission of the earthly Jesus restricted to the lost sheep of the house of Israel turns out to be the other side of the coin, in that the death and resurrection of the Son of God is the fundamental soteriological premise for the salvation of all peoples (28:16–20). Summing up the aspects of Matthew’s theology outlined above, we may conclude that the key to understanding the transition from the exclusive mission to Israel to the post-Easter inclusion of the (other) nations is found

10

Introduction

in Matthew’s christological conception, centered in the bipartite presentation of Jesus’ messianic status as Son of God and Son of David. As the concentration of Jesus’ earthly ministry to Israel is correlated with the emphasis on his Davidic Messiahship, so the extension of salvation to all the nations of the world is related to the atoning death, the resurrection, and exaltation of the Son of God. And just as the universality of salvation associated with the coming of Jesus is signaled from the beginning, but is only fully manifest at the end with the mission charge to the disciples by the Risen One, so Jesus is Son of God from the beginning of the story and the reader thus perceives the following narrative with this awareness, even though this at first remains in the background in the context of portraying his mission to Israel and emerges fully only in the context of his death and exaltation. Matthew thus grounds the expansion of the mission to Israel to include all peoples in a christological concept developed as a narrative. And just as Jesus’ Davidic sonship and divine sonship are to be seen in their common internal bond as explications of Jesus’ Messiahship, the same is to be said for the mission to Israel and the universal mission, which Matthew does not present as competing options, not to mention exclusive alternatives. Their common anchoring in the Old Testament history oriented to God’s promise corroborates their inner connection founded on the narrative Christology sketched above: the history oriented to God’s promise that began with Abraham, ancestor of Israel, comes to its fulfillment in Jesus, in that Israel and the nations receive salvation through Jesus. In Matthew’s understanding, from Abraham on Israel is directed toward the peoples of the whole world, and conversely, universalism is bound to Israel. That the magi ground their hope on the “King of the Jews” (2:2), and that the Canaanite woman calls out to Jesus as “Son of David” (15:22), fits into this understanding. Last to be addressed, but important in this context, is that the mission assigned to Jesus in 1:21 is to save his people Israel (cf. 2:6) from their sins. Jesus carries out this mission as an aspect of his earthly ministry in Israel when he pronounces God’s forgiveness to particular individuals, or when he grants such forgiveness to the (table) fellowship he grants (see on 9:2–13). The completion of Jesus’ mission to Israel, however, is found in his death “for the forgiveness of sins” (26:28), which is bound to the universality of salvation (“for the many”). Again, this shows that the inclusion of the nations is already involved in Jesus’ fulfillment of his mission to Israel: at the same time, this lays the foundation for the gift of salvation to all peoples, who are granted participation in the salvation previously made known in Israel. This is more than a historical reminiscence, for people from the Gentiles who join the Matthean community are entrusted with the story of Jesus as the foundational story of salvation, and thus also of their own Christian identity.

Introduction

11

To a large extent, the story narrates the mission of Jesus (and his disciples) to Israel, for its central concern is to emphasize that the eschatological renewal of the people of God is already inaugurated in Jesus’ ministry. From the point of view of the history of theology, Matthew’s conception can be seen as a variation or further development of a tradition within Jewish Christianity, according to which Jesus Christ descended from the line of David and was installed as Son of God by his resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:3–4). In each case, the earthly life of Jesus appears under the sign of his Davidic sonship, and the exaltation of the Risen One signifies a second phase. In each case, one can speak of a kind of two-stage Christology, but in Matthew’s view this does not mean two phases in the identity of Jesus himself, but two phases of its unfolding to human perception, since Matthew regards Jesus as already Son of God from his birth. The genuine accomplishment of the first evangelist in this regard is that the two-stage concept is consistently interwoven with his understanding of salvation history in which God’s faithfulness to his people Israel mediates God’s inclusion of all other peoples of the earth. Precisely here do we put our finger on the pulse of Matthew’s central concern in his retelling of the Jesus-story. The way in which the identity of Jesus is revealed narratively in different phases is facilitated by the correlation of these two concepts. 2.2 Immanuel and His Community Matthew is an eminently “ecclesiastical” Gospel. Matthew even speaks explicitly of the “church/community/congregation” (ekklēsia), and is the only Gospel to do so (16:18; 18:17). The promise to Peter in 16:18, that Jesus will build his church on him as the “rock,” is based on the preceding confession of Peter (16:16). “Church” is fundamentally identified as the community that shares this confession of Jesus as the Son of the living God. The church thereby has a universal dimension from the very beginning, for Matthew understands the fulfillment of the promise made in 16:18 to begin with the commission of the disciples in 28:16–20. The circle of the Twelve which Jesus had previously gathered around himself, minus Judas, forms the nucleus of the church that now comes into being. The disciples are qualified for this mission, for their fellowship with Jesus during his earthly ministry has enabled them to authentically carry on his preaching and teaching (cf. 16:19). The promise to be with them in 28:20 takes up the promise of 16:18, in which the active subject who builds the church is Jesus himself; the sent disciples are the agents of his continuing ministry. By making the leitmotif of missionary charge in 28:19–20 a matter of making disciples, Matthew highlights the continuity with the preceding narrative: the church is built by making disciples of all nations. But to be a disciple means to be a follower of Jesus, as already portrayed in the Gospel. The Gospel’s

12

Introduction

narrative of the ministry of Jesus is thus to be read at the same time as a story in which basic aspects of the church after Easter are addressed by the way the stories are told about the disciples and the meaning of discipleship, even if the specific situation in the earthly ministry of Jesus cannot be transferred one to one into the post-Easter period. Discipleship means, in a word, a radical commitment to Jesus, which (in case of conflicting commitments) calls for a decisive prioritization (cf. 10:34–37) and willingness to take up one’s cross (10:38; 16:24). Those who were called to discipleship during Jesus’ earthly ministry left behind their everyday (secure) existence (4:18–22; 9:9; cf. 8:19–20; 19:27; for a negative example, see 19:21–22). Following Jesus is more important than basic family bonds (4:22; 8:21–22; 10:34–37). The central social context for disciples is the community of those who follow Jesus. Those who do the will of God by becoming disciples are for Jesus “brother and sister and mother” (12:50). They constitute what might be called a new family. As already suggested, the social constellation in the narrative world (Jesus calls people to discipleship who leave everything and share his wandering life with him and each other) does not coincide with the situation of the mostly settled members of the Matthean congregations, but the radical ethos of the wandering missionaries, who were still present and active in Matthew’s own milieu, is not irrelevant (cf. the introduction to 9:36–11:1 below). The settled members of the community are faced with the task of translating the mission as articulated in the texts calling for radical discipleship, in which what it means to be committed to Jesus exceeds everything else, into their everyday life (on the renunciation of possessions, cf. 19:21). So also, as a result of the conflict with the synagogue dominated by the Pharisees (see below under 3.), commitment to Jesus sometimes resulted in the breakup of families. The discipleship stories in the Gospel illustrate the necessity of making a clear decision. According to Matthew, the church cannot withdraw from the world as though it were a self-sufficient community, for it has a mission in the world, succinctly summed up in the pregnant imagery of “salt of the earth” and “light of the world” (5:13, 14). For Matthew, this is bound up with the reality that the church is essentially a missionary community. This is expressed not only in the connection between 16:18 and 28:19–20 discussed above; the compositional structure of 4:17–11:1 makes clear the weight of the missionary dimension of Matthew’s ecclesiology. At the very beginning of his public ministry (4:17), Jesus calls disciples (4:18–22), who are to become fishers for people (4:19). Then, after instructing them in his work (4:23–9:35), he sends them out to continue his ministry (see the introduction to 4:7–11 and to 9:36–11:1 below). The saying in 5:16 also makes clear that the mission of the disciples is not confined to their

Introduction

13

proclamation; Matthew attributes missionary power to the testimony of their actions. Finally, 21:43 is also to be included here, for the saying there about handing over the kingdom of God to others has in view that after the failure of the old religious authorities and their hostile response to those God has sent, the disciples of Jesus are now entrusted with the task of bringing people back into line with the will of God. The connection with the statement in v. 42, portraying Jesus as the stone rejected by the authorities who has been made the cornerstone (by the resurrection), again points to the time after Easter, thereby confirming the corresponding reference of 16:18–19. Interpreters of Matthew have often read 21:43 in the sense of the replacement of Israel by the church. But Matthew by no means understands Israel and the church as competing communities. The privilege based on God’s historical election of Israel does not mean for Matthew that the people have salvation as a “possession.” In Matthew’s view, before the coming of Jesus, Israel was in fact in a disastrous situation: the people are in darkness (4:16) and need to be saved from their sins (1:21). Rather, the special status of Israel as the people of God is that this people is the privileged recipient of the saving gift of God in Jesus. The disciples are called by Jesus into service to continue this saving act. For Matthew, the church is the community of salvation being formed in Israel and beyond, throughout all the peoples of the world, qualified by their confession of Jesus as the Son of God (16:16) and their life in accord with his teaching (28:20a). Consistent with its fundamental missionary character, the church is not a static entity, not a fixed, completed collection of people, but as itself already a “gathered part” of humanity is the means of further ingathering. Matthew does not, therefore, connect the beginning of the church with the replacement of Israel. To be sure, however, the faith of the disciples that they are followers of the Messiah implies the claim of the church to be the only legitimate guardian of the theological tradition of Israel. This is in step with Matthew’s view that the claim of the Jewish authorities to be the leaders of Israel has been transferred to the followers of Jesus. It is precisely this that is said in 21:43 (see the interpretation of this verse in the commentary below). To be sure, it must be added that the emergence of the church brought about a substantial transformation in the way the people of God is understood. We have seen that the special status of Israel is focused on the aspect of their privileged gift of salvation. However, important characteristics of the people of God in the Old Testament have become ecclesial attributes. Above all, the being-of-God-with-his-people, which in the Old Testament is represented as an important aspect of the special role of Israel as the people of God (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:57; Isa 41:10; Ps 46:8; see also Exod 29:45– 46; Lev 26:12–13), is now realized in the form of Immanuel, “God-is-with-us” (1:23) among his followers.

14

Introduction

According to 18:20, those who “gather in his name” have the promise of Jesus’ being-with them. Matthew 28:20 promises the disciples sent on the universal mission that Jesus as the exalted Lord will be with them “always, to the end of the age.” Reading this in the light of 1:23, it is clear that the community is promised the holy presence of the God who is always near. The choice of the third-person plural in 1:23 (“they shall name him Immanuel”) refers to the disciples’ post-Easter confession: the risen and exalted Lord who promised to be with them is known as the one through whom God himself is with them. This transformation then also concerns the correlation of the concepts of the covenant and the people of God. The saying over the chalice in 26:28 highlights the covenant concept. To be sure, it is not here a matter of making a new covenant with the ekklēsia that supersedes God’s covenant with Israel, but the renewal of the one covenant through Jesus’ salvific death in the sense of a new saving act of God, a renewal of communion with God that includes the forgiveness of sins (see the interpretation of this verse in the commentary below). However, this act of covenant renewal goes hand in hand with the universalization of the covenant, the inclusion of the Gentile peoples in the gift of salvation. Moreover, the salvation granted through Jesus’ ministry and his death “for the forgiveness of sins” becomes effective only through the individual’s acceptance and entrance into the life of discipleship. “Covenant” has here the character of the gift of salvation: through the death of Jesus, the covenant is renewed in the sense that the offer of salvation is now made to all. We do not find here a configuration analogous to the act of covenant making in Exodus 24:6–8 (or Josh 24:27), where the people of God enter into the covenant made by God as God’s counterpart. In view of the visible reality of the church, it has often been suggested that Matthew regards the church as a corpus mixtum. This is on target to the extent that Matthew also directs his judgment speeches inwardly to the community, where they function as parenesis. This means that he understands that it is also possible for believers in Christ to seek in vain for entrance into the kingdom of heaven (7:21–23). Nonetheless, the corpus mixtum conception does not disclose an essential characteristic of the church, but merely a tolerable condition or even a serious deficiency. Thus some restraint is called for at this point. Neither 13:36– 43 nor 22:8–14 can be claimed as support for the interpretation that the church is essentially a corpus mixtum (see interpretation in the commentary below). Furthermore, 18:15–17 indicates that there is conduct that the congregation cannot tolerate and to which it has to respond with exclusion from the congregation. Conversely, this does not mean that Matthew advocates the idea that the church is a sin-free zone. The Lord’s Prayer already makes clear that believers in Christ, too, continue to depend

Introduction

15

on God’s forgiveness (6:12). At the same time, a prominent theme in the Gospel of Matthew is the necessity of forgiveness among human beings (cf. 6:14–15). For Matthew, the authority to forgive sins is an essential feature of the church (see on 9:8), and the readiness to offer unlimited forgiveness even in the case when one suffers personal injustice is a central demand of the congregational ethos embedded in the anthropological insight that believers are always aware of their need of God’s mercy (cf. 18:21–35). That Matthew has no idealistic view of Jesus’ disciples is manifested in a particularly poignant way by the sayings of Jesus about the “little-faith” characteristic of his Gospel. To be sure, in contrast to Mark (6:52; 8:17, 21), the disciples are presented as understanding (Matt 13:11, 19, 51; 16:12; 17:13), but they fail in extraordinary situations in which their trust in God or the helpful and saving presence of God in Jesus is exposed to a stress test (see more details at 8:26). The promise of the presence of Immanuel speaks directly to these situations. On the other hand, that Matthew does not paper over the weaknesses of the disciples does not give the disciples carte blanche to do as they please. For Matthew, God’s mercy is not a matter of cheap grace. It is fundamental for Matthew that entrance into the life of discipleship means—this is good Judaism—life according to the will of God. For Matthew, life according to the will of God means the will of God as mediated by the teaching of Jesus. 2.3 Jesus the Teacher and the Torah The great significance that Matthew assigns to doing the will of God, interpreted in the context of discipleship to Jesus, is again incisively expressed in the concluding missionary charge of 28:18–20. In the task of making disciples of Jesus, it is fundamentally important to teach them to do what Jesus has commanded. Accordingly, the Gospel gives much space to ethical instruction. The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) stands first in this regard, but alongside it must be mentioned the discourse about life together in the Christian community in Matthew 18. The christological counterpart to this is that in 23:8–10 Jesus presents himself as the disciples’ sole teacher. At the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, the crowds respond with the insight that, in contrast to the scribes, Jesus teaches with authority (Matt 7:28–29 par. Mark 1:22). However, when Jesus is addressed as a teacher (8:19; 12:38; 19:16; 22:16, 24, 36), this typically signals that the speaker is an outsider, sometimes with the overtone that Jesus is merely one teacher among others. The disciples, on the other hand, regularly address Jesus with “Lord” (Kyrie, 8:21, 25; 14:28, 30, etc.). It is characteristic for Matthew that he presents Jesus’ ethical instruction as bound to the Torah, to which it has a positive relation. This is programmatically illustrated in the Sermon on the Mount, especially in Matthew 5.

16

Introduction

Thus Matthew begins the main body of the sermon (5:17–7:12) in 5:17 with Jesus’ fundamental declaration on the continuing validity of the Law and the Prophets, who are presented as proclaimers and interpreters of the will of God: Jesus has not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them. This is bound up with the claim that Jesus’ exposition of the Law comprehensively reveals the will of God behind the commandments. The series of antitheses in 5:21– 48 illustrates this. They bring Jesus’ instruction into sharp profile as the development of the full meaning and deeper intention of the Torah’s commandments in contrast to the inadequate understanding of the commandments among the scribes and Pharisees (5:20), who either merely understand the commands literally or restrict their meaning by their interpretations. (For support for this interpretation and details of Jesus’ radical interpretation of the law, see the commentary on 5:17– 48.) For Matthew, the double commandments of love (22:34– 40; cf. 5:43– 44; 19:19) and mercy (9:13; 12:7; 23:23) constitute the center of the Torah and the Prophets. Close beside these, the Decalogue commandments dealing with interpersonal relations are of paramount importance (5:21–30; 15:4– 6, 19; 19:18–19). Matthew emphasizes these commandments without any reduction of the Torah and Prophets to a few main principles, but they function as the objective and hermeneutical center. They are the weightier commandments, but the fundamental principle is the validity of the Torah as a whole (5:18; 23:23). Accordingly, in 15:1–20 Matthew has so reformulated Mark 7:1–23 that the dispute about handwashing before meals by no means abrogates the food laws. In the same way, his version of the Sabbath disputes in 12:1–14 (par. Mark 2:23–3:6) makes clear that the Sabbath commandments continue to be valid in principle (see also 24:20). On the other hand, in Matthew’s hermeneutic of the Law, Sabbath practice is subordinated to the primacy of love and mercy, and while purity laws are by no means abolished, they are clearly marginalized. Completely in line with this, both 5:19 and 19:16–19, each in its own way, make it clear that for entrance into eternal life, the decisive commandments are the great commandments of love and the Decalogue commands already stated above. The thrust of the antitheses directed against the understanding of the Law advocated by the scribes and Pharisees corresponds to Matthew’s view that the correct interpretation and practice of the Torah, including that not found in the Sermon on the Mount, is an important point in the dispute between Jesus and the authorities (in addition to 12:1–14 and 15:1–20, see 19:3–12; 23:16–26). The Pharisees’ understanding is thereby presented in a negative light, in contrast to Jesus’ own interpretation of the will of God. They get bogged down in tightening up the ritual and cultic laws and thus neglect the weightier commands of

Introduction

17

the Law (23:23–24). On the other hand, the Pharisees have obviously accused the Matthean believers in Jesus as the Messiah of inadequate practice of the Torah. Matthew responds by appealing to the central significance of Hosea 6:6 (see Matt 9:13; 12:7): God wants mercy, not sacrifice. If one sees Matthew’s stance to the Law as illuminated by the universal mission charge in 28:18–20, Matthew’s hermeneutic of the Law, with its central idea of a hierarchy of commandments, must not be overlooked. This, along with his concentrating Torah instruction on the realm of interpersonal relations, facilitates the entrance of Gentiles into the ekklēsia. Likewise, it is of course to be emphasized that Matthew has in view non-Jewish believers in Christ, who are fundamentally committed to Jesus’ teaching, which includes his interpretation of the Torah. This result is characteristic of Matthew as a whole: Matthew links his theology to the theological tradition of Israel, at the same time interpreting and developing it in a way that fits into his understanding of the universal ekklēsia of Jesus consisting of Jews and people from the (other) nations of the world. . T A  H A The “Matthew” to whom the secondary title “The Gospel according to Matthew” refers is the same person named in the list of the Twelve (Matt 10:3; see, e.g., the reference to Origen in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.25.4). This ascription is presumably inspired by the story of the call of the tax-collector Matthew in Matthew 9:9 (“Levi” in Mark 2:14). Matthew as the presumed author’s name was already documented in a note by the Phrygian bishop Papias (ca. 110?; see Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16). However, the disciple Matthew is not the actual author. If the author used Mark as a source (see below under 4.), so that it can be assumed that in 9:9 the author has replaced Levi with Matthew in order to connect the story to a member of the circle of the Twelve, then 9:9 speaks decisively against composition by the Matthew who was one of the original disciples, for this Matthew would hardly have written his own name into the call story of another person. The actual author is unknown, but in the following we will simply refer to him as “Matthew.” There is a broad consensus in current scholarship that the author was a Jewish Christian, or, as some would prefer to say, a Christ-believing Jew. His deep roots in the Holy Scriptures of Israel (see under 1. above) and in Jewish traditions and discourse (see, e.g., Matt 12:5–7, 11–12) point clearly in this direction, as does his focus on the fulfilling of the promises of salvation for Israel through God’s act for his people in Jesus (see 2.1). The evangelist stands in the Jewish-Christian tradition, in which the Davidic sonship of Jesus plays a prominent role. Furthermore, the Matthean ethic is clearly based on the Torah (see above under 2.3). His familiarity with the Scripture, as well as his

18

Introduction

literary competence, add support to the thesis that Matthew himself belonged to the circle of Christian scribes, to whose work in the Matthean congregations 13:52 and 23:34 point (see below under 4.). Moreover, this rootedness in Judaism applies not only to the author, but is also characteristic of those to whom the Gospel is addressed, among whom one would rather have to imagine a circle or group of several (house-)churches rather than a single congregation. These congregations apparently still keep the Sabbath (see on 12:1–14 and 24:20) and the food laws. While these are clearly considered as less important than those concerned with social ethics, Matthew does not speak in favor of any fundamental abrogation of these commandments (see above under 2.3 and below on 15:1–20). This does not mean, however, that the Matthean congregations were purely Jewish-Christian, or, as is sometimes emphasized in contemporary scholarship, that they were simply Jewish factions. In any case, we may assume that the evangelist himself, by making the universal orientation of the mission charge in 28:18–20 the goal and culmination of the Jesus-story, clearly declares himself to be an advocate of the church’s mission to the Gentiles. The church is for him a universal community (see above under 2.2). This does not mean, however, that we should jump to the conclusion that, alongside the Jewish Christians, there is already a significant number of Gentile Christians in the congregations addressed by Matthew, since we cannot be certain how long the Matthean congregations have been engaged in a mission to Gentiles. From 1:1 on, a central concern of the evangelist was the theological task of integrating and communicating God’s specific commitment to Israel and the universality of the salvation effected through Jesus. So also, he is concerned throughout to anchor the incorporation of the Gentiles in Israel’s own Scriptures (see, e.g., on 1:3– 6; 4:15–16; 12:18–21). These emphases strengthen the assumption that Matthew had to deal with resentment against the Gentile mission (see also on 8:11–12). It is thus difficult to decide whether Matthew is responding to resistance from (conservative) circles within his congregations to those advocating a new practice, or is defending an existing practice against new reservations that may have been raised, perhaps by those who had fled the Jewish-Roman war in Palestine (cf. on 24:16–20). One can thus not say more than that Matthew’s addressees are congregations which included at least a majority of Jewish Christians and in which Gentile Christians formed a minority, even though we cannot clarify how large this minority was, or how vigorously it was increasing at the time when Matthew’s Gospel was composed. It is clear that the evangelist and his congregations found themselves in a pressing conflict with their Jewish environment, which included the punitive flagellation of Jesus’ followers in the synagogues (10:17; 23:34). The fact

Introduction

19

that in Matthew the Pharisees emerge as the primary opponents can hardly be understood otherwise than as a reflection of the controversies current in the time of the evangelist. This means that in Matthew’s synagogue context, the Pharisees had become the determining factor. The question of the precise relation of the Matthean congregations to Judaism is persistently discussed in contemporary scholarship, but unfortunately is shaped too much by the murus (wall) metaphor: Are the congregations still intra muros or already extra muros? This perspective is unhelpful because, in the first place, the bold but too simple alternative “inside or outside Judaism” is hardly adequate to bring the complex social processes involved into view. Thus the distancing Matthean talk of “their synagogues” (10:17; 12:9; 23:34; cf. also 4:23; 9:35; 13:54) hardly leads to the clear conclusion that Matthew has positioned himself and his congregations outside Judaism. This manner of speaking does in fact reflect some organizational independence of the church and the holding of its own assemblies in competition with the synagogue meetings, but this can be easily understood within the framework of an intra-Jewish process of differentiation, especially in view of the considerable variety within ancient Judaism documented in other sources. In the second place, it may be objected to the intra/extra muros alternative that the answer is essentially a matter of perspective. Whether the Pharisees saw in the group of Christ-believers a form of Judaism (from their point of view, misguided and inadequate) is subject to doubt, especially if the Christian congregations already included (a number of) uncircumcised Gentiles. Matthew himself, however, had not seen in his stance any departure from the faith of Israel. At the end of the day, the “walls” are nothing more than “cognitive shifting sands” (Backhaus, “Entgrenzte Himmelsherrschaft,” 79). We must therefore be content with the information presented above, that Judaism provides the primary context of the life of the Matthean congregations. Since Matthew’s Jesus-story is characterized by carefully distinguishing between the Jewish crowds and the authorities (plus Jerusalem; cf. above under 2.1), and since the authorities repeatedly attempt to prevent a positive reception of Jesus among the people (12:24; 21:15–16; 27:62– 64), the situation seems to be that the Matthean congregations and the Pharisees are seeking the same people to be their followers. It is precisely this that generates the sharp polemic against the Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew. The significance of the conflict with the Pharisees for the way Matthew has shaped his retelling of the Jesus-story can hardly be overestimated. Nonetheless, this is not the only factor, and must not be absolutized. Matthew also had to engage other interpretations of the meaning of faith in Christ within the Christian community itself (see, e.g., 7:15–23). This can already be seen

20

Introduction

in the critical reception of the Gospel of Mark, which Matthew adopted as the basis for his own Jesus-story. . M  H S This commentary presupposes the two-source theory, which continues to be by far the most plausible solution to the Synoptic problem. In this theory, Matthew used alongside Mark the Sayings Source (abbreviated Q), which is no longer extant, and was composed of the material common to Matthew and Luke not found in Mark. Both the order and vocabulary of Q can be only approximately reconstructed. In addition, Matthew had at his disposal a variety of traditional materials found in neither Mark nor Q. This commentary does not explore the supplementary hypotheses to the two-source theory. This applies especially to the thesis that Matthew and Luke did not use canonical Mark, but a deutero-Markan recension. This supplementary hypothesis proposes a solution to the problem posed by the fact that Matthew and Luke fairly often agree against Mark, and that redactional coincidence cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for these “minor agreements.” True enough, the deutero-Mark theory appears to solve one problem, but it generates another, for there is no explanation given for why this postulated recension used by Matthew and Luke (in different locations) was not preserved, without leaving a trace in the transmission of canonical Mark. In regard to those “minor agreements” that cannot plausibly be explained as independent redactional modifications (see, e.g., on Matt 13:12 and 26:68), it is better to suppose that, as a rule, Matthew and Luke were already familiar with some of the material used by Mark before they became acquainted with the Gospel of Mark, and the oral transmission of the Jesus tradition by no means came to an end with the composition of the Gospel of Mark. Matthew probably took most of his special material from the oral tradition. From Matthew 12:1 on, the evangelist follows the Markan outline quite closely. He composes more freely in the earlier chapters, although even in Matthew 3–11 it is sometimes evident that Matthew’s macrostructure is based on Mark (see, e.g., commentary on the location of the Sermon on the Mount in the introduction to 5:1–7:29). However, it is by no means the case that the overall correspondence in macrostructure means that Matthew always agrees with his Markan source, as though his retelling of the Jesus-story is merely a continuation of Mark’s story with additions from Q and his special material, while adding some theological accents and taking account the concerns arising from the situation of his readers. Rather, the substantial corrections Matthew makes on issues important to him can hardly have any other explanation but that the Gospel of Matthew should be classified as Mark-critical,

Introduction

21

if not anti-Markan. He is not only inspired by Mark to continue the idea of writing a comprehensive story of Jesus, but wants to displace Mark, because he considered it unsuitable to be used in the Matthean congregations. Here the above note should be taken into account, that the evangelist hardly first became acquainted with the material in Mark from the Gospel itself, but was already familiar with much of this from the oral tradition. He saw in Mark the tradition that had been shaped in such a way that it did not present a sufficiently authentic picture of Jesus’ work and accordingly—even theologically—was in need of correction. The theological critique that becomes apparent in the substantial differences in content between Matthew and Mark encompasses various areas. This critique ranges from Christology, in which, in contrast to Mark, Matthew emphasizes the Davidic Messiahship of Jesus (see above under 2.1), through the understanding of the Torah (see above under 2.3) to the picture of the disciples (see above under 2.2, as well as Konradt, “Matthäus und Markus,” 221–32). In discussing the relationship of Matthew to Q, it must be kept in mind that Q cannot be perfectly reconstructed. The thesis sometimes argued—that Q represents the early and primary tradition of the Matthean congregations—is somewhat relativized by the view already advocated above, that Matthew was already familiar with (much of) the traditional material found in Mark before he became acquainted with the Gospel itself. In addition, also in the case of Q, it can be observed that Matthew sets the accents differently (see, e.g., the commentary on 9:32–34 and 12:38). Nonetheless, we do not find here such a substantial theological critique as in the case of Matthew’s interpretation of Mark. Theologically, Matthew is closer to Q than to Mark. Finally, in the broad sense of the word, the Scriptures of the Old Testament must be numbered among the sources of Matthew. More precisely, the dense array of scriptural references in the Matthean Jesus-story (see above under 1.) point to the fact that the final form of the Gospel of Matthew is indebted to a lengthy process of reflection within a Jewish-Christian group of which the evangelist is the center (or at least a member), who in their meetings not only studied traditions from and about Jesus that already included citations from and allusions to Scripture, but they themselves also independently read and reflected on the Scriptures. In this process, the close interrelation of the Jesus-story and Scripture allowed each of these elements to interpret the other. More specifically, in some cases, such as Matthew 2 or 27:3–10, we may even suppose that creative reflection on Scripture contributed substantially to the development and expansion of the Jesus tradition they had received. The literary work of the evangelist is based on these developmental processes. We must not, therefore, imagine the evangelist as a lonely scholar who, in the seclusion of

22

Introduction

his study, created his new version out of the sources named above on his own. Rather, he was closely involved in a circle of Christian scribes, and, moreover, in the liturgical life of the congregations (or even in their ecclesial life generally). It is for them that he composed the Gospel as their foundational story of salvation, which gave them their identity. . P  T  C Since the Gospel of Matthew provides no clear indication of where it originated, we can only attempt to identify and evaluate circumstantial evidence. Locating the Gospel in Syria enjoys great popularity. A whole bundle of different sorts of evidence can be named that point to this theory of the Gospel’s provenance. In the first place, we may mention that there is early attestation of Matthew in Syria by the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (compare, e.g., Ign. Smyrn. 1.1 with Matt 3:15). We can also point to evidence internal to the text, such as the note added in 4:24a that Jesus’ fame spread throughout all Syria. This note adds nothing to the reader’s understanding, and its absence would not be missed. However, the insertion makes sense if the evangelist retrojected the area of his own church’s location into the story of Jesus. Moreover, the fulfillment-quotation in 2:23 also provides an indication that fits Syria, because “Nazorean” (see also 26:71) is documented in the Syrian region as a designation for Christians. Last but not least, the Jewish traits of the social context presupposed by Matthew fits in well with Syria, since the Syrian area had a significant Jewish population (Josephus, War 7.43; Philo, Embassy 245). At the same time, if one includes the larger social context, it is understandable why opening up a perspective that includes the world of nations was a central theme in the Matthean congregations. So also, it is understandable why Gentile prayer practice is here mentioned and can serve as a foil (6:7–8), and that “Gentile” (pagan) is used several times as a designation for outsiders (in addition to 6:7; see also 5:47; 18:17). Where a more precise localization is attempted, the Syrian metropolis of Antioch is often proposed. The plausibility of the concreteness of this suggestion rests essentially on the fact that Antioch was an important center of emerging Christianity. It fits in with the suggestion of an Antiochene setting that in Matthew, Simon Peter plays a prominent role as primus inter pares (first among equals) in the circle of the Twelve, and that Antioch belonged to the area where Peter was much admired (cf. Gal 2:11–14), but Peter’s realm of influence was certainly not limited to Antioch. Thus other Syrian cities or areas where the common language was Greek become discussable possibilities. In addition, the dominant Jewish-Christian character of the circle of addressees (see 3. above) does not fit seamlessly into the picture conveyed by

Introduction

23

Luke in Acts 11:19–26, although it should be remembered that Antioch was a large city and that there were certainly several congregations of Christian believers there. As an alternative to Syria, recent scholarship has increasingly proposed Galilee. The positive evaluation of Galilee as the location of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the launching point for the mission in 28:16–10 can hardly be used for this argument, however, for this conceptuality already exists in Mark. Worthy of more consideration is the fact that in the synagogal environment of Matthew, the Pharisees obviously have an influential role (see above under 3.), for current disputes with Pharisees would fit well into a Galilean context for the Gospel’s composition. If it is assumed on the basis of Acts 22:3 and 26:4–5 that the Pharisee Paul (Phil 3:5) was educated in Jerusalem and there became a Pharisee, there is no documented instance of a Diaspora Pharisee. However, the explanatory force of this datum is questionable, in view of the general lack of sources; in any case, it cannot provide compelling evidence that (especially after 70 CE) in a Syria that shared a border with the “land of Israel” (Matt 2:20–21) there were no Pharisees. And even if Paul grew up in Jerusalem, his presence in Damascus proves that a Pharisee intended to work in Damascus. The most that can be conceded here is that the probability of the dominant influence of the Pharisees in the synagogal environment of the Matthean churches decreases with increasing distance from Galilee. When this is seen together with the evidence supporting a Syrian provenance, it may be that southern Syria, perhaps a city like Damascus, is more likely than a city such as Antioch, considerably farther north. Certainty cannot be attained here. The evidence for the time of the Gospel’s composition is clearer. On the one hand, the terminus post quem is given by the use of Mark, which was written ca. 70 CE. On the other hand, texts such as 22:7 and 27:25 clearly presuppose the destruction of Jerusalem. The terminus ad quem can be determined, at least approximately, by the earliest references to the Gospel of Matthew. It is more than likely that the Didache knew Matthew, but the Didache itself cannot be dated with certainty. Even older than Ignatius (see above), however, is the evidence of 1 Peter, to be dated approximately in the last two decades of the first century, which in 2:12 and 3:14 reflects redactional passages in Matthew (5:16 and 5:12), and therefore probably presupposes the Gospel. The Gospel of Matthew was therefore probably composed in the 80s of the first century CE.

This page intentionally left blank

B. COMMENTARY

T (:) The Book of the Origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. Matthew begins programmatically. With his very first words, “Book of the Origin” (or “Book of the History/Story”), he takes up a biblical phrase which, in the context of the creation narrative in Genesis 2:4 LXX, means “Book of the Beginning / Origin of Heaven and Earth,” and in the context of Genesis 5:1 LXX is found as the introduction to a narrative that appeals to the story line in which human beings were created in the image of God and the generations from Adam to Noah (“The Book of the Beginning / Origin of Human Beings”). Matthew thus inserts his Jesus-story into the narrative world of the Bible, and, by setting the story against the backdrop of the reference to the meaning of creation, signals that the advent of Jesus Christ is an epochal turn of the ages. Presenting Jesus Christ with the twin titles “Son of David” and “Son of Abraham” is also programmatic. In comparison with his sources, Matthew has greatly enhanced Jesus’ Davidic Messiahship, indeed has made it a christological leitmotif. This focus is related to Matthew’s emphasis on God’s commitment to Israel, by which the promises given to the people of God are fulfilled. Since, after “Son of David,” “Son of Abraham” is superfluous as genealogical information, it is all the more clear that, like “Son of David,” the term is theologically charged. Abraham is both the progenitor of Israel and the bearer of 25

26

I. The Prologue

the promise of universal blessing to all peoples (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4). In Matthew’s other appeals to Abraham (3:9; 8:11), the emphasis is on the universal dimension of salvation, but the references to Israel and the universal perspective are not to be played off against each other, but held together in their interrelationship. For Matthew, the election of Israel from Abraham on points forward to the universality of salvation realized in Jesus the Son of Abraham, and at the same time, formulated conversely, the universal breadth of salvation is bound to the election history of Israel through the motif of the Abrahamic Son, Jesus. There is also an apologetic dimension in the reference to Abraham: the Pharisees among the opponents of the Matthean Jesus’ followers deny that they still represent authentic Judaism, probably precisely because of their programmatic openness to people from among all the other nations of the world. With the opening words of his Jesus-story in 1:1, Matthew raises the opposing claim that the history of election that began with Abraham finds its true continuation precisely in the community of believers in Christ that welcomes the nations. In the very first words of 1:1, the introduction of the motif that the promises of salvation for both Israel and the Gentiles are fulfilled in Jesus illustrates the significance of this leitmotif for the Gospel of Matthew as a whole. In the course of the narrative, this is reflected in particular in the juxtaposition of the disciples’ mission in 10:5– 6 restricted to Israel and the universal mission of 28:19. The sequence “Son of David—Son of Abraham” thus corresponds to the sequence that during his earthly work Jesus’ ministry was focused on Israel, and that the Gentiles are included in his saving act only after his death, resurrection, and installation as universal Lord. The question of whether 1:1 functions as the heading for (a) only the genealogy in 1:2–16 or 1:2–25, or (b) over the whole Prologue 1:1– 4:16, or, as here presupposed, (c) over the whole Gospel, is of secondary importance when the programmatic character of the verse is recognized. Matthew’s use of the “Book of the Origin” speaks for option (c), while speaking of the “origin,” especially in view of the way the word is taken up again in 1:18 speaks rather for option (a) or (b). The difference between (b) and (c) is not very significant, since with option (b) it would be kept in mind that the Prologue as a whole is of fundamental importance for delineating the characterization of Jesus. I. T P (:–:) The Gospel of Matthew is introduced by an extensive prologue, which portrays the events that occurred prior to the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry in 4:17. This prologue functions as a fundamental introduction to the identity of the main character: Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, Son of God and Immanuel, with whose advent God initiates a new phase in the

I.1 The Genealogy of Jesus

27

salvation history of Israel. At the same time, the conflict theme that characterizes the whole Gospel is already exposed in Matthew 2. Essential to the presentation is the strikingly dense use of fulfillment-quotations (1:22–23; 2:15, 17–18, 23; 4:14–16). After the genealogy in 1:2–17, the Prologue can be divided into two larger subsections. The first, 1:18–2:23, is a coherent narrative unit about the birth and endangerment of the baby Jesus. In 3:1– 4:16, Jesus comes as an adult to be baptized (3:1–17), is tempted in the wilderness by the devil (4:1–11), and eventually moves to Capernaum; these events occur immediately before his public activity. I.1 The Genealogy of Jesus (1:2–17) Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Aram, 4 and Aram the father of Aminadab, and Aminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of David, the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the (wife) of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa, 8 and Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the exile to Babylon. 12 After the exile to Babylon, Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel, and Salathiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the exile to Babylon there are fourteen generations; and from the exile to Babylon to the Christ there are fourteen generations. 2

The idea that appears in 1:1, that the origin of a human being can say something essential about that person’s significance, is deepened by the genealogy

28

I. The Prologue

in 1:2–16. What at first glance appears to be a straightforward stringing together of Jesus’ ancestors, which, moreover, supplies just as little reliable historical information as the very different genealogy in Luke 3:23–38, on closer examination proves itself to be a scholarly masterpiece that provides essential christological affirmations. This is done, on the one hand, by supplements to the traditional genealogical scheme “x was the father of y,” and on the other by structuring the genealogy in a triple series of fourteen generations, pointed out in Matthew’s own commentary on the genealogy in v. 17. (That here the numerical value of the Hebrew letters in “David,” which totals fourteen, was godfather to this structure, can only be a conjecture.) Thus, the same number of generations in each of the three segments of the genealogy stated in v. 17 evokes the idea that the salvation history that began with the election of Abraham runs its course toward Jesus, its intended goal. Whoever counts the generations named will, of course, notice that the list does not in fact contain three sections of fourteen members each. Jesus does not belong to the forty-second generation, but to the forty-first. From Abraham, up to and including David, there are in fact fourteen generations; for the following two epochs, however, only twenty-seven generations are available, so that one generation must be counted twice. A possible solution is achieved if one notes that, while “David” refers to a person, “exile” refers to a historical event or period of time as marking a new epoch. To count David twice, as the last member of the first period and the first member of the second period corresponds exactly to Matthews phraseology “from Abraham to David” and “ from David to the exile.” If one counts fourteen generations from David, one comes to Josiah. This fits in with the statement in v. 11, that Josiah became the father of Jechoniah at the time of the exile, which is, of course, itself historically problematic (on this, see below). There are fourteen generations from David to the beginning of the exile (=Josiah). Matthew then has the period following the exile begin with Jechoniah. From him up to and including Jesus there are likewise fourteen generations. Because David is counted twice, the number of generations up to and including Joseph is exactly forty, a number laden with symbolism in the narrative world of the Bible. To name only three examples, Israel’s desert wanderings lasted forty years (Exod 16:35; Num 14:33–34; Josh 5:6; and elsewhere), the flood in the days of Noah began with forty days and forty nights of rain (Gen 7:4, 12, 17), just as the period from Jonah’s preaching to the threatened judgment of Nineveh was forty days (Jonah 3:4). The genealogy of Jesus thus signals that after the forty generations from Abraham to Joseph, the history of promise that began with Abraham has now been completed. Now begins a new epoch in time.

I.1 The Genealogy of Jesus

29

The epochs identified in 1:17 are bound up with a number of thematic aspects. [2–6a] The period from Abraham to David is the epoch in which the promises of salvation were given (cf. on Matt 1:1). Matthew could easily obtain the generations from Abraham to David from Scripture (cf. primarily Ruth 4:18–22; 1 Chr 2:3–15). The addition of Judah’s brothers (1:2) evokes the motif of the people of God with its twelve tribes, which will reappear later in the narrative when the group of the Twelve will be introduced just before they are sent on the mission to Israel (10:1– 6), a note that will be sounded again in 19:28. [6b–11] In the second epoch, by following the Davidic line through the kings of Judah (unlike Luke; cf. 1 Chr 3:10–16), Jesus’ genealogy continues to present itself as a condensed representation of the history of Israel. At the same time, Matthew thereby reinforces the royal accent of his presentation of Jesus, already introduced in 1:1 with the motif of Davidic sonship. The number of generations named in v. 17, however, could appear in the second epoch only by omitting the three kings Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah between Joram and Uzziah (= Azariah; cf. 2 Kgs 8:24–14:20; 1 Chr 3:11–12), and in v. 11 by omitting Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23:34–24:6) between Josiah and Jechoniah (= Jehoiachin, 2 Kgs 24:6–16). In the latter case, there is reference to the brothers of Jechoniah, about whom there is nothing in the Scripture (according to 1 Chr 3:16, Jechoniah had one brother, Zedekiah; cf. 2 Chr 36:10 MT), but the reference would well fit Jehoiakim. According to 1 Chronicles 3:15, Josiah had four sons: Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum (cf. Jer 22:11–12), who in 2 Kings 23:31–33 and 2 Chronicles 36:1–3 is called Jehoahaz. Of these, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and finally—after the three-month reign of Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin/Jechoniah (2 Kgs 24:8–16; 2 Chr 36:9)—Zedekiah became king, so that the mention of the brothers is understandable. Moreover, since the grandson of Josiah, Jehoiachin, is connected with the first deportation to Babylon (2 Kgs 24:8–16), but Zedekiah, son of Josiah, is connected with the second deportation and the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25:1–21), it is also understandable that the exile was connected with the generation after Josiah. For the continuation of the genealogy, only Jechoniah is given. Not only was he pardoned while in exile (2 Kgs 25:27–30), but according to 1 Chronicles 3:17 he was also the father of Salathiel, who in turn was the father of Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:2 etc.), while Zedekiah’s sons were killed by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:7). As an alternative to this understanding of Matthew 1:11 as a contraction of the complex data presented here, one may consider that there is some confusion in Matthew, as in 3 Ezra, where Jechoniah, instead of Jehoahaz, is mistakenly called the son of Josiah (1:34 [1:32 LXX]), while the son of Jehoiakim is mistakenly also called Jehoiakim (instead of Jehoiachin, 1:43 [1:41 LXX]).

The reference to the exile—its importance underscored in v. 17—implicitly points to the throne of David which has been vacant since then, a vacancy that is brought to an end with the advent of Jesus, Son of David. While the first

30

I. The Prologue

section of the genealogy leads to the first high point in the history of Israel, the reference to the exile marks the second segment as a history of its decline. The arc that stretches from David to Jesus is further emphasized by the fact that, prior to the Christ title in v. 16, only David receives a title: David is the king. Jesus is his messianic successor. [12–16] In the third section of the genealogy, only the first two names, Salathiel and Zerubbabel, are taken from the genealogical data of the Old Testament (1 Chr 3:19 LXX [differently in the MT]; Ezra 3:2, 8, etc.), but the rest of the list is not assembled arbitrarily. The rebuilding of the sacrificial altar (Ezra 3:2– 6) and the initiative to rebuild the temple are connected with Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:8– 4:3; 5:2). It is thus appropriate that among the names that follow, remarkably many have Old Testament namesakes associated with priesthood and temple, e.g., Abiud (1 Chr 5:29), Eliakim (Neh 12:41), Zadok (2 Sam 15:29; 1 Chr 5:34, 38, etc.), Eleazar (1 Chr 24:1– 4). These intertextual references suggest that Matthew wanted to supplement the royal accent with a priestly one (see Ostmeyer, “Der Stammbaum des Verheißenen,” 182–85). In keeping with this, it is fitting that Jesus has the “priestly task” of “saving his people from their sins” (1:21). This is reminiscent of the genealogical opening of Josephus’ Life, in which he prides himself on his royal and, above all, his priestly ancestry, as the highest nobility that can be expressed in Judaism (Life 1– 6). To be sure, Jesus’ status does not need to be enhanced by pointing out the kings and priests in his ancestry. Matthew 1 places the emphasis on the functions Jesus has that are already reflected in his genealogy. He will guide his people as the royal Messiah and save them from their sins. The latter also indicates Matthew’s understanding of the way in which the Messiah brings the situation of exile to an end. [3, 5, 6] The most striking expansion of the basic genealogical scheme is the insertion of the names of four women (before Mary), all the more significant since the important ancestral mothers Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah (as the mother of Judah) are not mentioned, but rather Tamar (Gen 38), Rahab (Josh 2; 6), Ruth (Ruth 1– 4), and “the (wife) of Uriah,” i.e., Bathsheba (2 Sam 11–12). This eye-catching choice raises the question of what it is that links these four. The most plausible solution is that Matthew sees all four of them as non-Jews, more precisely, as proselytes. In the case of Rahab and Ruth, their non-Jewish origin is evident (Josh 2; 6; Ruth 1:4). Tamar, about whose origin nothing is said in Genesis 38, is portrayed by Philo as an idolater from Palestinian Syria who was converted to the one God (Virtues 220–222). For Bathsheba, the Old Testament only provides varying data about the name of her father (2 Sam 11:3; 1 Chr 3:5), but these provide no clarity about her origin. The fact that she is not introduced by her name but as “the (wife) of

I.2 The Birth, Adoration, Endangerment, and Preservation of the Son of David

31

Uriah” can, of course, refer to David’s wrongful act, but, in the context of the references to the three other women, it far more likely points to Matthew’s intention of identifying her with her husband, who was a Hittite (2 Sam 11:3), thus designating her as a non-Jew. As another non-Jew in Jesus’ genealogy in addition to the four named, Matthew could have pointed out the mother of Rehoboam, the Ammonite Naamah (1 Kgs 14:21, 31; 2 Chr 12:13), but this omission is understandable. Naamah never converted to the worship of the one God of Israel. On the contrary, the Old Testament sets Solomon’s liaison with her in the context of his apostasy from the one God (1 Kgs 11:1–8, esp. v. 5). She thus does not fit in with Matthew’s intention to point to the universality of salvation associated with the inclusion of the other women. At the same time, their inclusion, seen in an ecclesiological sense, makes clear that Israel has always been open to Gentiles who united with the community that worships the one God. Therefore, when the community of salvation founded in Jesus’ ministry includes Jews and Gentiles, this does not mean a fundamental break with Israel’s history and self-understanding. Rather, what was already set forth in the history of Israel finds its fulfillment in Jesus, the goal of that history. [16] In v. 16, a dramatic breakthrough in the rigid genealogical schema occurs: while the genealogy leads up to Joseph, he is not presented as the biological father of Jesus, but is simply referred to as “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.” The tension in this statement will be resolved in the narrative of 1:18–25. I.2 The Birth, Adoration, Endangerment, and Preservation of the Son of David and Son of God (1:18–2:23) In the narrative cycle 1:18–2:23, a chain of events determined by divine intervention both before and after the birth of Jesus shapes his future role, including the conflicts which will be a major part of his ministry. The cycle is often divided into three subsections, 1:18–25, 2:1–12, 2:13–23. Since 2:13–23 is itself divided into three parts, an alternative structure might be a five-part subdivision, which can be roughly divided into alternating scenes featuring Joseph (1:18–25; 2:13–15, 19–23) and Herod (2:1–12, 16–18). In contrast to Luke 1–2, Mary completely recedes from the story line; even the birth of Jesus is not described expressly, but is “hidden” in the chronological data of 1:25 and 2:1. Each of the five scenes is illuminated by a quotation from Scripture. In 1:22–23, 2:15, 2:17–18, and 2:23, this occurs at the level of the narrator’s comment in the form of a fulfillment-quotation; in 2:5– 6, the high priests and scribes infer the birthplace of the Messiah from Scripture. In addition, a characteristic feature of the narrative cycle which also serves to bind the

32

I. The Prologue

narrative together is the series of dream revelations given to Joseph (1:20–21; 2:13, 19–20, 22) and the magi (2:12). In terms of form, these can be divided into two groups: 1:20–21, 2:13, and 2:19–20 speak of the appearance of an angel of the Lord in a dream and report the message of the angel in quoted speech, while 2:12 and 2:22 only report that the magi or Joseph receive instruction in a dream. In the first group, in each case Joseph exactly carries out the instructions of the angel, presenting him as a righteous person who is obedient to God. The narrative cycle is also marked by a series of allusions to the story of the endangerment and salvation of the baby Moses (Exod 2) as it was understood in early Judaism, as illustrated in particular by Josephus, Antiquities 2.205–237. As Herod learns the place of Jesus’ birth from the scribes, so Pharaoh, according to Antiquities 2.205 learns from a scribe of the birth of an Israelite who will bring down the rule of the Egyptians and exalt the Israelites. In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exodus 1:15, the Pharaoh’s dream in which the land of Egypt appears on one side of a pair of scales, and a heavier lamb on the other side is interpreted as the birth of an Israelite through whom the land of Egypt will be destroyed. The Pharaoh reacts to this danger—like Herod in the Gospel of Matthew (2:16–18)—with an order to kill the children (Josephus, Ant. 2.206; Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 1:15). In each case, the mass murder of children is aimed at the one whose birth had been announced. The angelic appearances in Joseph’s dreams have their counterpart in Josephus, in that God appears in a dream to Moses’ father, Amram, who had begged God in prayer for mercy, and God promises to save the child (Ant. 2.212–216). Analogous to the angel’s announcement of Jesus’ mission in 1:21, God further declares to Amram in the dream that Moses will deliver the Hebrew people from their affliction under the Egyptians (2.216; in LAB [Pseudo-Philo] 9:10 Miriam receives a revelatory dream concerning Moses’ future role). In addition, Matthew’s rationale for the directive to return to the land of Israel (“those who sought the child’s life are dead,” 2:20) reads like an imitation of the reason given for the directive for Moses to return to Egypt after his flight to Midian in Exodus 4:19 LXX (compare also Matt 2:21 with Exod 4:20), especially since Matthew’s directive is formulated in the plural, despite the reference to the death of Herod alone (Matt 2:19). These allusions are combined with a geographical contrast: the danger to the one who brings salvation does not come from the Egyptian ruler but from the king, the chief priests, and the scribes who reside in Jerusalem. Egypt, the location of Israel’s oppression, mutates into the place of Jesus’ refuge.

Through the repeated Scripture quotes and the dream revelations, as well as by the echoes of the story of the miraculous rescue of the baby Moses, Matthew portrays the narrated events as guided by God. On the other hand, the power of those who oppose the Son of God is limited. Their action against Jesus is not crowned with success. The narrative cycle in the Prologue is clearly a prelude to the passion.

I.2 The Birth, Adoration, Endangerment, and Preservation of the Son of David

33

The points in common between Matthew 1:18–2:23 and Luke 1:5–2:40 are limited to a bare outline: Mary, engaged to Joseph (Matt 1:18; Luke 1:27; 2:5) is pregnant by the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35), with which the motif of the virgin birth and Jesus’ divine sonship are connected (Matt 2:15; Luke 1:32, 35). The child’s name is given by an angel (although in Luke 1:31 to Mary, in Matt 1:21 to Joseph). The birthplace is Bethlehem (Matt 2:1; Luke 2:4–7), which christologically stands side by side with the motif of Jesus’ Davidic origin or Messiahship (Matt 1:20; 2:2– 6; Luke 1:32, 69; 2:4). Everything else is different, and in part difficult or impossible to harmonize. Only basic christological motifs are assumed by both narratives: faith in Jesus as Son of God is illustrated by the virgin birth and conception by the Holy Spirit; and the belief that Jesus is the expected Messiah of the house of David is combined with Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus, though, historically, Nazareth is the more likely option. The narrative expressions of this basic outline have then been developed along different lines in Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–2. In Matthew, the fact that the narrative cycle has been essentially shaped by Jerusalem-based hostility against the Messiah fits in seamlessly with Matthew’s emphasis on the conflict with the Jewish authorities as one of the characteristics integral to the narrative as a whole. At the same time, this congruence presents an important indication of the extent to which the design of the narrative cycle in Matthew 1–2 is essentially the product of Matthew himself or his circle. The density of the references to Scripture in the form of direct quotations as well as the allusions to the Moses story confirms this assumption. The role of Scripture goes beyond the fact that it has secondarily provided interpretations for the development of the narrative. Rather, the motif of the endangerment of the baby Moses and his connection with Egypt should be seen as a major source of inspiration for the thoroughly legendary narrative cycle in Matthew 2. I.2.1 The Incorporation of the Son of God into the Family Line of David (1:18–25)

The origin of Jesus was like this: While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 19 But Joseph, her husband, was a righteous man, did not want to expose her to shame, and wanted to divorce her quietly. 20 After he had thought it over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not hesitate to take Mary, your wife, to your home, for that which has been begotten in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you shall give him the name Jesus; for he will save his people from their sins.” 18

34

I. The Prologue

Now all these things happened to fulfill what was said by the Lord through the prophet, who says: 23 “Behold, the virgin will be pregnant and bear a son, and they will give him the name Immanuel,” which is translated “God is with us.” 24 And when Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife home to himself. 25 And he did not know her until she gave birth to a son; and he gave him the name “Jesus.” 22

In view of the tension generated in 1:16, Matthew continues in 1:18–25 to explain the circumstances of Jesus’ origin (see 1:1). The text, however, clarifies not only why it is that Jesus is indeed Son of David, but also introduces other significant christological aspects. Even further, Matthew’s attention is focused on the divine orchestration of the event. [18–19] Matthew has no interest at all in building up a narrative tension, but names the main point at the very beginning: Mary is pregnant by the Holy Spirit. In contrast to Luke 1, his eagerness to present the event as directed by God focuses the narrative spotlight on Joseph rather than Mary. That his fiancée is pregnant before they lived together places him in a delicate position. The engaged woman is still living in her parents house, but engagement was a legal bond between the partners, from which one could only be separated by a certificate of divorce. Thus v. 20 rightly already speaks of Mary as the wife of Joseph. The narrative manifests no interest in the circumstances in which Joseph first learned of Mary’s pregnancy. Verse 19 only portrays his reaction. Mary’s pregnancy, in human judgment, could only mean that she was guilty of adultery. Consequently, they could not continue with their marriage plans, for in the Jewish understanding of the marriage laws of the time, divorce in such a situation was not an optional matter (cf. on 5:32). Joseph wants to proceed with the divorce quietly, without exposing Mary to public disgrace. For Matthew, this shows that Joseph is a righteous man. Refraining from public exposure of Mary is an implication of the love commandment, for Matthew the central guideline for acting in the sense of the Torah (cf. on 18:15). [20] What happens, however, is not a quiet separation, because an angel appears to Joseph in a dream and explains the true origin of the child. It is God who is in control of the event. The angel also instructs Joseph to name the child (differently in Luke 1:31). Addressing Joseph as “son of David” indicates the naming is concerned with clarifying the issue evoked in 1:16, how it could be that Jesus could be identified as “Son of David” (cf. 1:1) by a genealogy in which Joseph is not Jesus’ biological father. By giving him his name, Joseph accepts Jesus as his son. The scene of 1:20–21 is clearly inspired by the stories of birth announcements found in the Old Testament (Gen 16:7–12; 17:19;

I.2 The Birth, Adoration, Endangerment, and Preservation of the Son of David

35

Judg 13:3–5; Isa 7:14). Genesis 16:11 is an especially close parallel, where the angel’s announcement of the birth of a son is likewise associated with the giving of the child’s name, followed by an interpretation that accounts for the choice of the name. [18, 20] The interest in explaining Davidic sonship is accompanied christologically by the motif of the agency of the Spirit in the begetting of Jesus (vv. 18, 20), which introduces the motif of divine sonship. To be sure, although not expressed here in titular form, the combination of Spirit and divine sonship found elsewhere (Mark 1:9–11; Luke 1:35; Rom 1:3– 4) points clearly in this direction. The motif of divine sonship appears in a variety of contexts and meanings in the tradition of the Old Testament and early Judaism. We may mention first that the people of Israel is honored as God’s (firstborn) son (Exod 4:22; Hos 11:1; Jub. 2:20; 4 Ezra 6:58; 4Q504 frag. 1–2, 3.5– 6, and elsewhere). Secondly, there is a stream of wisdom tradition that refers to the righteous person as a son of God (Sir 4:10; Wis 2:18; 5:5; cf. Matt 5:9, 45). Thirdly, and most important for Matthew 1, are the occasional references to the divine sonship of the (Davidic) king (2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:7; 89:27–28). In comparison with Israel’s historical environment, the Old Testament uses this concept with considerable reserve. It does not imagine that the king is physically begotten by God, but that the king is declared to be God’s son (Ps 2:7), and accepted by God as his son. In early Jewish messianic thought, the motif of divine sonship plays at the most a marginal role in the extant texts, probably because of the importance of the divine motif in ancient kingship ideologies. The fragments 4Q174 1i + 21 + 2 [3.]10–13, interpret 2 Samuel 7:11–14 messianically. It is disputed whether 4Q246 2.1 refers to the Messiah or to a pagan ruler.

Of paramount importance for Matthew’s Christology is the relationship between Davidic and divine sonship (see 22:41– 46; and 2.1 in the introduction above). In contrast to the Old Testament texts, the relation of these two is inverted: it is not that the Davidic ruler is adopted by God as his son, but conversely, the Son of God begotten by the Holy Spirit is incorporated into David’s family line by the action of Joseph. This corresponds to the fact that throughout Matthew, Jesus as Son of God is the central christological category. This by no means diminishes the importance of the Davidic Messiahship of Jesus. Rather, the emphasis is placed on the facts that Jesus as Son of God is incorporated into the history of Israel oriented to God’s promise, and that Jesus is sent to Israel in his earthly ministry, in which God’s promises to Israel are fulfilled. The connection of the motif of Jesus’ divine sonship with the miraculous birth of Jesus as God’s act through the Holy Spirit is not a myth created by Matthew himself, but, as Luke 1:26–38 shows, is based on tradition. We can

36

I. The Prologue

only speculate as to how early this tradition might be. Neither Paul nor Mark betrays any knowledge of this myth. To understand the genesis of this myth, we must note that the motif of miraculous divine birth without a human father is found in other narratives in the world of antiquity, especially in the context of the worship of a ruler as son of a god. A myth current in the Hellenistic world related how Alexander the Great, who was honored as a son of a god (Plutarch, Alex. 27.9–28.1), was fathered by the god Jupiter Amun, who mated with Alexander’s mother, Olympia, in the form of a serpent (2.4–3.3). A very similar story was told in Roman times about Augustus (Suetonius, Aug. 94.4). There were still other heroes who had no human father. A divine conception and birth were ascribed to Plato (Diogenes Laertius 3.2; Plutarch, Mor. 717D–E; cf. Origen, Cels. 1.37). That this motif was not entirely unknown in Judaism is documented by the story of the miraculous birth of Melchizedek in 2 Enoch 71, in which the sterile and already elderly Sopanima became pregnant without sexual intercourse. Against this background, the myth of the supernatural birth of Jesus can be read as a narrative expression of the confession of faith in Jesus as the Son of God, with the help of a motif familiar in its historical context. For Matthew, who emphasizes the identity of the earthly Jesus and the exalted Christ, Jesus was not first installed “as Son of God in power” by his resurrection—differently from the tradition adopted by Paul in Romans 1:3–4. But neither was Jesus first acknowledged as Son of God at his baptism (Matt 3:13–17; cf. Mark 1:9–11). Rather, the mystery of his messianic identity as Son of God, his unique nearness to God, was—inspired by the ancient motif of miraculous birth—already related to his conception: Jesus has his origin in God and therefore belongs from the very beginning entirely at the side of God. In comparison with the myths about Alexander or Augustus, it is striking that there are no sexual overtones in the act of procreation. The narrative framework on which Matthew 1 (and Luke 1) is based has its own accent, in that the pregnancy occurs during the time of Mary’s engagement, while she is still a virgin. However, the motif of Mary’s virginity has no independent interest for Matthew; the Gospel never refers to it again. Matthew certainly does not have in mind the continuing virginity of Mary, as is sufficiently clear from the incidental references to the brothers of Jesus (12:46– 47) or to his brothers and sisters (13:55–56). While 1:18–20 leads into the messianic identity of Jesus as Son of God and Son of David that governs the whole Gospel, the christological exposition in 1:18–25 is further enriched by fundamental affirmations of [21] Jesus’ soteriological significance. Matthew uses the interpretation of the name “Jesus” ( is help/salvation), which he weaves into the angel’s speech in v. 21. Philo documents the awareness of the meaning of Jesus’ name in Hellenistic Judaism:

I.2 The Birth, Adoration, Endangerment, and Preservation of the Son of David

37

“Jesus” means “the Lord’s salvation” (Names 121). Along with this, Matthew’s formulation may have been inspired by Psalm 130:8, “It is he who will redeem Israel from all its iniquities” (LXX “acts of lawlessness”). This interpretation of his name that concentrates the saving act of Jesus on the forgiveness of sins reveals the centrality of this aspect in Matthew’s understanding of Jesus’ mission. Not only does Jesus have the authority to forgive sins during his earthly ministry (9:2–8), in the Matthean version of the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus’ death is explicitly related to the forgiveness of sins (26:28). In a broader sense, the ethical instruction of Jesus is also related to this theme, insofar as the knowledge of the will of God mediated by Jesus’ teaching helps to prevent its violation (cf. Blanton, “Saved by Obedience”). [22–23] The angel’s speech is not continued into vv. 22–23, which come from the narrator: Matthew interrupts the narrative flow by the insertion of his first fulfillment-quotation. The introduction to the quotation has an exact parallel in 2:15—and only there. In 2:15, with the citation of Hosea 11:1, for the first time there is explicit reference to Jesus as Son of God. By using this identical introductory formula, Matthew suggests that the content of the two quotations belong together and thus makes clear that 1:23 also refers to Jesus as Son of God. At the same time, the thesis is confirmed that the story of the miraculous birth introduces the theme of the divine sonship. “All this” in the citation’s introductory formula refers primarily to the motif of the miraculous conception, by which the meaning of the quotation from the prophet is significantly shifted by being embedded in the Matthean context. While Isaiah 7:14 speaks of the future pregnancy of a woman who at the present is still a virgin, and thus in no way implies the supernatural conception of the child, Matthew interprets the statement in reference to the virginity of a woman who is already pregnant. To be sure, the significance of the statement is not confined to pointing out the special circumstances of the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of Scripture. The emphasis lies rather on the last phrase, in which the only change from the text of the LXX of Isaiah 7:14 is found. Instead of the second-person singular, “you are to name him Jesus,” Matthew chooses the third-person plural, for Matthew does not intend to present an alternative to the naming in v. 21. Rather, he is looking ahead to the later confession of Jesus’ followers: in Jesus, they have experienced the saving presence of God; for them, he is Immanuel. The soteriological significance of Jesus of 1:21 is thus deepened. In terms of macrostructure, 1:23 and the promise of the Risen One in 28:20b form an inclusio, although 28:20 is concerned with the continuing presence of the Risen One with the disciples (cf. 18:20), while the citation in 1:23 qualifies Jesus himself: he is the one through whom God is present with human beings. By bracketing the whole Jesus-story with the motif of God’s being-with his people, everything portrayed between

38

I. The Prologue

1:23 and 28:20 is framed by the assurance of God’s being-with humanity in Jesus, and Jesus’ being-with his own. In traditional theological formulation, this is the indicative foundation of the Matthean Jesus-story. The imperatives that permeate the call of Jesus to discipleship in this Gospel are all based on this indicative affirmation of God-with-us. [24–25] When Joseph awakens, he faithfully carries out the angel’s commands. He takes Mary to his own home, but without having intercourse with his pregnant wife until after the child is born. This may express his hesitation about coming in contact with the Holy but, in the context of the sexual morality of early Judaism, is another expression of his righteousness (see Josephus, War 2.161 on the Essenes). Not least, this is also the consequence of Matthew’s understanding of the citation from Isaiah 7:14, in accordance with which the mother of Immanuel conceives and gives birth as a virgin. A survey of 1:18–25 shows the text to be a concentrated exposition of Christology. First, the motif of the Davidic sonship continues to be present. Following up the reference in 1:16, how and why Jesus is indeed the Son of David is explained. Second, the role of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ birth introduces the idea of his divine sonship. Third, the interpretation of the name “Jesus” reveals his soteriological significance: he will save his people from “their sins.” Fourth and finally, the christological leitmotif of God’s being-with is introduced and set as a signpost before the following narrative: God’s promise of being-with his people is fulfilled in the sending of Jesus. In short, in 1:18–25 Matthew presents Jesus’ messianic status as Son of David and Son of God and unfolds his soteriological significance in the double motif of salvation from sins on the one hand, and God’s being-with his people on the other. I.2.2 The Magi Venerate Jesus as King of the Jews (2:1–12)

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, behold, magi from the East came to Jerusalem 2 and said, “Where is the king of the Jews, who has been born? For we have seen his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.” 3 But when King Herod heard that, he was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And he assembled all the high priests and scribes of the people and inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They said to him, “In Bethlehem in Judea, for so it is written by the prophet: 6 ‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the princes of Judah. For from you will come a leader who will shepherd my people Israel.’” 7 Then Herod secretly called the magi to him, and inquired of them the exact time of the star’s appearance, 8 and he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find 1

I.2 The Birth, Adoration, Endangerment, and Preservation of the Son of David

39

it, report to me, so that I, too, may come and pay him homage.” 9 So, when they had heard that from the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star, which they had seen at its rising, went before them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was. 10 And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with great joy. 11 And when they came into the house, they saw the child with Mary, his mother, and they fell down, rendered him homage, opened their boxes of treasures, and presented him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 12 And because they had received instructions in a dream not to return to Herod, they escaped by another route to their own country. After the transition in v. 1a, which establishes the connection with 1:18–25, the narrative in 2:1–12 is divided into two sections by the scenes located in Jerusalem (vv. 1b–9a) and Bethlehem (vv. 9b–12). The shorter second section, framed by travel notes on either side, consists solely of the sparse account of the magi’s adoration of the child Jesus. The Jerusalem section—apart from the brackets that announce the arrival of the magi (vv. 1b–2) and their departure (v. 9a)—consists of the subunits of the conversation of Herod with the high priests and scribes (vv. 3– 6) and his meeting with the magi (vv. 7–8). The story has no historical core. The motifs that form its building blocks will be mentioned in the course of the interpretation below (on the Moses narrative, see in the introduction to 1:18–2:23). [1–2] Details of the birth story already presupposed in Matthew 1:25 are given in 2:1, with Bethlehem as the birthplace and “in the days of King Herod” as the time, before Matthew announces the arrival of the magi with his typical “biblical” style “behold . . .” While “magi” originally referred to a Persian priestly caste, in Hellenistic times the meaning had expanded to include other representatives of eastern wisdom, to which—as here—astrology belongs. Magi are often found in antiquity around royal courts (see, e.g., Dan 2:2, 10 LXX). Their Gentile origin is illustrated in v. 2 by the fact that they speak of the “king of the Jews.” The phrase returns in Matthew 27:11, 29, 37, always used by non-Jews, while at the mocking of Jesus in 27:42 the Jewish authorities speak of the “king of Israel.” After the references to Gentiles in the genealogy, Matthew’s story of the magi provides another pointer to the universality of salvation, at the same time underscoring the interplay between universality and specific reference to Israel: Gentiles find salvation in the king of the Jews (cf. the appeal to Jesus as “Son of David” by the Canaanite woman in 15:22). In accord with the Gentile astrological background of the magi, they infer the birth of the savior-king from an event in the heavens, probably thought of as a personal star arising at the individual’s birth (see Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist.

40

I. The Prologue

2.28; and cf. Plato, Tim. 41D–E; Horace, Ep. 2.2.187). Their competence as astrologers enables them to identify a particular star as the new king’s birth star and to decipher its appearance as meaning the new king has now been born. Above all, however, Matthew probably has in view the prophecy of Balaam in Numbers 24:17, that a star would arise out of Jacob (Philo describes Balaam in Moses 1.276 as a magus). The historical context of the narrative also includes the fact that in the Hellenistic world since the time of Alexander the Great the star had been a symbol of rulership. Moreover, among the evangelist’s contemporaries, the expectation of a world ruler who would come from the East was virulent (see Josephus, War, 6.312–13; Tacitus, Hist. 5.13 [“the majority was convinced of the word contained in the ancient priestly records, that at that very time the East would be strengthened, and that Judea would take possession of world domination”]; Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5). Against this background, Matthew 2:1–2 can be read as showing that the magi interpret the rising of the star as a sign of the fulfillment of this common expectation of the advent of a new ruler. In addition, one may ponder whether Matthew’s readers might hear this story as a counternarrative to the homage paid to Nero by the Parthian king, and—according to Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 30.16–17—the magus Tiridates in 66 CE (see in particular, Cassius Dio, Hist. 63.1–7, and Suetonius, Nero 13): The true king is Jesus.

[2–3] Nothing is said about a meeting of the magi with Herod until v. 7. The scene in vv. 2–3 should rather be understood that Herod learns that magi in the streets of Jerusalem are asking about a newborn king of the Jews. This also makes it understandable why, along with Herod, all Jerusalem is alarmed (cf. 21:10): the inquiries of the magi are taking place in public. The inclusion of all Jerusalem in the king’s alarm is historically entirely implausible, given the unpopularity of the king among the people. It is rather an advance pointer to the city’s role in the passion of Jesus (16:21; 21:10; 23:37; 27:24–25). Matthew already sounds the note in the Prologue that Jerusalem is the place of Jesus’ enemies. Placing the magi’s talk of a newborn king of the Jews (v. 2) alongside the references to King Herod (v. 1; cf. vv. 3, 9) already subtly introduces the conflict motif that determines the narrative to follow: the birth of Jesus is perceived by the Idumean Herod as a threat to his own position as ruler. [4–6] Herod therefore calls the high priests and scribes together as a team of experts, to learn from them the birthplace of Christ. By transforming the question about the king of the Jews into the question of the Messiah, Herod reveals that he understands what the magi’s quest is all about, just as the high priests and scribes do in their response (2:5– 6), in which they appeal to the promise of the ruler in Micah 5:1 as the basis for identifying Bethlehem as the place where the Messiah was to be born. The oracle in Micah is rendered somewhat freely: Bethlehem is located in the “land of Judah,” providing an

I.2 The Birth, Adoration, Endangerment, and Preservation of the Son of David

41

allusion to Judah as the ancestral father of the royal line (Matt 1:2–3). By the insertion of “by no means,” the citation neutralizes the evaluation of Bethlehem in Micah 5:1 as “one of the little clans of Judah,” presumably to indicate that the significance of the city has been radically changed by the birth of the Messiah. Above all, however, a few words from 2 Samuel 5:2 have been added to Micah 5:1, which refer to David’s rule over Israel and now serve to define the role of the Davidic Messiah as the messianic shepherd of his people (cf. Matt 15:24, and in the Old Testament, especially Ezek 34:23). The title of Messiah (v. 4) is thus explicitly placed in the context of the expectation of the royal Messiah from the house of David (cf. 21:5, 9). From then on, it is the Davidic Messianic King who has the responsibility of shepherding the people of God. It is to him that the Idumean Herod and the Jewish authorities collaborating with him should subordinate themselves. That they do not do so, despite their knowledge of the birth of the Messiah, is more than “merely” bitter irony. Rather, Matthew here reveals a basic motif of the conflict in this scene: the Jewish leaders want to assert their own authority. [7–9a] After Herod has learned of the predicted place of the Messiah’s birth, he secretly seeks contact with the magi, searching out the exact duration since the appearance of the star, and sends them to Bethlehem so they can find the exact location and report it to him. Herod thus attempts to manipulate the magi for his own purpose, in order to murder the messianic “rival.” [9b–12] En route to Bethlehem, Herod’s information turns out to be superfluous to the magi, as the star whose rising they have noted appears again. It now becomes a wandering star that directs their way to the birthplace of Jesus. The magi’s journey is thus miraculously guided. Furthermore, it is not farfetched to picture the star in the constellation standing above the house as an imitation of the image frequently found on ancient coins, in which a star stands over the ruler’s head (see Küchler, “‘Wir haben seinen Stern gesehen’”). Herod’s alarm (v. 3) contrasts with the “great joy” of the magi (v. 10; cf. 28:8). In the triad of gifts in 2:11, from which it was later inferred that there were three magi, the first two are reminiscent of the gold and frankincense in Isaiah 60:6, where the gifts are related to the motif of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion. If this motif is to be heard as a Matthean overtone on the basis of this intertextual allusion, it should also be emphasized that it has been messianically transformed—the magi come in order to pay homage to the king of the Jews (vv. 2, 11; cf. however Ps 72:10–11 and Pss. Sol. 17:31a)—and that it has been modified so that the goal of the pilgrimage is not Jerusalem, but Bethlehem. This modification corresponds to the negative role Jerusalem plays in the Gospel of Matthew, already in 2:3, then in the passion story, climaxing in the destruction of the city. The

42

I. The Prologue

coming of the Gentiles is no longer conceivable as a pilgrimage to Jerusalem but has been transformed into a coming to the Messiah, Immanuel. As the magi are miraculously led to the Christ child, so they will return to their own country directed by instructions in a dream not to report to Herod, but to return by another route. Herod’s murderous intent is thus at first prevented by an initial divine intervention. I.2.3 The Flight to Egypt, the Murder of the Children in Bethlehem, and the Move to Nazareth (2:13–23)

And when they had escaped, behold, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream, and says, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, for Herod intends to seek out the child and destroy it.” 14 So he got up and took the child and his mother by night, and escaped to Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, to fulfill what was said by the Lord through the prophet, who says: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” 16 Then, when Herod saw that he had been deceived by the magi, he became very angry, and he sent out and had all the boys in Bethlehem and the whole area killed, who were two years old or younger, according to the time he had precisely learned from the magi. 17 Then was fulfilled what was said through the prophet Jeremiah, who says: 18 “A voice was heard in Ramah, crying and much lamentation, Rachel crying for her children, and was not willing to be consoled, because they are no more.” 19 But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appears in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and says: “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life have died.” 21 So he got up and took the child and his mother and went into the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was king in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And because he had been directed to do so in a dream, he got out of his reach by going to the district of Galilee, 23 where he settled in a town called Nazareth, so that what was said through the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazorean. 13

After Herod’s failed attempt to rope the magi into his plan to do away with the Davidic Messiah he perceived as a rival to his own power, Herod makes a second try, which is again doomed to failure, thanks to renewed divine intervention. The section 2:13–23 can be divided into three subsections: the flight to Egypt (vv. 13–15) and the return to the land of Israel (vv. 19–23) frame the description of the cruel act of Herod (vv. 16–18). Each of the three subsections is concluded with a fulfillment-quotation. [13–15; 19–23] Furthermore, the first and third

I.2 The Birth, Adoration, Endangerment, and Preservation of the Son of David

43

subsections are clearly coordinated. After a transitional passage, in each case it is said, in identical words, that an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream (vv. 13a, 19; cf. 1:20), telling him to get up and take the child and his mother, followed by the destination to which they are directed, the reason for which is then explained (2:13b, 20). Joseph is portrayed as carrying out the instructions of the angel word for word, as we have already noted in 1:18–25. The narrative is thus developed in a way that underscores the obedience of the righteous Joseph (cf. 1:19). The second and even more important theme is again the divine guidance: in all the events around Jesus, God is the real actor. [13–15] The words of the angel, that Herod wants to destroy the child, point ahead to the plan of the Pharisees in 12:14, and the authorities’ persuasion of the people in 27:20, where the same verb is found in each case. The motif of the guidance and providence of God, emphasized by the revelatory dream, is further profiled by the fulfillment-quotation from Hosea 11:1 that follows. After the groundwork for the motif of divine sonship has been laid in 1:18–25, Jesus is here explicitly called the Son of God for the first time (on the agreement of the introductory formula with the citation in 2:15 with 1:22, see the comments there). Considered as an element of the narrative, the citation anticipates the return, which, however, is already implied by the duration of their stay (cf. 21:4–5 in relation to 21:8–9). In Hosea 11:1, “my son” refers collectively to Israel. By applying the saying to Jesus, Matthew reinforces the connection of the Jesus-story to the history of God with Israel, which we have already noted in 1:1–17. The story of Jesus is portrayed in biblical colors: his way that stands under God’s guidance to some extent repeats the basic experience of Israel. In contrast to Israel, however, Jesus will demonstrate his divine sonship in obedience to God’s will during his time in the wilderness (4:1). [16] By beginning v. 16 with “then,” Matthew connects the verse with v. 7. As Herod acted there on the basis of what he had learned about the birth of Christ by his interrogation of the high priests and scribes, by calling the magi in, so he now acts on the basis of the insight that he has been deceived by the magi by sending out his agents to kill all the boys of a certain age. Matthew is here formulating a clear contrast. While the Messianic King will give his life for others in order to fulfill his mission of saving his people from their sins (1:21; cf. 26:28), Herod takes the lives of others in order to defend his own power. This contrast is underscored by a textual detail. According to v. 16, Herod recognizes that he has been deceived by the magi, or even mocked by them. The verb used here (empaizein) is found elsewhere in Matthew, following Mark, only in the context of Jesus’ passion (20:19; 27:29, 31, 41). By using this verb in 2:16 Matthew establishes a connection with the passion story: Herod sees that he has been mocked by the magi, and he reacts, in order to secure his

44

I. The Prologue

own power, by killing innocent children. Jesus is mocked by the evildoers—and gives his life for many (cf. 20:28). There is no independent evidence for Matthew’s account of the murder of the children of Matthew 2. This immediately suggests that v. 16 fits in with the legendary character of the whole narrative. The fiction here, however, could have a point of contact with the well-known brutality and unscrupulousness with which Herod acted to defend his power against potentially dangerous competitors, from which he did not spare even his own sons Alexander and Aristobulus (Josephus, Ant. 16.392–394). Such contacts with actual history contribute to the plausibility of this fictitious story: the murder of the children of Bethlehem is something that would easily have been credited to Herod. [17–18] In the introduction to the fulfillment-quotation from Jeremiah 31:15 in v. 17, theological reasons prohibit the typical final purpose clause at the end. Instead, the fulfillment is merely stated: “then was fulfilled . . .” (so also in 27:9–10). According to Matthew, the murder of the children was foreseen in Scripture, but of course God neither planned nor willed it. In the light of the context’s emphasis on God’s guidance, however, the text does raise the problem of theodicy: if God can save the baby Jesus, why must the other innocent children suffer under the cruel rule of Herod? This question is obviously outside the interest of the Matthean narrative logic, which focuses on the abysmal wickedness and cruelty of Herod by which he seeks to secure his own position in view of the reality of the Messiah’s birth. Also, as in 27:9, Matthew explicitly refers to the prophet Jeremiah, who here functions as a prophet of doom. In the citation itself, differently from the LXX form of the Jeremiah oracle, there is nothing about crying for the sons, which would have fit well into the context, but the crying is for the children. Matthew thus here creates a cross-reference to 27:25 (“His blood be on us and on our children”), once again intermeshing Matthew 2 and the passion narrative. The action of the authorities directed against Jesus brings—in different ways—disaster to the people. [19–23] After the death of Herod, Joseph receives the directive to return (for the allusion to Exod 4:19–20, see the introduction to 1:18–2:23). However, this order does not specify Bethlehem in Judea as the place to which he is to return, but the land of Israel (vv. 20–21). In this open-ended expression, which evokes the exodus of Israel from Egypt and their entrance into the promised land, not only does the Matthean Jesus-story once again resonate with the theological history of Israel (cf. 10:6; 15:24), but it also simultaneously prepares for 2:22–23 in this same context. Since, in the meantime, Herod’s son Archelaus has begun to rule, Joseph is afraid to return to Judea. Analogously to the magi (v. 12), he is directed in a dream to escape to Galilee. Matthew here uses the same verb as before with reference to the magi (vv. 12–13) and—especially to be

I.3 Jesus Prior to His Public Ministry

45

noted—with the flight to Egypt (v. 14). He will use this verb a few more times when referring to the withdrawal of Jesus from his opponents (12:15; 14:13; 15:21). After the mention of Jerusalem in 2:3, the relocation in Galilee provides another building block of the “theological geography” that permeates the entire Gospel. In Jewish tradition, the Davidic king belongs to Jerusalem, but the baby Jesus cannot remain in Judea, where he would be stalked by the established ruler. Likewise, the adult Jesus, acclaimed by the crowds as the Davidic Messiah when he enters Jerusalem, will be confronted by the hostility of the prevailing authorities. The third fulfillment-quotation in v. 23, “He will be called a Nazorean,” with which the settlement in Nazareth is attested, is burdened with the difficulty that it cannot be found in any known text of the Old Testament. Matthew was clearly aware of this, for the plural “through the prophets,” which appears only here in the introduction to a fulfillment-quotation, indicates that it is not about a specific wording, but about a fact. The most plausible explanation here is that Matthew here intends the reader to hear an echo of the Hebrew word netzer (“scion,” “branch”) found in the “messianic” prophecy of Isaiah 11:1. By setting this text alongside Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12, which use the Hebrew equivalent term tzemach (“sprout,” “shoot”), the general reference to “the prophets” (cf. 26:56) becomes understandable. If in v. 23 such texts as Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; and 33:15 are to be heard in concert, the Matthean emphasis of the Davidic Messiahship of Jesus emerges once again. We may suppose that the historical background of Matthew 2:23 here includes reflection on Nazareth as the place where Jesus grew up (and in fact where he was also probably born). The text is a likely a response to critical objections: How could it be that the Messiah not only comes from Galilee, but from such an insignificant place as Nazareth (cf. John 7:41)? In the scriptural reflection of Matthew 2:22–23, Nazareth is claimed as proof that Jesus is indeed the promised savior. The designation of Jesus as a Nazorean is found once more in Matthew, indeed redactionally, in 26:71. (Matthew avoids the expression “of Nazareth,” found in Mark 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6.) Thus, once again, Matthew 2 displays a connection to the passion narrative. I.3 Jesus Prior to His Public Ministry (3:1–4:16) I.3.1 The Ministry of the Baptist (3:1–12)

In those days John the Baptist comes into the wilderness of Judea 2 and proclaims, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 3 This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah said, “The voice of one crying out in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight!” 4 Now 1

46

I. The Prologue

John’s clothing was made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea, and the whole region along the Jordan went out to him, 6 and had themselves baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who told you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Bear fruit worthy of repentance! 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’! For I say to you, that God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 10 The axe has already been laid at the roots of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water for repentance; but the one who comes after me is stronger than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will cleanse his threshing and gather his wheat into the barn, but will burn up the chaff with inextinguishable fire.” While Matthew 1–2 is Matthew’s special material, at 3:1 Matthew takes up the Markan narrative thread. To be specific, in 3:1–12 he combines Mark 1:2–8 with an account about John the Baptist in the Sayings Source, from which the judgment oracle in 3:7–10 and the judgment saying in 3:12 are taken. From the same source, in v. 3 he takes the quote from Isaiah 40:3, in v. 11 the placement of “I indeed baptize with water” as the introduction and “with the Holy Spirit and fire” as the conclusion (cf. Luke 3:16), and possibly “the whole region along the Jordan” in v. 5 (cf. Luke 3:3). The pericope can be divided into two sections, each with two subsections. The presentation of the ministry of the Baptist (vv. 1– 4) and the positive response he receives among the people (vv. 5– 6) in 3:1– 6 are followed in 3:7–12 by a continuous speech which, though no formal division is marked, is thematically divided into the judgment oracle addressed to the Pharisees and Sadducees in vv. 7–10 and the announcement of the advent of the stronger one in vv. 11–12. [1–3] Not only by the speech in vv. 7–12, but also through his presentation of the Baptist at the beginning, Matthew has put all the weight on John’s proclamation: John the Baptist appears in the Gospel of Matthew as a preacher of repentance. While in Mark the appeal to Scripture (Exod 23:20; Mal 3:1; Isa 40:3) that serves to identify the Baptist is placed at the beginning (Mark 1:2–3), with the Baptist himself not introduced until v. 4, Matthew reverses this order, in the process changing the Markan narrator’s report that John proclaimed a baptism for the forgiveness of sins into direct speech. The words of the Baptist (v. 2) then correspond exactly to the words with which Matthew also begins Jesus’ preaching in 4:17 (on the basis of Mark 1:15). Then in 10:7, only shortened

I.3 Jesus Prior to His Public Ministry

47

by the introductory imperative, the same words determine the content of the missionary preaching of the disciples. For Matthew, John is the forerunner (cf. 3:11). The disciples, in turn, are given the task of carrying on the work of Jesus. The correspondence between 3:2, 4:17, and 10:7 thus places John, Jesus, and the disciples in the same category as God’s messengers (cf. 21:28–22:10). Their common message is that God is about to establish his rule. The call to repentance gets its urgency against this background. The warning call to repentance by no means addresses only the grossest sinners. Rather, everyone needs to repent, as illustrated in Matthew’s wholesale reference to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6; 15:24). At the same time, the message of repentance is a call to grasp the opportunity to leave the past behind and reorient one’s life toward God. Matthew’s portrayal of John as preacher of repentance also includes that he has come “in the way of righteousness” (see 21:32; on “righteousness” see also on 3:15). Furthermore, in 21:32 the reference to the authorities’ lack of repentance corresponds to the repentance motif in 3:2. Verse 3 identifies the Baptist as the one whose coming was announced by Isaiah, the one who calls out in the wilderness to prepare people for the coming of the Lord. Matthew also found the first part of Mark’s mixed quotation (Exod 23:20; Mal 3:1) in a passage about the Baptist in the Sayings Source (Matt 11:10 par. Luke 7:27), and, like Luke, omits it here, so that the appeal to Scripture is reduced to Isaiah 40:3. According to Matthew, the Scripture predicts not only the way of Jesus, but also the advent of the Baptist. However, Matthew does not pick up on the explicit fulfillment language in 3:3, but reserves the motif of fulfillment for interpreting the ministry of Jesus. Instead, the introduction to the citation in 3:3 is like the introduction to the Scripture citation in 11:10, which also refers to the Baptist and was also provided by the Sayings Source (cf. Luke 7:27). [4–6] In vv. 4– 6, Matthew has again changed the Markan sequence. He first concludes his portrayal of John’s appearance with a reference to his ascetic lifestyle (cf. 11:18), which Mark reserved until he had described the streams of people coming to him. According to Zechariah 13:4, a hairy mantel is the distinctive dress of a prophet, and the leather belt specifically calls Elijah to mind (2 Kgs 1:8; cf. Joseph, Ant. 9.22), which fits in well with Matthew’s explicit identification of John as the returned Elijah (11:14; 17:10–12). Verse 5 is then Matthew’s transition to his portrayal of the reaction to the appearance of the Baptist. John is very popular among the people, although—in contrast to the situation in the later ministry of Jesus (4:25)—his popularity is limited to Jerusalem, Judea, and the region around the Jordan. Baptism is related to the confession of sins. Matthew’s reworking of Mark 1:4 in 3:1-2 passes over Mark’s statement that John’s baptism mediated the forgiveness of sins, but the same words are attributed to Jesus, spoken over the chalice in 26:28. This means

48

I. The Prologue

that 3:6 can hardly be read as indicating that the confession of sins implies their forgiveness through the baptism of John. Rather, the forgiveness of sins is exclusively linked to Jesus. John’s baptism appears in Matthew as a sign of penance and repentance. It does not grant forgiveness of sins, but symbolizes the conversion of those who have been baptized, while the confession of sins explicitly declares the turning away from the earlier sinful life. That Matthew has kept this understanding in mind is indicated by his addition of the words “for repentance” in v. 11 (cf. Luke/Q 3:16; Mark 1:8). Matthew thus presents the Baptist himself as describing his water baptism as a baptism in relation to repentance (and not for forgiveness of sins). [7–10] In Matthew, differently from Q, the Baptist’s preaching of judgment is not addressed to the people (cf. Luke 3:7–9), but specifically to the Pharisees and Sadducees (cf. Matt 16:1–12). And while Luke 3:7 clearly says that the crowds came to be baptized by him (cf. Matt 3:13, of Jesus), when Matthew says that the Pharisees and Sadducees came to his baptism, he leaves room for their purpose to be understood in more than one way. Does this include their intention to be baptized, or do they only come in order to check out the situation in which so many people are streaming to John? The question in v. 7b does not help to decide this, as it too can be interpreted in different ways. In the sense of the first option, their intention can be understood as “fleeing from the coming wrath.” Paraphrased: “Who taught you that if you want to escape the wrath to come, you must come to my baptism?” This, however, would be awkward in the context, since v. 9 implicitly ascribes to them a confidence in salvation based on their descent from Abraham, which would make baptism superfluous. In the light of 21:25, 32, which explicitly states that the authorities, namely the chief priests and elders, do not believe John, this interpretation becomes extremely improbable (cf. also Matt 17:12). This leads to the second option, which fits in much better with the ways the authorities are represented elsewhere in the Gospel, here expressed with the sharp invective “brood of vipers” (cf. 12:34; 23:33): they only come in order to see for themselves what is going on. Verse 7b can then be read in such a way that the emphasis lies on the interrogative pronoun “who”: If they are not following John, then who has shown them how to escape the threatening wrath to come? And, since they purportedly believe that the coming wrath of judgment will not affect them (v. 9), the question can also be stated as, “So, who taught you to that you will escape the coming wrath?” It is even more likely, however, that the question should be understood as sarcasm, which ironically attributes to the authorities the insight that the coming wrath does indeed threaten them, so that they are looking for a way to avoid it. But the reality is, they consider themselves secure, as children of Abraham. The following verses then point them to the necessity of substantial repentance (v. 8),

I.3 Jesus Prior to His Public Ministry

49

and reject the appeal to Abraham (v. 9), for merely counting oneself among the descendants of Abraham by no means is a guarantee of salvation. For Matthew, this also applies to those who appeal to their membership in the Christian community (see 22:11–14). Rather, what counts is doing the will of God, as taught by Jesus (5:20; 7:21–27), the bearing of good fruit (cf. 7:16–20; 21:43). The statement in v. 9b, that God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones, in its biblical context evokes the memory that even the birth of Isaac, born when Sarah and Abraham were already at an advanced age (Gen 17:17), was the wondrous work of God, for whom nothing is impossible (Gen 18:14; cf. Rom 4:17–21). In the context of the whole Gospel, v. 9b can also be read as a foreshadowing of the Gentile mission (28:16–20), which fulfills the promise made to Abraham that in him the nations would be blessed (Gen 12:3; see on Matt 1:1). With powerful metaphors (cf. Isa 10:33–34; Dan 4:11), v. 10 makes clear that the threatening wrath of judgment of v. 7 is near. For the authorities here addressed, this is an urgent and intrusive warning. By addressing this announcement of coming judgment to the Pharisees and Sadducees, Matthew creates a contrast between the common people (vv. 5– 6) and the authorities. The Baptist pericope thus fits in with the tendency characteristic throughout the Gospel to differentiate between the common people and the ruling class (see especially 9:32–34; 12:22–24; 21:9, 15–16; 21:45– 46). At the same time, by deliberately combining the mutually hostile Pharisees and Sadducees into one group, he signals that the established authorities will present themselves as a united front against the messengers of the kingdom of heaven. This redirection of John’s preaching of the coming judgment also changes the way the Baptist is characterized. While the proclamation of judgment in the Sayings Source appears as the essence of his message (Matt 3:7–10; Luke 3:7–9), in Matthew the coming of the Pharisees and Sadducees gives it a concrete occasion and specific addressees. In Matthew it is thus not possible to contrast John as preacher of judgment with Jesus as preacher of the kingdom of heaven; rather, John too appears as proclaimer of the nearness of the kingdom of heaven (3:2), just as Jesus takes up elements of the Baptist’s message of judgment against the Pharisees and Sadducees in his own dispute with the authorities. Jesus, too, calls them a “brood of vipers” (12:34; 23:33), and in 23:33 confronts them with a question that echoes John’s preaching in 3:7b (cf. further 7:19 with 3:10 and 13:30 with 3:12). [11–12] Verses 11–12 serve to assign Jesus and John—and thereby at the same time John’s baptism and Christian baptism—their proper rank for the Christian community. While John’s baptism is a sign of repentance, Christian baptism is also the conferral of the Spirit. In v. 11 there is thus a silent change of addressees. For the announcement that the expected “more powerful one”

50

I. The Prologue

will baptize “you” with the Holy Spirit obviously does not apply to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Moreover, v. 11 speaks of a baptism in fire. From Acts 2:3– 4, one might assume that the reference to fire is only intended as a metaphor to reinforce the Spirit motif, but in Matthew, “fire” is a consistent motif in his portrayal of coming judgment (5:22; 7:19; 13:40, 42, 50; 18:8–9; 25:41) and is found with this meaning in the immediate context (3:10, 12). One must therefore distinguish two “baptisms”: on the one hand, baptism with the Spirit (= Christian baptism; cf. the triadic baptismal formula in 28:19), and, on the other hand, baptism in fire as a metaphor for the judgment. Verse 3:12 then fits onto v. 11 as the development of the judicial imagery “baptism of fire.” After threshing has separated wheat from chaff, the chaff is burned. The Baptist’s preaching thus casts an eye not only on the earthly advent of Jesus, but also on his function as eschatological judge (25:31– 46). I.3.2 The Baptism of Jesus and His Proclamation as Son of God (3:13–17)

Then Jesus comes from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. 14 But John attempted to prevent him, and said, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus had been baptized, he immediately came up from the water. And behold, the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him. 17 And behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” 13

In addition to Mark 1:9–11, Matthew probably found a passage about the baptism of Jesus in the Sayings Source. This is indicated not only by the fact that the pericope dealing with Jesus’ temptation in the Sayings Source (Matt 4:1–11 / Luke 4:1–13) presupposes the Son of God motif associated with the baptism of Jesus, but also by the agreement between Matthew 3:16 and Luke 3:21 in the statement about the opening of heaven. Verses 14–15 are found only in Matthew. [13] In v. 13, Jesus appears for the first time as an active figure in the narrative. For the post-Easter community his request to be baptized posed the christological problem of why the Son of God should seek baptism from John, since John in fact was in need of the Spirit baptism to be administered by the stronger one (3:11; cf. 3:14 and 28:19). [14–15] Matthew addresses this issue by inserting a brief dialogue between the Baptist and Jesus, in which Jesus overcomes John’s hesitancy (for the understanding of v. 14, cf. on 11:2–3) by appealing to their common obligation to fulfill all righteousness. “Righteousness” is a weighty

I.3 Jesus Prior to His Public Ministry

51

term for Matthew, which appears again in 21:32 in connection with the Baptist, and occurs repeatedly in Matthew’s central ethical instruction, the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33). Matthew uses “righteousness” not in the sense of the plan of salvation or the salvific act of God, as is the case in Paul’s talk of the “righteousness of God” (Rom 1:17; 3:21–26), but consistently as a key ethical concept that means conduct that corresponds to one’s relation to God. The fundamental explication of “fulfilling of all righteousness” is found in the saying that Jesus has come to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets (5:17), which for Matthew continue to express the will of God, although they need to be properly interpreted. Following the Torah and the Prophets as interpreted by Jesus is the foundation for attaining the higher righteousness (see on 5:20). Moreover, 3:15 also implies that John and Jesus fulfill the divine command specifically directed to them because of their particular roles. Jesus’ own role is primarily determined by his divine sonship (see v. 17). As the Son of God, Jesus participates in the divine authority (cf. on 14:22–33). As the Son of God, he is also bound to the will of the Father, so that his divine sonship is manifest in his obedience to God. In the passion, this leads to his not making use of his power to save himself from his enemies (26:53), but taking suffering upon himself, giving himself over to the depths of human existence (cf. in the introduction under 2.1). The aspects of the lowliness of human existence are imparted and conveyed along with Jesus’ divine sonship. The tension between the status of Jesus as Son of God and his voluntary renunciation of status in obedience to the will of God is simultaneously also the key for understanding the Matthean baptism pericope: Matthew adopts the motif of the Son of God, already present in Mark (Mark 1:11) and gives it his own profile by the aspect of obedience so characteristic of his Gospel. Jesus lays his superior status (cf. v. 14) aside and subordinates himself to the will of God (= the fulfilling of righteousness), in that he allows his rightful exalted status as Son of God to remain hidden in his human existence, and goes the earthly way assigned to him by God. By coming to John to “be baptized by him” (v. 13), Jesus places himself in solidarity with the people who “have been baptized by him” (3:6). Jesus acts in response to the message of the Baptist the way an Israelite should respond to the one who has come “in the way of righteousness” (21:32) and shows them how they should live. The analogous formulations in 3:6 and 3:13 shed light on 3:7: Jesus and the people are grouped together. The Pharisees and Sadducees, who come only as spectators to the place where John is baptizing (3:7), form a distanced counterpart to both. Just as the renunciation of status that comes to expression in Jesus’ baptism appears, in the context of the Gospel as a whole, as prelude and forewarning of the passion, so the cross-link between 3:13–17 and chs. 26–27 is further

52

I. The Prologue

underscored, for in each case, at the end of the story, God himself reveals Jesus’ identity as his Son, resulting in a similar pattern: in the passion narrative, God demonstrates Jesus’ true identity as his Son through the events that accompany his death (27:51–54); [16–17] at the baptism, Jesus is proclaimed Son of God by a voice from heaven (3:16–17). By converting the personal address of Mark 1:11 to the objectifying “This is my beloved Son” (cf. 17:5 par. Mark 9:7), Matthew avoids the impression that it was at the baptism that Jesus was first accepted as God’s Son (cf. on 1:18, 20). At the same time, this results in a parallel to the statement that introduces John in 3:3, which also begins with “This is.” The different roles of John and Jesus are thus once again made clear: John is the one announced by Isaiah who calls out in the wilderness, Jesus is the Son of God. The reformulation of the heavenly voice in 3:17 by no means gives it the character of a public declaration. Rather, 3:16 is about an event perceived by Jesus. Heaven is opened to him, so that he sees the Spirit descending (“like a dove” in Matthew describes the manner in which the Spirit descended, not, as in Luke 3:22, its form). The heavenly voice is part of this vision granted exclusively to Jesus. If one wants to ask beyond this, about the audition, it is best to think of this in terms of the heavenly court: because the heavens are opened for Jesus, he is witness to his being proclaimed God’s Son in the heavenly court. Intertextually, it is likely that in 3:16 Matthew has Ezekiel 1:1(– 4) in view. Moreover, the gift of the Spirit also calls to mind the promise of the ruler in Isaiah 11:1–5, a text understood messianically in early Judaism (see 4Q161 3.11ff; Pss. Sol. 17:24, 37; 18:7), like the characterization of the servant of God in Isaiah 42:1 (interpreted in terms of Jesus in Matt 12:18; see also Isa 61:1 and Ezek 2:2 LXX). Isaiah 42:1 then forms, alongside Psalm 2:7, the central reference text for understanding the words of the heavenly voice. Thus 3:16–17 proves to be permeated by references to Scripture. With the assurance that Jesus receives through the vision of the descent of the Spirit and the heavenly voice, in view of his messianic commission, he also receives the revelation that his work in the power of the Spirit (12:28) will soon begin. Only one thing that must be done first—he must prove himself by being tested by the devil. I.3.3 The Temptation/Testing of the Son of God (4:1–11)

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted/ tested by the devil. 2 And after he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward he was hungry. 3 And the tempter/tester came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, then tell these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered and said, “It is written, ‘A human being does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” 5 Then 1

I.3 Jesus Prior to His Public Ministry

53

the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’” 7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; 9 and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Get away from me, Satan! for it is written, ‘The Lord your God you should worship, and serve only him.’” 11 Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and served him. Matthew follows the Markan thread but expands Mark 1:12–13 with three episodes taken from the Sayings Source, providing individual cases that give concrete shape to the temptation by the devil. The second and third episodes appear in a different order in Matthew and Luke. It is probably Luke who changed the sequence in Q, in order to end the temptations in Jerusalem. [1–2] The temptation story is a mythical story, signaled by the appearance of the devil. It is directly connected with the preceding narrative by the motif of the Spirit in 4:1. The two stories are related as a kind of diptych; in each, Jesus as Son of God is the primary christological motif (3:17; 4:3, 6). In both texts, Jesus proves himself to be the Son of God by renouncing demonstrations of his status in obedience to the will of God. That John abandons his resistance to baptizing Jesus, and the devil abandons his efforts to bring Jesus down, is formulated at the end of 3:15 and the beginning of 4:11 in exactly the same Greek words (not expressed in English translations), and in both cases the story concludes with the affirmation of Jesus by God himself (3:16–17; 4:11). At the same time, the textual sequence presents a stark contrast: the vision of the open heaven is followed by the wilderness, fasting, and temptation by the devil. This connection is formally underscored by the syntactically analogous beginnings in 3:13 and 4:1 (“then Jesus . . . to be baptized/tempted”). The coming of Jesus from Galilee (3:13) corresponds to the return notice in 4:12. From an intertextual perspective, two possible associations are worthy of note. First, Jesus’ forty-day stay in the wilderness is a compressed repetition of the forty-year wilderness existence of Israel between the exodus and taking the promised land (see, e.g., Exod 16:35; Num 14:33–34; Deut 8:2– 4; on the day/year symbolism, cf. Num 14:34; Ezek 4:5– 6). But while God’s son Israel (Exod 4:22–23) when tested and tried in the wilderness (Exod 16:4; Deut 8:2) responded by grumbling and putting God to the test (Exod 16:1–3; 17:1–3; Num 14:1-4, 22–23; Ps 78:17–20), when Jesus was tested he proved himself to be God’s Son. The quotations from Deuteronomy 8:3 and 6:16 in Matthew 4:4 and 4:7 underscore the intertextual reference, since they refer to

54

I. The Prologue

Israel’s time in the wilderness. Especially Deuteronomy 8—the allusion extending far beyond the quotation from 8:3—is important as the background of Matthew 4, for there we find also the motifs of wilderness (8:2), testing (8:2, 16), hunger (8:3), sonship (8:5), the prohibition against worshiping other gods (8:19), as well as the number forty (8:2, 4). Secondly, that Matthew, differently from Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2, speaks of forty days and forty nights, is reminiscent of Moses on Sinai, who neither ate nor drank for forty days and forty nights (Exod 34:28; Deut 9:9, 18; see also Elijah in 1 Kgs 19:8). In this case, the biblical allusions offer no key to the overall understanding of the text. They do serve, however, to give it biblical coloring, and thereby embed it in the history of God with Israel.

The forty-day fast presents Jesus’ time in the wilderness as a period of preparation for his ministry. Testing by being tempted by the devil is part of this preparation. [3–4] While the temptations in Mark 1:13 and Luke 4:2 occur during the forty days, Matthew’s “tempter” approaches Jesus only after the forty days are over. The first temptation is tied in with Jesus’ fasting: since he is hungry after the forty days without food, Jesus is challenged to make bread out of stones. The introductory “If you are the Son of God” does not cast doubt on Jesus’ divine sonship, but assumes it as the presupposition for the challenge that follows: this status should lead to an unauthorized action that demonstrates the power he has as Son of God. Matthew undoubtedly assumes that the Son of God could turn stones to bread (cf. the miraculous feeding of vast crowds with a few loaves of bread and fish in 14:13–21 and 15:32–39). But because the motif of obedience stands at the center of Matthew’s understanding of divine sonship (see on 3:15), the reality of Jesus’ identity as Son of God comes to expression precisely in Jesus’ categorical refusal to demonstrate his divine power in a way not commanded by God. Since Jesus has been led by the Spirit into the wilderness, his fasting corresponds to the will of God. It would thus be a violation of his commitment to the will of God and deny his trust in God’s care, if he were to ease his situation by acting on his own authority and change stones into bread. Jesus wards off the devil by quoting Deuteronomy 8:3. Differently from Luke (and probably from Q as well), Matthew has not only the negative statement that human beings do not live by bread alone, but also the positive counterpart: “but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” For Matthew, obedience to God’s word, in which true life is to be found, is of controlling importance. Jesus’ own life is the model of this obedience. [5–7] In the second episode, the devil attempts to defeat Jesus with his own weapons by appealing to Scripture himself. Psalm 91:11–12 is cited as though it were addressed specifically to the Son of God, on the basis of which Jesus could safely jump off the pinnacle of the temple. In Matthew 1–2, God has repeatedly intervened by means of revelatory dreams, guiding and protecting the child Jesus

I.3 Jesus Prior to His Public Ministry

55

(1:20; 2:13, 19). That the Son of God can rely on God’s protection does not, however, justify him in acting in such a way that God would be compelled to intervene. This would be an act of “putting the Lord your God to the test” and would violate the Son’s commitment to doing the Father’s will. Jesus counters this move by again quoting a dictum from Deuteronomy: God is not to be put to the test (Deut 6:16). In the Matthean context, this second temptation is a foreshadowing of the passion story, for when he is arrested, Jesus rejects the violent resistance of one of his disciples by pointing out that he could bring from his Father the help of more than twelve legions of angels (26:53). But he must fulfill the will of God (cf. 26:39, 42) and thus take death upon himself for the sake of others. The connection of Matthew 4 to the passion story also comes to light in the words “If you are the Son of God” with which the devil attempts to provoke Jesus, which in the Gospel of Matthew will find an echo in the taunting of the Crucified One in 27:40: if he is the Son of God, he should save himself (see also 27:43). But Jesus shows himself to be the obedient Son of God precisely in his passion. He does not save himself, but through his death he saves others (26:28), just as he does not work feeding miracles for himself (4:3– 4), but only for others. [8–10] While Jesus’ divine sonship is no longer explicitly addressed in the third episode, here too it is the guiding aspect. Now Jesus is to be enticed by the offer of lordship over all the kingdoms of the world, to betray the commitment to God which constitutes his being and status as Son of God by worshiping the devil instead of God. Jesus responds by quoting Deuteronomy for the third time (Deut 6:13; 10:20): God alone is to be worshiped. By locating this episode on a “very high mountain,” Matthew underscores its connection with the “mountain scene” in 28:16–20, where the Risen One declares that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him—from God. At the same time, by beginning his response with the words “Get away from me, Satan,” Matthew has added another cross-reference to the passion theme. For in 16:23, Peter, who has just confessed Jesus as the Son of God, is rebuked by Jesus with the words “Get behind me, Satan!” after Peter attempts to divert Jesus from the path of suffering he just announced in 16:21, because Peter cannot yet integrate the passion into his understanding of the messianic Son of God. The third temptation is to be seen in this light. In 4:1–11, the devil, who offers Jesus lordship over all kingdoms of the earth, is only called “Satan” in 4:10, to emphasize the cross-link with 16:23 (the term only occurs otherwise in Matthew in 12:26). But the way of the Son of God is not the direct route into glory. His way leads first to the cross. However, the Son of God who is obedient even to death on the cross is ultimately exalted, and his

56

I. The Prologue

authority goes far beyond what the devil could offer him: the Risen One has all authority in heaven and on earth (28:18). [11] At Jesus’ powerful word, “Get away from me!” the devil can only back off (cf. 8:32–33). He has not been able to divert Jesus from his commitment to God and God’s will and compel him to his own way. The ensuing narrative will show that in fact the opposite is the case: the power of the devil is broken by the acts of Jesus’ ministry (12:25–29). While the devil had to yield and leave Jesus alone, his place will be taken by the angels who appear and serve Jesus (cf. Mark 1:13), which probably includes supplying him with food (cf. 1 Kgs 19:5–8). The brief note about the ministry of angels refers succinctly to the first two temptations: not only do the angels mentioned in 4:5–7 in fact come to Jesus’ aid, but at the same time their diaconal ministry makes the connecting arc back to the hunger of Jesus in the first temptation. Matthew 4:1–11 stands near the end of the Prologue and thus at the threshold of Matthew’s portrayal of the public ministry of Jesus. With its focus on the obedience of Jesus as the Son of God, this text, in view of the Gospel’s composition as a whole, functions as presenting Jesus as qualified for the mission before which he stands. Matthew’s introductory note, that it was the Spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, makes clear that it is God who is the real actor behind this event. When Jesus is tested by these temptations, God himself demonstrates in advance that Jesus will faithfully carry out his mission. As the one who has not been seduced by the offer of all the kingdoms of the world and their glory (4:8), Jesus will now emerge on the public stage to proclaim the kingdom of heaven. I.3.4 Jesus, the Light for Galilee (4:12–16)

Now when Jesus heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 And he left Nazareth, came and made his home in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14 so that what had been said through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled, who said: 15 “Land of Zebulun, land of Naphtali, on the road by the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—16 the people who sat in darkness saw a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death, a light has dawned.” 12

[12] In the wake of Mark 1:14, Matthew links Jesus’ return to Galilee with the arrest of the Baptist (cf. Matt 14:3–12), making it clear that the ministries of the Baptist and Jesus do not overlap chronologically. John is the precursor. [13–16] A distinctive feature of Matthew’s narrative is that in 4:13 he specifically refers to Jesus’ relocating his place of residence from Nazareth to Capernaum and comments on this with a fulfillment quote (Isa 8:23–9:1).

I.3 Jesus Prior to His Public Ministry

57

The striking parallel between 4:12–16 and 2:22–23 is obviously the creative work of Matthew, at the same time indicating that 4:12–16 still belongs to the Prologue. In his rendition of the quotation, Matthew not only refers to Naphtali as the area in which Capernaum lies, but includes Zebulun as the location of Nazareth. Thus the move to Capernaum does not fulfill the Scripture in the sense that only now Jesus enters the territory prophesied by Isaiah, but the point is here to positively demonstrate that Capernaum (and its environs) as the center of Jesus’ ministry to be described in the following narrative corresponds to the prophetic promise (cf. 8:5; 9:1; 11:23; 17:24). Moreover, by taking up the expression “Galilee of the Gentiles” from Isaiah 8:23, Matthew provides a link to the conclusion of the Gospel, the command given in Galilee to make disciples of all nations (28:16–20). But first, however, Galilee is the area in which Jesus fulfills his exclusive mission to Israel, shepherding his own people (2:6; 15:24). The quotation itself expresses the reference to Israel as the location of Jesus’ earthly ministry in v. 16: Matthew refers Isaiah’s speaking of the people who sit in darkness (= Israel) to the soteriological plight of those addressed by Jesus’ mission, which he expresses poignantly with the phrase “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” in 10:6; 15:24, while he identifies Jesus with the light that dawns upon Israel. That Matthew’s interpretation goes against the actual wording of the citation in his speaking of the rising of the light is reminiscent of 2:2, 9, and by this reference to Numbers 24:17 LXX, “A star will arise out of Jacob” (but see also Isa 58:10). Matthew takes up Isaiah 8:23–9:1 as a text with which he is able to make a connection between the testimony of Scripture and his central concern, namely, to combine God’s devotion to Israel and the universal relevance of God’s act in Jesus. By prefixing his portrayal of Jesus’ ministry to Israel with the saying about “Galilee of the Gentiles” as a matter of biblical interpretation, the goal of the following narrative is already set forth, and the whole story takes place within the horizon of the universality of salvation. Conversely, for Matthew the realization of the universality of God’s saving act presupposes the prior fulfillment of God’s promises of salvation to Israel. Through Jesus’ saving actions in and for Israel, something soteriologically significant is also happening for the Gentiles, neither independently of Israel nor at Israel’s expense. The conclusion of the Prologue thus completes the arc begun at 1:1, where the juxtaposition of “son of David” and “son of Abraham” revealed the twofold soteriological horizon of the Jesus-story as told by Matthew.

58

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

II. J’ M  I   M  H D  I (:–:) Matthew opens his portrayal of the public ministry of Jesus with a carefully structured, large-scale composition. Chapters 5–7 first present Jesus delivering the Sermon on the Mount as one who teaches with authority, followed in chapters 8–9 by the manifestation of his authority in a series of saving deeds. In both blocks, Matthew has rearranged the material in his sources with relative independence, while—after taking up different Q texts in chapter 11—from 12:1 on he closely follows the Markan narrative thread. Thus in chapters 5–9 a special compositional interest of the evangelist appears on the screen: this section presents a fundamental characterization of Jesus’ ministry. The two blocks are framed by summaries of almost identical wording, 4:23(–25) and 9:35, which display the work of Jesus in 5:1–9:34 as an exemplary explication of words and deeds that epitomize Jesus’ ministry. Further, the brackets of 4:18–22 (call of the first disciples) and 9:36–11:1 (sending out the disciples), two texts focusing on the disciples, form the larger framework around the presentation of Jesus’ ministry in 4:23–9:35, in which Matthew’s ecclesiological concern becomes visible. After their call, in which their missionary task already emerges (4:19), the disciples are schooled in Jesus’ life and teaching so that they can continue his mission as integral to their own. Locating their calling at the inception of Jesus’ public ministry makes it even more clear that Jesus’ work from the very beginning was never intended as an individualistic project, but aims at letting God’s care reach more and more people through the mission of his disciples. The network that binds together Christology and ecclesiology, important for understanding Matthew’s theology as a whole, becomes visible here. This major section is programmatically introduced by 4:17. II.1 The Beginning of Jesus’ Public Ministry (4:17) From that time on, Jesus began to preach, and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 17

In contrast to Mark 1:14–15, with the phrase “from that time Jesus began” (cf. 16:21 and the introduction under 1.). Matthew has shifted the beginning point of Jesus’ ministry from his settlement in Capernaum. At the same time, Matthew has considerably shortened the report in Mark 1:14b–15. Of Mark’s bipartite designation of the time (“the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near,” 1:15a) and the double call to “repent, and believe in the good news” (1:15b), he retains only the two central elements. Matthew uses the term “fulfill” (in the passive) only with regard to Scripture, and the Matthean Jesus does not speak of the time having come near until the passion story (26:18).

II.2 The Call of the First Disciples

59

Nor does Matthew ever use “faith” or “believe” in the sense of believing a message. Moreover, Matthew emphasizes the imperative “repent” by placing it at the beginning. The prospect of the nearness of the kingdom of heaven thus serves as Matthew’s characteristic way of motivating action. At the same time, it must be noted that Matthew is only able to have Jesus’ message of 4:17 already proclaimed by John (3:2) by deviating from the Markan picture in Mark 1:14–15. Matthew’s deletion of Mark’s “believe in the good news” corresponds to his omission of Mark’s “the good news of God” (as object to “proclaim”) in his introduction to the summary of Jesus’ message. This is all the more noticeable when in 4:23 Matthew says redactionally that Jesus proclaimed “the good news of the kingdom” (cf. 9:35; 24:14). In light of this, Matthew’s abbreviation in 4:17 can be understood as meaning that for him, the verbal discourse of Jesus takes the place of the accusative object “good news” (“gospel”), and thus summarizes in a nutshell what the preaching of the good news is all about. In Matthew, the call to repentance is found in Jesus’ mouth only here (of the absence of repentance in 11:20, cf. also 11:21; 12:41). Here, however, this call has programmatic significance for everything else Jesus says. On this basis, after 4:17 Matthew can concentrate on the unfolding of the way those who repent must “walk,” i.e., live. II.2 The Call of the First Disciples (4:18–22) Now, as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; they were, in fact, fishermen. 19 And he says to them, “Up, fall in behind me, and I will make you fishermen for people.” 20 Immediately they left their nets and followed him. 21 As he went on from there, he saw two other brothers, James of Zebedee, and John, his brother, in the boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. And he called them. 22 Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him. 18

After the programmatic opening in 4:17, and following Mark, Matthew begins his portrayal of Jesus’ ministry with the call of the first disciples (differently in Luke 4:14–5:11). Matthew here follows his Markan source quite closely (cf. Mark 1:16–20). He does, however, emphasize the parallelism of the two episodes even more strongly than Mark: In each case, Jesus sees two brothers (4:18, 21), whom he then calls out of their everyday professional life into the life of discipleship to him. Furthermore, 4:22 is aligned with 4:20, so that in both responses the word “follow” is found. One difference is that in the first episode the reader hears the challenging words of Jesus (4:19), while, on this basis, the succinct phrase “he called them” in 4:21 suffices. How he did this

60

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

can already be seen in v. 19. Juxtaposing two episodes that are largely identical allows the typical elements involved in being called by Jesus to emerge: this is the way it is when Jesus calls disciples (cf. 9:9). Differently than the case with students of the rabbinic teachers, disciples do not choose their teacher, but Jesus takes the initiative. With the announcement in 4:19, “I will make you fishermen for people,” this first discipleship text already reveals the missionary dimension of being a disciple of Jesus. This is constitutive for Matthew and will be elaborated in 9:36–11:1 and 28:16–20. At the same time, the radical demands of discipleship are indicated in 4:18–22: following means total commitment. In the case of Simon, who is here already more specifically identified by his byname “Peter” (differently from Mark 1:16), and his brother Andrew, it is not even mentioned that they pull in the net they have just thrown out. Without further ado, they leave behind the material basis of their livelihood. In the second scene (4:21–22), the sons of Zebedee—in addition to their professional everyday work—even leave their father behind, with no mention of their having said goodbye. For the followers of Jesus, even family ties can no longer take first place (cf. 8:21–22; 10:34–39; 19:29). In view of the decisive setting of priorities that here becomes visible, the text remains relevantly up to date even under the conditions of the changed social framework that prevailed for at least most of the members of the churches for which Matthew writes, who lived a more sedentary life. That the circumstance of leaving the father is mentioned only in the second scene may be due to the fact that this could not be said of Peter. Peter was married. In 8:14–15, Matthew relates that Jesus enters Peter’s house and heals his mother-in-law from a fever. For the time after Easter, also 1 Corinthians 9:5 shows that Peter was married, and that his wife accompanied him on his mission trips. It thus becomes clear that discipleship by no means necessarily calls for a break with one’s family, but rather that the willingness to do this when necessary is included in the call to be a disciple. Texts such as Matthew 10:34–35 show that there were in fact such breaks, but the example of Peter shows that this is not to be generalized.

II.3 Introductory Summary of the Ministry of Jesus (4:23–25) And Jesus went throughout Galilee, taught in their synagogues and proclaimed the good news of the kingdom, and healed every disease and every sickness among the people. 24 And the news about him spread throughout all Syria. And they brought to him all the sick who suffered with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, those having seizures, and paralytics, and he healed them. 25 And great crowds followed him from Galilee, and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan. 23

II.3 Introductory Summary of the Ministry of Jesus

61

This section is inspired by several Markan verses. For 4:23, one can refer to Mark 1:39 and 6:6b as the model; 4:24a is a variation of Mark 1:28; 4:24bc is based on Mark 1:32, 34; 4:25 reworks Mark 3:7–8. Matthew has not only put together the unit as a whole, but also edited the individual elements so strongly that this section clearly reflects his own theological “agenda.” Since Luke 6:17–19 presents a partly similar introduction to the Sermon on the Plain (6:20–49), the Lukan counterpart to Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, we may suppose that the Sayings Source contained an introduction to Jesus’ sermon in Q 6:20– 49, though it can no longer be reconstructed. Matthew is also influenced by this Q introduction to the sermon in his composition of 4:24–25. [23] Before detailing some individual scenes in Jesus’ ministry, Matthew outlines the general picture through the summary in 4:23. The following sayings and stories are given their character by unfolding the general and typical represented by v. 23, which is further emphasized by additional summary notes. This happens above all by the virtual repetition of 4:23 in 9:35 (see in addition 8:16; 11:1; 12:15; 14:14, 35–36; 15:30; 19:2; 21:14). In line with 4:15, “all Galilee” appears as the place of Jesus’ ministry, where he remains until his final departure in 19:1. The preeminent value Matthew places on Jesus’ teaching is expressed paradigmatically by his placing it first. Matthew understands the central element of this teaching to be Jesus’ ethical instruction based on the Torah. In contrast, the parable discourse is not for him “teaching” (cf. Matt 13:3 with Mark 4:2). That the reference to “synagogues” does not refer merely to meetings, but (at least in part) to buildings seems probable from the later reference in 6:2. The proclamation of the good news of the kingdom (cf. 9:35; 24:14) picks up on what was also connected with the verb “proclaim” in v. 17, where the contents of this verbal message is expressed in a nutshell (see commentary on 4:17). “Teaching” and “preaching” cannot be sharply distinguished in Matthew. According to 5:2 and 7:28–29, the Sermon on the Mount is “teaching,” but it also unpacks the good news of the kingdom, in the sense of the exemplary explication of “teaching, preaching, and healing” in Matthew 5–9. The message of the nearness of the kingdom of heaven calls for repentance and conversion to a life of righteousness, for which Jesus sets defining points of orientation in the Sermon on the Mount, obedience to which grants access to the kingdom of heaven (5:20). The gospel of the near kingdom of heaven also includes the good news that it is promised to those who are poor in spirit and persecuted for the sake of righteousness (5:3, 10). Matthew replaces Mark’s reference to the exorcism of demons (Mark 1:39) by his preference for speaking of Jesus’ acts of healing (see, e.g., 12:22; 19:2), including all diseases and sicknesses, probably an allusion to Deuteronomy 7:15

62

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

LXX (where these two terms stand next to each other). In these healings, the central focus is on the act of compassionate care for the afflicted people (see, e.g., 14:14). Jesus’ healing acts are for Matthew also a leitmotif of the Son of David Christology (see on 9:27). By concluding the summary with the addition of “among the people,” Matthew renews the reference to the ministry of Jesus to Israel, so important to him, which has already surfaced several times in the Prologue. Jesus begins here with his assignment that according to 1:21 and 2:6 is to shepherd the people of God and save them from their sins. Light is now dawning on the people who have been sitting in darkness (4:16). [24–25] Verses 24–25 sketch the immense response in three segments. First, according to v. 24a, the news about Jesus penetrates all Syria. Second, people bring all their sick to Jesus (cf. 8:16; 9:2, 32; 14:35, and elsewhere), with the addition “and he healed them” reinforcing the last phrase of v. 23. Third, according to v. 25, large crowds are drawn into Jesus’ retinue. The Matthean changes of the crowds’ geographical origin from his source in Mark 3:7–8 can be seen as his sketch of the “land of Israel” (2:20–21) from a biblical perspective, in the sense of the settlement area of the twelve tribes (see Josh 13–19) or, cum grano salis, “from Dan to Beersheba” (Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20 and elsewhere). The region of Decapolis added by Matthew covers the northern area of the east Jordan tribes (Ruben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh; see Num 32 and Deut 3:12–20). Tyre and Sidon, as well as Idumea (in the LXX, Idumea is often used for Edom; e.g., Isa 34:5– 6), are deleted as Gentile territories. The data indicating the origins of the large crowds thus correspond to the addition of “among the people” in v. 23: large crowds from all Israel respond to the appearance of Jesus. Verse 24a does not oppose this interpretation, because it is the report about Jesus, not Jesus himself, that goes into “all Syria” (see on 15:21) where, in any case, many Jews lived (presumably including the evangelist himself, who, so to speak here has inscribed himself into the story of Jesus). Nor, after 4:25, is there any reference to people from Syria among Jesus’ followers. The same limitation is to be presupposed for the open subject of the statement in 4:24b that “they” brought “their” sick people to Jesus. A comparison with the geographical information in 4:25 with that of 3:5 shows that a much greater response is here attributed to Jesus than John the Baptist received. Also, in 4:25 the term “crowd” appears for the first time, which Matthew often uses in the plural to emphasize its size. The crowds in Matthew are not only background choirs, but are narrative characters in their own right (see, e.g., 9:33; 12:23; 21:8–9). The statement that the crowds here “follow” Jesus is ambiguous (so also in 8:1; 12:15; 19:2). Matthew here uses the verb akolouthein, which he uses as a technical term for “follow” in the sense of discipleship (see 4:20, 22 above), but which can also mean simply “walk behind.” The evangelist

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

63

intentionally and seriously “plays” with the ambiguity of this verb. In an associative manner, the crowds are brought into the vicinity of the disciples and are positive toward Jesus without fully entering into discipleship. While in 4:24–25 Matthew describes the reaction to Jesus’ ministry as it was described in 4:23, at the same time he is already preparing the stage setting for the Sermon on the Mount, in which Matthew will unpack the teaching of Jesus in a fundamental way. II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29) In Mark, the call of the first disciples is followed by a brief note about Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum, without giving any content (Mark 1:21). Matthew has replaced Mark’s note with the extensive composition of the Sermon on the Mount. Accordingly, Matthew 7:28–29 corresponds to Mark 1:22. Matthew has thus inserted the Sermon on the Mount precisely at the point in the Markan outline where Mark mentioned Jesus’ teaching for the first time. By prefixing the summary of 4:23, the Sermon on the Mount appears as the exemplary or representative speech of Jesus. It compactly presents how and what Jesus customarily taught. The basis of Matthew 5–7 is a composition from the Sayings Source that Luke has preserved in 6:20– 49 as the “Sermon on the Plain.” In the following, we shall refer to this as the “inaugural sermon” Matthew adopted as a source for his own composition. Matthew has worked in additional material from Q, as well as material from his own special sources. For some individual sayings, variant traditions are found in Mark (for details, see the commentary below). Despite the insertion of other material, the sayings from the Q inaugural sermon appear in Matthew 5–7 in the same order as in Luke 6:20– 49, with the exception of the Golden Rule (Q 6:31), which Matthew has at 7:12. If one disregards the scenic embedding in the narrative framework represented by 5:1–2 and 7:28–29, the Sermon on the Mount can be subdivided into an introduction (5:3–16), the main part (5:17–7:12), and the eschatologically oriented concluding section (7:13–27). In the bipartite introduction, the series of Beatitudes in 5:3–12 is followed by a passage that gives the thematic guiding perspective of the Sermon on the Mount (5:13–16): the disciples are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. The main part of the sermon then unpacks what this means in concrete terms: the disciples are salt and light through lives oriented entirely to God and his will. With regard to the composition of the passage, the framing by two statements about the Law and the Prophets is striking (5:17–20; 7:12). According to 5:17, Jesus came to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets; in 7:12, the evangelist inserts the Golden Rule as the summary of the Law and the Prophets. The redactional relocation of the Golden Rule

64

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

mentioned above is thus related to Matthew’s compositional interest in framing the main part of the sermon by statements about the Law and the Prophets. How the Law and the Prophets are to be understood and put into practice is thus identified as the central theme of the Sermon on the Mount. Comparison with the Lukan Sermon on the Plain, in which no reference is made to the Law, shows that it was only by Matthew or in his community that this teaching material was explicitly related to the Torah thematic. The concluding section (7:13–27) emphasizes the necessity of putting into practice the ethical instruction of the main part of the sermon by bringing out the soteriological meaning of living in the way taught by Jesus. II.4.1 The Narrative Framework: Opening Bracket (5:1–2)

When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain. And after he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, and said: 1

The introduction in 5:1 is a direct continuation of the scene pictured in 4:25, in which great crowds from all Israel “follow” Jesus. Jesus’ ascent up the mountain (cf. Mark 3:13, but there in the context of calling the Twelve) evokes the image of Moses ascent up mount Sinai (Exod 19:3; 24:15, 18; 34:4). In the light of 5:17 (as also 7:12), it is clear that this allusion does not imply that Matthew intends any competition between Jesus and Moses. As is the case with the numerous biblical allusions and explicit references in the Prologue (1:1– 4:16), it is rather a matter of painting the Jesus story in biblical colors and placing it in the preceding history of God’s acts for his people (as the culmination point; cf. 1:17). The concluding bracket with the narrative framework in which the sermon is set (7:28–29) makes it clear that Jesus’ ascent up the mountain was not an attempt to distance himself from the people. Accordingly, when the disciples come to him in 5:1b, they form the innermost of two concentric circles of hearers. They are thus the primary addressees of the Sermon on the Mount, but not the only ones. Accordingly, passages such as 5:11–16 and 7:21–23 are, to be sure, specifically addressed to the disciples, but at the same time it follows from the contextual embedding of Matthew 5–7 as an exemplary illustration of the summaries in 4:23 and 9:35 that Matthew intends to present the Sermon on the Mount as Jesus’ teaching largely as he communicates it to the wider public, which in turn corresponds to 7:28–29. This means that the Sermon on the Mount is for Matthew the basic ethical instruction for disciples, actual and potential. The internal differentiation of the audience raises the question, asked in an appropriately differentiated way, of the contextual function of the Sermon on the

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

65

Mount in the narrative flow of the Gospel. On the one hand, the circumstance that Matthew has placed Jesus’ ethical instruction within the framework of the main part of the Sermon on the Mount, binding it to the Holy Scripture and the normative traditions of Israel by statements about the Torah and the Prophets (5:17; 7:12), corresponds to his reference to the people of God as the horizon of Jesus’ ministry in 4:23 that is underlined in 4:25. Through his teaching with authority on the mount (7:29), and on the basis of the Torah and the Prophets, Jesus will disclose the will of God to the crowds of people who have come together from all Israel. Through the brief elaboration of the healing ministry of Jesus in 4:24, the multitudes as such are characterized as those who, prior to hearing Jesus’ teaching, have already experienced God’s loving devotion to them in Jesus. Here one can discover a theologically significant structural analogy to the Torah: the giving of the Law on Sinai was preceded by the saving act of God in the exodus events. On the other hand, the view of the disciples should keep in mind the framing of the presentation of Jesus’ ministry in 4:23–9:35 by their calling in 4:18–22 and their commissioning in 9:36–11:1. For them, the Sermon on the Mount is not only the foundational orientation for their own way of life, but also necessary instruction for their mission. Jesus’ charge to them in 28:20 fits in here, for his commissioning them to teach people to do all that he has commanded them derives its essential content from the Sermon on the Mount. II.4.2 The Introduction (5:3–16) II.4.2.1 The Beatitudes (5:3–12)

“Happily blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Happily blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Happily blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Happily blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. 7 “Happily blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. 8 Happily blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Happily blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. 10 Happily blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Happily blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Be jubilantly happy, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” 3

In the nine Matthean Beatitudes, each of the first eight consists of a two-line makarism (brief naming of those blessed + explanatory statement in the form of a promise of eschatological salvation). The ninth is formally distinct from those

66

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

preceding by its length, and by the change of the third-person plural to direct address in the second-person plural. In the first eight Beatitudes, the evangelist has formed an inclusio through the resumption of the promise in 5:3b in 5:10b. It is also striking that the fourth and eighth Beatitudes speak of righteousness, so that two “strophes” are recognizable, each with four Beatitudes. The use of alliteration as a stylistic device in the first “strophe” underscores this structure: each of the blessings in vv. 3– 6 begins with the Greek letter π. The basic text of Matthew 5:3–12 comes from the “inaugural sermon” (Q 6:20– 49), though Luke includes only four Beatitudes (Luke 6:20–23), which probably represents the number of Beatitudes in Q. Of these, the first three (poor, hungry, crying) are generally attributed to Jesus: people in need are promised the eschatological reversal of their present distress. On the other hand, Luke 6:22–23 par. Matthew 5:11–12 is a post-Easter community formation, which reflects the distress to which Jesus’ messengers are subjected. None of the five additional makarisms found in Matthew is traceable to Jesus. Rather, they have been formed on the basis of Old Testament texts and early Christian tradition (see the interpretation of each below). The growth of the tradition probably happened in several steps. At the beginning probably stood the transformation of the weeping to the mourning, inspired by Isaiah 61:1– 3, thus creating the alliteration noted above. This series of three was then supplemented by the blessing pronounced on the meek (first by the evangelist, or already by his community group?). Verse 10 is clearly redactional. The hand of the evangelist is also recognizable in the reworking of the first and fourth Beatitudes (5:3, 6), which come from Q. Whether 5:7–9 goes back to the evangelist himself or represents a growth of the tradition Matthew already knew from his church context cannot be decided with convincing plausibility. In the Old Testament and Jewish realm, makarisms were at first mainly at home in the exhortations of the wisdom tradition (see, e.g., Sir 14:1–2, 20–27; 25:8–9). With the reception of this literary form in apocalyptic, eschatological salvation promised to those who are blessed came to the fore (e.g., 1 En. 58:2– 3). Matthew 5:3–12 (par. Luke 6:20–23) presupposes this development of the Beatitude form and builds on it. [3] The blessing on the poor has become in Matthew the “poor in spirit.” “Spirit” in 5:3 is to be understood as the human spirit (cf. 26:41; 27:50), since the passages in which Matthew refers to the Holy Spirit, are either identified from the context or indicated by a supplementary addition. “Poor in spirit” means either people whose vital energy is at a low ebb, lacking “life spirit,” i.e., the despondent, despairing, or, with a stronger ethical accent, humble people who do not exalt themselves (see Ps 33:19 LXX [34:18 MT], “The Lord is near to the brokenhearted, and the humble in spirit he will save”). A similar phrase

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

67

in two Qumran texts (1QH 6.3; 1QM 14.7) points to the latter, but without allowing a clear decision. Understanding the phrase in an ethical perspective is also supported by Matthew’s redactional tendency that appears in 5:6 and the addition of 5:5, 7–9. The appended promise of the kingdom of heaven looks forward to future, eschatological salvation (cf. 5:20); the present form “is” serves to emphasize confidence in the promise. Through the inclusio that Matthew has formed by the repetition of 5:3b in 5:10b, the final clauses in vv. 4–9, formulated in future tense, appear as concrete examples of the promise of the coming kingdom of heaven. [4] The replacement of the weeping (Luke 6:21b = Q) by “those who mourn” is inspired by Isaiah 61:1–3, a text that was adopted and adapted elsewhere in early Christianity (Luke 4:18), here apparently on the basis of its association with the keyword “poor” in the first makarism (cf. Isa 61:1; and its reflection in Matt 11:5). In the early church, v. 4 was often related to mourning over sin (cf. Jas 4:9), thereby taking up the ethicizing tendency of the Matthean series, but for Matthew himself such a tendency cannot be proven. In light of the allusion to Isaiah 61, it is best to think of lamentation over the evil and injustice that continues to exist, whereas at the great eschatological turning point God will bring salvation and cause “righteousness and praise to spring up before the nations” (Isa 61:11). We cannot, however, be certain that the phrase is to be interpreted within this horizon of meaning. [5] The blessing on the meek is formulated on the basis of Psalm 36:11 LXX. Matthew’s understanding of the close connection of gentleness and humility is illustrated in 11:29 (cf. Zeph 3:12 LXX; Sir 3:17–18; 10:14–15; Eph 4:2). At the same time, the use of “meek” in 11:29 and 21:5 emphasizes that this is primarily about interpersonal human relations, not the attitude toward God. Verse 5 thus fits Matthew’s ethicizing tendency manifest in his series of makarisms. The promise clause raises the question of how entrance into the kingdom of heaven (5:3) relates to “inheriting the earth.” Apparently, for Matthew a renewal of this-worldly existence is incorporated in the coming of the kingdom of God: in contrast to present everyday experience, the earth will then no longer belong to those who assert their own will through power and violence (cf. 20:25), but to the meek, kind, and gentle. [6] The “hungry” (Luke 6:21a=Q) have become “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” Moreover, in vv. 4 and 6 Matthew has reversed the order of the makarisms in Q 6:21, in order to place the theme of righteousness, which serves as the leitmotif of the Sermon on the Mount (in addition to 5:6, 10, see also 5:20; 6:1, 33) as the conclusion of the first group. “Righteousness” here does not mean God’s gift of salvation (Rom 1:17), longed for by (sinful) human beings, or the establishment of God’s new salvific order. In light of the

68

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

unambiguously ethical understanding of “righteousness” in 5:20; 6:1 (which is also the most convincing reading of 5:10), this term should be understood here as the requirements of God’s Law for the humans (cf. on 3:15). Accordingly, “hunger and thirst” does not refer to a longing for salvation, but is to be understood in the active sense of “striving for something” (see, e.g., Philo, Posterity 172: “Thirst for Virtue”). Those here pronounced blessed are those whose actions are marked by striving for righteousness/justice (cf. Prov 15:9; 1 Tim 6:11). Through the change of the antecedent, the promise clause “for they will be satisfied” becomes a metaphorical description of receiving eschatological salvation. The newly added makarisms in 5:7–9 are all ethically aligned. [7] Compassion is a central theme of Jewish as well as Christian ethics. Depending on the distress of those in need, acts of mercy are expressed in different responses. This can be illustrated by the Testament of Zebulun, which has mercy as its leading theme: charity to the poor who have nothing to eat or wear (cf. T. Zeb. 6:4–7:4), as help for those socially afflicted in other ways, such as those suffering persecution (cf. T. Zeb. 2:1–9), or as caring relationships with sinners (cf. T. Zeb. 8:4– 6). Matthew 9:13; 12:7; 23:23 show that for Matthew, compassion is at the center of God’s will (cf. the way the heart of the matter is expressed in Matt 25:31– 46). The blessing on the merciful (cf. Prov 14:21), probably formulated by Matthew himself expresses this key ethical point in a prominent place. The idea that God shows mercy to those who are themselves merciful is widespread in both Jewish tradition and early Christianity (cf. Prov 17:5 LXX; T. Zeb. 5:3, 8.1; b. Šabb. 151b; Jas 2:13). [8] With the blessing of those who are pure in heart, Matthew takes up the common parlance of Old Testament and early Jewish tradition (e.g., Pss 24:4; 51:12; Job 11:13; Sir 38:10). In Matthean anthropology, the “heart” refers to the center of the person, which comprehends thinking, willing, and the emotions (cf. Luz, Matthew, 1:196). “Purity of heart” expresses undivided orientation to doing the will of God manifest in action. The promise of “seeing God” (cf. 18:10) is not here thought of as the result of mystical contemplation, but—analogously to the other clauses in this context—the eschatological gift of salvation (cf. 1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2; Rev 22:4). The kingdom of God includes communion with God. [9] Finally, Matthew’s ethicizing tendency comes into play in the blessing on the peacemakers (cf. 2 En. 52:11–14). The translation sometimes found, “blessed are the peaceful,” clearly fails to grasp the thrust of the underlying Greek word, which goes beyond one’s own peacefulness to actively making peace (cf. Jas 3:18). The connection to the command to love one’s enemies in 5:44–45 made by the promise clause of 5:9b underscores this aspect. In each case, the disciples

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

69

are promised the eschatological hope of divine sonship, which Matthew found in the Q version of 5:45 (cf. Luke 6:35). These two texts are the only instances in which Matthew applies “son of God” terminology to the disciples—on the basis of the ethical concept of “son of God” found in some texts of Jewish wisdom (Sir 4:10; Wis 2:18; 5:5). This evidence suggests that the formation of 5:9 (either by Matthew himself or in his community) thus represents an interpretation of the command to love one’s enemies, reflecting the way this commandment was understood in Matthew’s community: loving the enemy is an act of peacemaking. And conversely, for Matthew and his church(es), peacemaking means making an effort to overcome hostility by doing good to the enemy, concern for the flourishing of their lives, and praying for them. [10–12] With the last Beatitude of the second “strophe” (v. 10), Matthew turns to the oppressive social situation of those who strive for justice/ righteousness, but who do not always and everywhere meet with a loving response (cf. 1 Pet 3:14). Thematically, the final Beatitude in the Q series (5:11–12; cf. Luke 6:22–23) is here strengthened; at the same time, the redactional formation of 5:10 serves the compositional interest, as well as its emphasis on the theme of righteousness/justice (see on 5:6). The motif of the persecution of the righteous ties in with Jewish tradition (Wis 2:10–20; 1 En. 95:7). The final Beatitude (5:11–12) then describes the distress more closely, at the same time changing persecution for righteousness’ sake to persecution for Jesus’ sake (cf. 10:18, 39; 16:25), which is for Matthew one and the same thing, since belonging to Jesus is for the evangelist central to doing the will of God (7:21–23). Matthew now changes, appropriate to the phrase “for my sake,” to the direct address as found in his Q source (Q 6:22–23), which is then continued in 5:13–16. Hostility should not bother the disciples for two reasons: first, it gives the occasion for joy in suffering (cf. 2 Bar. 52:6; 1 Pet 1:6–7; 4:13), because the persecuted receive a heavenly reward. Second, the disciples are to learn that their distress is nothing unusual, but an experience that unites them with the prophets. Persecution, then, is thus exactly what God’s messengers must expect in this world. Matthew here makes use of the tradition of the violent fate of the prophets, a tradition that already had its beginnings in the Old Testament and then became prevalent in early Judaism and early Christianity (e.g., Jer 2:30; 2 Chr 36:15–16; Neh 9:26; Josephus, Ant. 10.38–39; Mark 12:1–12). The five Beatitudes added by Matthew (5:5, 7–10), together with the inclusion of interpretations in the makarisms taken over from Q 6:20–23, form the series into a kind of mirror of Christian virtues. Fundamental ethical characteristics of Christian believers are here listed: humility and gentleness, striving for righteousness/justice that involves being persecuted, compassion, and other qualities. This ethicizing includes Matthew’s expressing the first eight

70

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

Beatitudes in the third-person form. Here, virtues are named as generally valid markers of those who are truly Christian. There is thus a correlation between Matthew’s ethicizing traditional virtues and the change to the third person, for direct address does not fit into the category of a catalog of virtues. Conversely formulated: the ethical premises are not appropriate for direct address. Not until vv. 11–12 does Matthew apply the makarisms to the (primary) addressees, the disciples. Despite the ethicizing formulation, the makarisms, as the entrance portal to the Sermon on the Mount, are not simply disguised imperatives. The emphasis is not placed on the first clauses, but on the last. The stress is on calling the disciples to remember the promises, addressing them with the promised future. Important for this hermeneutical approach is also the fact that in vv. 10–12 the series culminates in the pronouncement of blessing on those who are persecuted, which cannot be converted into an imperative—just as is already the case with v. 4. II.4.2.2 The Disciples as Salt of the Earth and Light of the World (5:13–16)

“You are the salt of the earth. But if salt has lost its edge [‘become foolish’], with what can one salt (it)? It is no longer good for anything, but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. 14 You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. 15 No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before other people, so that they may see your good works and praise your Father in heaven.” 13

In the Beatitudes the promise of future salvation is already brought to mind. The promise applies to the disciples to the extent that they prove to be the kind of people characterized in the makarisms: their humble lives oriented to righteousness/justice already makes sense, because the kingdom of heaven will belong to such people. Now the perspective changes: the life of the disciple is also meaningful because they have a mission in the world (cf. Burchard, “Versuch,” 36). This is because it is they who are—in an exclusive way—the salt of the earth and the light of the world. With regard to the composition of the Sermon on the Mount as a whole, the small subsection in 5:13–16 is to be regarded precisely as the headpiece, the bridle that guides the whole, the header in a masonry construction with which the whole row must be aligned. That is to say, the main body of the discourse in 5:17–7:12 unpacks the mission of the disciples set forth with the metaphors “salt of the earth” and “light of the world.” Matthew has largely formulated 5:13–16 himself. To be sure, two logia from Q, where they occur separately, in different contexts, have been

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

71

reworked by Matthew (cf. Luke 14:34–35; 11:33), in each case preferring the Q version to the corresponding version in Mark (cf. Mark 9:49–50; 4:21). But the thematic guidelines come from the evangelist’s own pen: 5:13a, “You are the salt of the earth” (as Matthew’s replacement for the statement “salt is good,” cf. Mark 9:50; Luke 14:34), as well as 5:14a, “You are the light of the world,” and the whole of 5:16. With the emphatic “you” at the beginning of both 5:13 and 5:14, Matthew connects to the final Beatitude, in which he has shifted to the direct address of the second-person plural. If one reads 5:11–16 in context, it becomes clear that the community that experiences persecution and rejection in the world must not respond either by withdrawing from the world (the lamp under the bushel) or by accommodation to it (the saltless salt). Rather, the community remains charged with its mission to the world. This generates an almost paradoxical relation to the world: it is precisely those who are persecuted by other people who are there for them, to serve them. At the same time, this reference to the others is of fundamental importance for understanding the exceptional status Matthew attributes to the disciples. The church is not an elitist circle, but its exposed position as salt and light is strictly related to its mission. The universal horizon (earth, world) already anticipates 28:16–20. [13] The question whether the salt in v. 13 is (primarily) a preservative, a purifying agent (cf. 2 Kgs 2:19–22) or—what is most likely in view of its everyday use—a seasoning (cf. Job 6:6) is of subordinate importance, insofar as it concerns the positive role the disciples play one way or another in their mission on earth. In this, they are irreplaceable. For if the salt itself has become bland—or, as the Greek word means literally, “be foolish,” “be dumb”—what can one salt it with? Matthew here deals with the possibility that the disciples will fail in their mission and pictures the consequences. Salt that has become insipid can only be thrown out, as no longer of any use. The threat is a serious warning to the disciples regarding their missionary task. When salt loses its edge, it is no longer salt; when the disciples—because of persecution (vv. 10–12)—back away from their mission in the world or accommodate themselves to it, they betray their calling as disciples. [14–16] Differently from the way the salt metaphor is used, in vv. 14–16 the seriousness of the disciples’ mission is not inculcated by the threat of judgment, but by pointing to the positive effects the disciples can achieve. Each of the metaphors in 5:14b and 5:15 illustrates in its own way the absurdity of the possibility that the disciples could seek to conceal their role as the light of the world. The placing of the lamp on a lampstand so that the lamp gives light for everyone in the house reinforces the universal dimension of the metaphors “salt of the earth” and “light of the world.” Verse 16 then transforms

72

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

the concluding note of v. 15 into a warning to the disciples to let their light shine before people so that their good works may be seen, resulting in people joining in praise to God, who here for the first time is called by the characteristic Matthean phrase “Father in heaven” (cf. 5:45; 6:1, 9, and elsewhere). The life of the disciples as light for the world is not here concretized as their preaching, but by their deeds, which themselves serve as testimony (cf. 1 Pet 2:12). When it is recognizable from their lifestyle that their good works flow from their relation to God, this itself is adequate to glorify God. Christian life is thus assigned a quasi-missionary significance. The goal, however, is not that disciples themselves be praised for their works, although—in a certain tension with the saying about being persecuted for righteousness’ sake—it is presupposed that their works are recognized by outsiders as good. In 6:1–18, the injunction in Matthew 5:16 is explicitly opposed to a form of righteousness that seeks its own praise. It is also to be noted that the light metaphor has already been introduced in 4:16 in the quotation from Isaiah 9:1, there referring to Jesus (cf. Luke 1:78–79; 2:32; John 8:12). The life of the disciples as light for the world thus appears, regarded contextually, as derivative. It is made possible by Jesus, through his being-with-us as well as through his revelation of God’s will. In early Jewish texts, the light metaphor was widely applied to the Torah or to those who teach and live by it (e.g., Wis 18:4; T. Levi 14:3– 4; 19:1; LAB [Pseudo-Philo] 11:1; 2 Bar. 59:2; 77:13–16). This context in tradition history, in view of Matthew 5, illuminates not only the relation of the light metaphor to the good works of the disciples, but also the connection between 5:16 and the statement in 5:17 about the Torah. The main body of the Sermon on the Mount, framed by statements about the Torah and the Prophets (5:17–7:12), illustrates the good works by which the disciples are to fulfill their mission of being light to the world. II.4.3 The Main Body (5:17–7:12) II.4.3.1 The Programmatic Beginning Bracket: The Fulfillment of Torah and Prophets and the Better Righteousness (5:17–20)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 Amen, I tell you that in fact, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not a single stroke of a letter, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you: Unless 17

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

73

your righteousness goes far beyond that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” The main body of the Sermon on the Mount begins with a fundamental declaration about the validity of the Law and the Prophets (5:17–19), and the “better righteousness” expected of the disciples (5:20). Of the four logia here assembled, only 5:18 has a (distant) parallel (Luke 16:17), probably derived from Q. Verse 20 is usually taken to be a formation of the evangelist, whose penchant for proverb-like sayings about entering the kingdom also emerges elsewhere (e.g., 7:21; 18:3). Although 5:17 and 5:19 also manifest redactional traits, it cannot be excluded that Matthew is here reworking traditional material. In any case, the integrated composition of the four logia into a programmatic opening of the body of the sermon is to be attributed to the first evangelist. The significance of the Law theme for Matthew here comes to pointed expression. The embedding of Jesus’ instruction in six antitheses (5:21– 48) underscores and illustrates the Torah-oriented Matthean ethic seen in 5:17–20. [17] Matthew follows his outlining the mission of the disciples in the world (5:13–16) with a programmatic statement about the purpose of Jesus’ coming, which the disciples need to take to heart if they want to fulfill their mission. They can only be the light of the world by orienting themselves to the fulfillment of the Torah through Jesus (on the traditional connection of the light metaphor in vv. 14–16 with the Torah, see the comments on v. 16). Verse 17 is formulated as a contrast statement, analogous to the formal parallel in Matthew 10:34 (see also 9:13; 20:28), in which the affirmation receives its contours by being set against the background of a negative option (“not to abolish, but to fulfill”). The introduction with “do not think” suggests that a virulent view of Jesus circulated in Matthew’s context and was to be rejected. On the one hand, this could refer to the Pharisees’ charge that the Matthean community was lax in its observance of the Torah. In favor of this option is the fact that Matthew makes a point of portraying the controversy about the Law in which Jesus is entangled as a vigorous debate with the Pharisees (see 12:1–14; 15:1–20; 19:3–9; 22:34– 40). The series of antitheses in 5:21– 48 are also to be read from this perspective. However, the introductory “do not think” can also refer to a (potential) misjudgment of Jesus within the circle of his own followers, so that in this option one would have to further assume that community members could be influenced by these allegations, which should be resisted. On the other hand, one can consider that 5:17 is directed to groups within the Christian community who neglect the Torah, or even reject it altogether as the basis of Christian ethical orientation. For support for this view, one can point out that, at the latest, Matthew was confronted in the Gospel of Mark

74

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

with an understanding of the Law within the Christian community that he did not share, and he wanted to defend his congregations against its influence. The declaration in 5:17 could be a part of this “anti-Markan” thrust (see on 7:15 below), which would fit the affirmation of even the small commandments in 5:18–19, since this is the way Mark 7:19 represents the abrogation of the Torah’s food laws. These two “fronts” are not mutually exclusive. On the one hand, Matthew does intend to oppose a devaluation of the Torah within the Christian community; on the other hand, in his conflict with the Pharisees he responds to their criticism with a counterstatement in which Jesus and his disciples take their stand firmly on the Torah, while it is the “blind” Pharisees who lack understanding. A specifically anti-Pauline thrust is not recognizable in Matthew. As for the question of what exactly is meant by “fulfilling the Law and Prophets,” the correspondence with “do and teach” in 5:19 points in the right direction. The aspect of fulfilling predictions about the Messiah and the like is not what is meant here in connection with the Prophets, but, as in 7:12 and 22:40, it is a matter of the revelation of God’s will in the Torah and Prophets (on the Prophets, see the quotation from Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:13; 12:7). Correspondingly, “fulfillment” is a matter of teaching and the putting into practice of the will of God. “Fulfill,” however, has its own emphasis. There are only a few early Jewish parallels to this formulation (T. Naph. 8:7; Sib. Or. 3:246; Philo, Rewards 83), so it stands out (cf. in the New Testament Rom 8:4; 13:8; Gal 5:14). In Matthew, the verb has a specific christological overtone, manifest in his typical fulfillment-quotations, where it is used in the passive (e.g., in 1:22 and elsewhere), but also in the only other active use in 3:15. By choosing the verb “fulfill” here, Matthew sets Jesus in continuity with the Scripture, analogous to his use of the fulfillment-quotations. In this case, the continuity is with the proclamation of the will of God in the Torah and Prophets. This is not merely a matter of the basic agreement of Jesus’ teaching with the Torah or the legitimization of Jesus himself by appeal to the Torah. For Matthew, the content and intent of the revelation of God’s will in the Torah were first fully brought to light through Jesus’ teaching. Thus Jesus does not do and teach the Torah like others before and alongside him, but on the basis of his direct, intimate familiarity with the will of the Father (11:27). For Matthew, Jesus is the one who, on the basis of the Torah and Prophets, revealed and exemplified in his own life the will of God to humanity for the time of salvation that began with his own advent. Expressed pointedly: God’s will is brought to bear by the one teacher (cf. 23:8, 10) in a way that is in principle in accord with the Torah, but in a new way—for Jesus fulfills the Torah and Prophets by revealing and living out the full meaning of what God offers in them.

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

75

[18] Verse 18 makes the preceding verse more precise, to the effect that the whole Torah remains in effect until the end of the world. The concluding temporal clause “until all is accomplished” is to be understood in no other way than the expression, “until heaven and earth pass away,” which also refers to the end of the world. The topic here is not whether the Torah will also continue and be used even beyond that in the kingdom of heaven (cf. 24:34–35 regarding the words of Jesus). Verse 18 wants only to make the positive statement about the unrestricted validity of the whole Torah in the time of this world. “One iota or stroke of a letter,” in the light of v. 19 and elsewhere where weighing and evaluating the commandments is in view (12:5–7; 19:18–19; 22:34– 40; 23:23–24), is to be understood in Matthew’s sense of understanding some commandments as more important than others, which deals with concrete cases in the ritual-cultic area of the Torah. If, at first glance, v. 18 appears to express a decidedly Jewish-Christian viewpoint, [19] already v. 19 makes clear that in ritual questions Matthew represents liberal Judaism (cf. Did. 6.2–3). While the whole Torah continues to be valid in principle, the weighing and evaluation mentioned above extends far enough that the relaxing of “small” commandments does not exclude one from salvation. In 5:19, Matthew presupposes the idea documented from time to time in early Judaism (4 Ezra 8:49; 10:57; 2 En. 44:5) and later also in the rabbinic literature (e.g., b. B. Me ṣ. 85b), that there are differing degrees of honor in the kingdom of heaven (cf. the references to “great reward” in 5:12, as well as 11:11; 18:1– 4; 20:23). Those who disregard some of the lesser commandments, or even teach that they are not binding, are not excluded, but receive less honor, while those who conscientiously obey even the least commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. While 5:19 hints at the idea of differentiated positions in the kingdom of heaven (differently 20:1–15!), [20] in v. 20 the alternative is simply participating in salvation or being excluded: the “righteousness” of the scribes and Pharisees is not adequate for entering the kingdom of heaven. This implies that their Torah obedience is deficient not merely in neglecting the lesser commandments, but in that they violate the major commandments. Matthew illustrates this charge in a multifaceted way by the controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees (see above on 5:17) and finally gets to the heart of the matter in 23:23: they observe the tithing command—a lesser command—with great precision but neglect what is most important in the Law. An inadequate understanding of the Torah leads to a deficient level of righteousness, so that access to the kingdom of heaven remains blocked. On the other hand, the “better righteousness” expected of the disciples is based on the reality that keeping the major commandments is what counts, that is, when followed according to their fuller and deeper meaning.

76

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

This presupposes the new understanding of the Law and Prophets revealed in the life and teaching of Jesus. In this sense, the antitheses that follow in 5:21– 48 are exemplary illustrations of 5:20: In them, Jesus’ understanding of the Torah, which enables the better righteousness, is contrasted with the inadequate exposition of the Torah by the scribes and Pharisees. Thus 5:20 is at the same time the conclusion of the statements of fundamental principle placed at the beginning of the main body of the Sermon on the Mount and a kind of major premise for the antitheses that follow. In 5:17–20, Matthew presents the basic contours of his understanding of the Law. According to Matthew, in both his teaching and example Jesus opened up the full revelation of God’s will in the Torah and the Prophets from its center determined by the love command and the call for compassion. Although the whole Torah is affirmed in principle, its commands vary in weight. Moreover, this weighing is embedded in a soteriology: putting into practice the weightier social commandments is more important in regard to entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. 19:18–19). This means that the Torah is understood in a way that allows people from the nations to enter the kingdom of heaven even if they neglect the ritual rules of the Torah. II.4.3.2 The Antitheses (5:21– 48)

The series of antitheses can be subdivided into two blocks of three each. The full introductory formula to the thesis occurs only in 5:21 and 5:33, “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times.” The new deployment in v. 33 is also underscored by the introductory adverb “again.” The counterthesis in each of the first three antitheses begins with “whoever” + participle (in Greek), followed in each case by the explanation of the existence of a particular circumstance. The countertheses thus define particular circumstances. The content deals with the correct understanding of the Decalogue’s prohibitions of murder and adultery. In the fourth and fifth countertheses, however, the introductory “but I say to you” is followed by a dependent infinitive (“but I say to you, not to swear at all” = “do not swear at all”), translating the infinitive as an imperative. In the sixth counterthesis, there is an imperative form (5:44). The second group of antitheses thus manifests direct commands for specific behavior. As in the first block of three, the last two antitheses (5:27–30, 31–32) are related in content (both deal with adultery), so also in the last block of three, there is a close connection between the last two (5:38– 42, 43– 48); in each case the topic concerns dealing with the enemy. The most important question for interpreting the antitheses is how Matthew understands the theses. Does he mean to present commandments of the Torah, which Jesus then surpasses or criticizes? Or did the evangelist see the theses as

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

77

already interpretations of the Torah, i.e., Torah as understood by (other) Jewish authorities, to which Jesus presents his own contrasting interpretation of the commandments in the countertheses? If one examines the relation of the theses to the wording of the Old Testament commandments, the results are mixed. Only in 5:27 (cf. Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18) and in 5:38 (cf. Exod 21:24–25; Lev 24:19–20; Deut 19:21) does the thesis agree (almost) verbatim with the wording of the Torah. In 5:21, a penalty is added to the Decalogue command, for which one can, of course, find Old Testament references (cf. Exod 21:12; Lev 24:17), but which are not found as such in the Torah. The third thesis (5:31) is not an Old Testament command at all, though it is based on material from the Old Testament (Deut 24:1– 4). Likewise, the fourth thesis (5:33) does not even approximate anything found in the Old Testament, but, again, there are commands that can be appealed to as providing the context (see commentary on 5:33). Finally, in 5:43 the love commandment is incompletely cited from Leviticus 19:18 (“as yourself ” is lacking). Again, there is an addition not found in the Old Testament: “and you shall hate your enemy.” In view of Matthew’s profound knowledge of the Scripture, the assumption suggests itself that he clearly knew that his citation does not agree with the Old Testament. Moreover, in this case his awareness of the correct form is directly attested by his citation of the love commandment in 19:19 and 22:39. At the same time, these passages show clearly that Matthew is far from criticizing the love commandment itself, and that in 5:43 he could not have seen an adequate paraphrase of the Torah. In view of 15:19 and 19:18, it is equally clear for the Decalogue commandments in 5:21 and 5:27 that Matthew does not intend to criticize the commandments themselves. The mixed form Matthew presents thus seems to indicate that the theses are intended to represent an understanding of the Torah that either merely understands the commandments literally, or reduces their true meaning by limiting the scope to which they apply, or by their interpretation. This hypothesis is supported by further evidence. Strangely enough, it has been rarely noticed in the discussion of these texts that the antithetical formula is not “it has been said (to those of ancient times), but I say to you,” but—with the sole exception of 5:31, where the abbreviated form is to be explained by the direct continuation of the preceding antithesis—“You have heard that . . .” “It has been said that” is parallel to the introduction to the fulfillment-quotations (cf., e.g., 1:22) and thus refers to the authority of God that stands behind the Torah; the commandments of the Decalogue in Exodus 20 are the direct speech of God. Accordingly, “those of ancient times” are the Sinai generation. In the introductory “you have heard,” however, is a relativization, a reference to the process of mediating the command of the Torah (in the synagogue): “You have been

78

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

told so; this is the way you have heard it in the weekly exposition of the Torah in the synagogue, that it was so said to those of ancient times.” In Matthew’s continuation of the Jesus story, this is illustrated in the story of the rich man in 19:16–22 (cf. the commentary on 19:20). Last but not least, an adequate interpretation of 5:21– 48 requires consideration of the connection with the declaration in 5:20 that the righteousness of the disciples must far exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. This verse functions not only as the premise on which 5:21– 48 is based, inasmuch as Jesus illustrates in the countertheses the “better righteousness” expected of the disciples with concrete examples. At the same time, the theses illustrate the deficient form of righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, by exposing their inadequate understanding of the major commandments. Jesus’ teaching in the countertheses, in contrast to this, reveals—in accordance with the programmatic statement in 5:17—the full meaning of the commandments and their true, deeper intention. Finally, this thrust of the series of antitheses against the Pharisees and scribes is further confirmed by the fact that Matthew concludes the series in 5:47 by the phrase “what more are you doing than others?” into which Matthew has built a reference back to 5:20 (see commentary on 5:47). The “antitheses” do not, then, set Jesus’ word above or against the word of the Torah. Rather, Jesus’ interpretation of the will of God revealed in the Torah is set against the interpretation of the scribes and Pharisees. It should be added here that the theses are not historically reliable sources for the Pharisees actual understanding of the Law. Rather, 5:20– 48 should be read in the (polemical) framework of the confrontation of Matthew and his church with the Pharisees, which runs like a red thread through the entire Gospel. Regarding the question of the origin of the antitheses, the main thing to keep in mind is that, although the antithesis form is found only in Matthew, this is not the case for all the content that has been worked into this form. The substance of the third (5:32; cf. Luke 16:18 and further Mark 10:11–12), the fifth and sixth countertheses (5:39c– 40, 42, 44– 48; cf. Luke 6:27–35) is found in synoptic parallels that are not formulated antithetically. These data indicate in all three cases that the antithetical formulation is secondary. The latter may also be the case for the fourth antithesis: there is no synoptic parallel to the prohibition of oaths (5:34–37), but parallel content is found in James 5:12, which represents an older stage in regard to the history of tradition. For the first two antitheses, it is for the most part assumed that they came to the evangelist already in antithetical form, though there is no solid evidence for this. Neither is it to be excluded that the instructional material in the countertheses of 5:22 and 5:28 could have existed independently, nor are there any observable tensions between the thrust of the antitheses and the programmatic

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

79

passage 5:17–20 that precedes them, since, as we have seen, the antitheses are not to be understood as critical of the Torah itself, but of the ways it has been interpreted. Conversely, the fact that the series of antitheses fits well following 5:17–20 simply raises the possibility that the antithetical form in all six cases is the result of the evangelist’s own editing. In any case, one can argue further for this option by pointing out that, linguistically, the antithesis form fits the style of the evangelist. Certainty is not to be attained here. It must remain an open question whether the first two antitheses came to the evangelist in his tradition, which prompted him to cast the material in the other antitheses in this form, or whether the antithetical form is to be attributed to the evangelist throughout. The latter, however, is more than merely a thought-provoking option, and, in any case, the prefixing of 5:17–20 to the series did not have the intention of defusing the somewhat Torah-critical thrust of any of the antitheses that may have come from pre-Matthean tradition. This is all the more true when one considers that it is precisely the content of the first two antitheses which in no way calls in question the Torah commands themselves. So also, the common talk of intensification of the commands does not exactly fit Matthew’s understanding, since for the evangelist it is not a matter of making the commandments more vigorous, but of interpreting them in terms of their full and deeper meaning. The fifth antithesis, in 5:38– 42, is the only one which at first glance seems not amenable to interpretation in this sense, an antithesis, be it noted, that comes from Matthew himself. In this case, in the interpretation below, we must carefully ask to what extent Matthew could see in the counterthesis an explication of the will of God revealed in the Torah and Prophets. II.4.3.2.1 First Antithesis: Murder (5:21–26)

In order to make the following exposition easier to follow, in vv. 21-22 I have added the verse subdivisions.

“You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, b ‘You shall not murder; c and whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22a But I say to you: b Everyone (pas ho) who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. c But whoever (hos d’ an) says to his brother ‘Raka!’ will be liable to the sanhedrin. d And whoever says ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 “So when you are offering your gift at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you, 24 then leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 “Come to terms quickly with your opponent while you are on the way to court with him, lest your opponent hand you over to the judge, and the 21a

80

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

judge to the guard, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Amen I say to you: you will never get out until you have paid back the last quadrans.” The actual antithesis in 5:21–22 is followed in vv. 23–24 and vv. 25–26 by two explanatory supplements, which—differently from the second-person plural in the antithesis formula of 5:21–22—are formulated in the secondperson singular (cf. 5:27–28, 29–30 as well as 5:38–39a, 39b– 42). This does not represent a literary break. In terms of content, the change corresponds to the individual cases described in 5:23–24, 25–26. In addition, the singular in 5:23–26 corresponds to the singular form of what is said in the thesis (5:21b, c) and counterthesis (5:22b–d). Verses 25–26 are paralleled in Luke 12:57–59, and thus come from Q; 5:21–24 is Matthean special material. [21–22] The thesis in 5:21 combines the citation of the commandment against murder (5:21b; cf. Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17) with a legal clause that states the consequence of violation of the command (5:21c), here functioning as a restrictive interpretation of the prohibition of killing, in the context (5:20) imputed to the scribes and Pharisees. They read the Decalogue commandment solely as a legal proposition that, regarded within the horizon of human jurisprudence, almost necessarily results in a merely literal understanding of the commandment: it is concerned only with the criminal offence of murder. The upshot of this interpretation is that nothing below this threshold is affected by the commandment. The legal clause in 5:21c is not itself a quotation, but is related to statements in the Old Testament. In Exodus 21:12 and Leviticus 24:17, the consequence of murder is the death penalty (see also Gen 9:6; Num 35:16–34; Deut 19:11–13). Here, instead of a specific sentence, there is merely the “that” of a judicial consequence. Why this is so becomes clear from the counterpart of the counterthesis, which is concerned with further elaboration of the offense covered by the commandment. For this, the general statement “he will be liable to judgment” is needed as the counterpart. For the exact understanding of Jesus’ counterthesis, it is necessary to determine the relation of the three statements following the introduction in 5:22a. A traditional interpretation understands v. 22 as presenting a climactic series beginning with anger as merely an internal impulse that progresses to insulting the other as a “fool,” at the same time increasing the degree of judicial punishment as the consequence. This interpretation, however, is burdened with two difficulties. First, there is no substantial difference between the two relatively harmless invectives. (The Aramaic word “Reka,” which probably stands behind Matthew’s “Raka,” means something like “empty head.”) Second, the assumed relation of the three variations of court terminology is problematical. “Judgment” (krisis) can be referred to a local court only under the pressure of the presupposed hypothesis. At the same time, in the light of 10:17, which speaks of

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

81

“sanhedrins” in the plural, “sanhedrin” can by no means be restricted to the High Council in Jerusalem. It is more plausible to think of “ judgment” as a generic term made more specific in two directions: “sanhedrin” as a human court, and “hell of fire” as the eschatological judgment of God. The judgment statements are not alternatives but are to be understood additively: whoever insults someone—whether by calling them “empty head” or “fool”—is liable both to the earthly court and the hell of fire. It is of decisive importance, however, to note there is a significant formal difference between 5:22b on the one hand, and 5:22cd on the other. Verse 22b is formulated as a basic general principle: “Everyone who is . . .” Verse 22cd names individual cases as examples: “Whoever does x . . .” This suggests that v. 22b functions as the major premise of 22cd. And vice versa, v. 22cd illustrates 22b. It should be further noted that Jesus’ counterthesis does not refer directly to the command of the Decalogue, but to its explanation in v. 21c. Verse 22c and 22d correspond exactly to the syntactical structure of v. 21c. From this, it can be further concluded that, analogous to v. 22cd, v. 21c is to be read as a subset of the basic principle set forth in v. 22b. The structure of 5:21–22 can thus be illustrated graphically as follows: You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times “You shall not murder and whoever murders

shall be liable to judgment.”

But I say to you: Everyone who is angry with his brother

shall be liable to judgment.

But whoever says to his brother “Raka!”

will be liable to the sanhedrin.

And whoever says “You fool!”

will be liable to the hell of fire.

If one construes the structure of 5:21–22 as shown here, then what is emphasized is not that not only the one who kills, but that the one who is angry has already become liable to the judgment. Rather, the emphasis lies on the “everyone” of v. 22b, that is: everyone who is angry, not only the one whose anger leads to murder, but even the angry person who (merely) gives vent to insults, will be liable to judgment. Murder and insults are both understood as expressions of anger. Accordingly, “anger” can then be summarized as the fundamentally aggressive attitude of rejection toward others. To be precise, the point of the counterthesis is not that the forbidden act is radicalized from

82

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

the external act of killing to the inner act of anger. Rather, the counterthesis first brings to light the attitude underlying the murder, and then reveals that the full sense and intention of the commandment from the Decalogue are only understood when one sees that, even below the threshold of murder, expressions of that same attitude fall under the same verdict. This also makes it clear that the issue is how the commandment is interpreted, not a matter of making it more rigorous or extending its scope. The examples Matthew names in 5:22cd are thus not exhaustive, but illustrative. More precisely: together with murder, the naming of common swear words as relatively harmless expressions of anger serves to cover the range from the very mild to the most extreme expressions of anger. The words about anger in 5:22 thus show that the passage deals with the attitude that underlies the killing, and that the whole human being comes into view, not merely the external action (whether “trivial” or “serious”). However, if 5:22b is the premise on which 21c and 22cd is based, Matthew here focuses attention not on anger as an inner emotion as though it were not manifested in social conduct. Rather, anger is dealt with in its social dimension, in the sense of concrete behavior. The ethical demand articulated in 5:22 is thus still radical, but it is a bit more realistic than when 5:22 is understood as a climactic series. Negative emotions directed against a person can surface in a person. But in a good case, one can handle it. No action necessarily emerges from such anger, even if it is “only” that a swear word slips out. The talk of “brother” here, as in 5:23–24, is not restricted to family members (see, e.g., 4:18, 21), nor is it used in a narrow ecclesial sense (as in 12:50; 18:15, 21, 35; 23:8; 28:10), since “sanhedrin” does not indicate a specific churchly context (again, cf. the usage in 5:23–24 and even in 5:25–26). Rather, “brother” here means in principle every human being (cf. 7:3–5; 25:40) and is thus to be read as an appellative signal that emphasizes the bond with other members of the human family. In tradition-historical terms, it is to be noted that as the context of 5:22, there is often a connection between anger and the way one speaks (Pss. Sol. 16:10; Col 3:8; Jas 1:19–20), and especially between anger and murder (Ps.-Phoc. 57–58; T. Dan 1.3–8). Sirach 22:24 sees insulting speech as the prelude to bloodshed: “The vapor and smoke of the furnace precede the fire; so insults precede bloodshed.” The reference in Didache 3.2a is also relevant: “Do not be angry, for anger leads to murder,” especially since the warning is in a series of sayings oriented to the Decalogue. The difference from Matthew 5, however, is that the Didache warns against anger so that one will not transgress the law—in accord with the motto to “nip it in the bud.” But for Matthew, angry behavior itself, even in the form of relatively harmless verbal injuries, is understood as already a violation of the Decalogue’s prohibition of killing. Another

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

83

“building block” from the history of tradition is thus to be drawn in here, namely that in ancient Judaism, too, a broad understanding of “killing” is documented. Thus in Philo’s interpretation of the Torah, in his tractate on the Decalogue and in the four books On the Special Laws, he seeks to subsume all individual commandments under the Ten Commandments. Under the commandment against killing he places all the laws “relating to acts of violence, to insults, to assaults, to wounds, to mutilation” (Philo, Decalogue 170). In addition, “killing” is understood in a broad sense in 2 Enoch 10.5 and Sirach 34.25–27, where failure to help and withholding wages is equated with “killing.” To be sure, there is no explicit reference to the Decalogue, but these texts still illustrate the semantic expansion that the concept of killing has undergone in the ethical reflection of early Judaism. The closest content to Matthew 5:22 comes from Derek Eretz Rabbah 11.15, where Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (end of first, beginning of second century CE) says in reference to Deuteronomy 19:11, “Who hates his neighbor belongs to those who shed blood” (cf. 1 John 3:15). If one surveys such references, it can be stated that in Matthew 5:21–22 the evangelist has creatively combined different lines of traditions, namely the broad understanding of the Sixth Commandment, the combining of murder and anger and the connection of anger and speech behavior, and thus developed an especially concise and sharp interpretation of the Sixth Commandment that is much more than setting a minimal standard that prohibits (intentional) murder.

Now as we have seen, 5:22b–d takes on the form of law from 5:21c. In the thesis of 5:21, the command prohibiting murder was related to its merely literal understanding in the context of (human) jurisprudence. But, if one sees that the prohibition itself includes even purely verbal forms of aggression against others, then it is simply inappropriate as the basis of a human legal system. The level of a practical earthly juridical system is obviously left behind in 5:22. However, Jesus’ counterthesis in his explication, even though it begins with the “ judgment” (5:22b) of an earthly court (5:22c), transcends this with the varying repetition of 5:22c in 5:22d: for Matthew, the judgment on which it actually depends, is the judgment of God. It is in the horizon of this forum that instructions about the Law of God are to be considered. As a standard of divine judgment, the law set by God against killing cannot be limited to murder, which necessarily implies a mandatory earthly trial. Rather, in the divine judgment one will be held accountable for every aggression against others as a violation against God’s law, for included in the prohibition of killing, God has made every outburst of anger against a fellow human being subject to punishment. [23–24] With the addition of 5:23–24 and 5:25–26, Matthew goes a step further, in that he translates the radical interpretation of the command against murder into positive instructions of settling quarrels and striving for reconciliation. In 5:23–24, he elaborates on a case that touches on a necessary ethical qualification of those who participate in the cult (e.g., Pss 15; 24:3–6; negatively,

84

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

e.g., Sir 34:21–34). At the same time, the scene in 5:23–24 points out the categorical subordination of cultic matters to interpersonal relationships. This is a Matthean leitmotif, placarded twice by his citation of Hosea 6:6 (Matt 9:13; 12:7; cf. further, e.g., Isa 58:1–8; Prov 21:3). When one is making an offering at the altar and there remembers that “your brother has something against you,” one must first seek reconciliation with the “brother.” For Matthew, true worship of God manifests itself in social behavior (cf. Jas 1:26–27): whoever worships God seeks reconciliation and peace among God’s creatures. Differently from 5:21–22, in 5:23–24 the concern is not with the anger of those being instructed, but the negative attitude that other people may have against those who are hearing Jesus’ instruction. All the details of the conflict remain open. Thus there is no explanation of the extent to which the hard feelings of the other person has been caused by some failure of those Jesus is now instructing, for example, the result of a previous insult (5:22). It is precisely through this lack of specification that the admonition to be reconciled appears as a fundamentally valid principle. The conclusion makes it clear that, although cultic worship is subordinated to interpersonal reconciliation, it is by no means denied in principle that, after reconciliation, one should go and make the offering (5:24). [25-26] Verses 25–26 continue to address the issue of overcoming a conflictual relationship. The situation now in view is a legal process involving debt. At first, Jesus’ instruction here sounds like a piece of pragmatic wisdom: the debtor has a vital interest in reaching an out-of-court settlement before the matter is tried before the court, with its threat of a guilty verdict (presupposing Roman legal procedures; imprisonment for debtors is foreign to Jewish law). However, being frightened by a legal threat is here transparent to the actual theme, the judgment of God (cf. 5:22). On the way to court (cf. 7:13–14), in view of the “debts” one has incurred with others (cf. 6:12b), one should do everything possible to come to an understanding, i.e., to overcome the hostility and achieve reconciliation. The command to love one’s enemies will later explicate this more thoroughly (5:43–48). The urgency of reconciliation is pictured through the brief time on the way to court. Those who do not make use of this time will have to “pay” the last penny (the quadrans is the smallest Roman coin; cf. 18:34). II.4.3.2.2 Second Antithesis: Adultery (5:27–30)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you: everyone (pas ho) who looks at a (married) woman in order to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 But if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! For it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and 27

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

85

throw it away! For it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.” As in 5:21–26, here, too, the actual antithesis (5:27–28) is provided with a supplement (5:29–30), again noticeable in that the form changes to secondperson singular. While 5:27–28 is Matthew’s special material, the logia of vv. 29–30 are paralleled in Mark 9:43– 47, which Matthew—in close dependence on his Markan source—also takes up in 18:8–9. It is thus worth considering that we have here a double tradition from Matthew and Q, with 18:8–9 derived from the Markan text, but here following Q (Luke would then have omitted the Q version, just as he omits Mark 9:43– 47). In this case, the second antithesis would be composed in a way similar to the first, by the addition of Q material to his special material. [27–28] Differently from 5:21, the thesis in 5:27 refers only to the short command from the Decalogue. Accordingly, the reference in 5:28 to the command from the Decalogue is formally different from that of 5:22. While v. 22 takes up the interpretative legal clause attached to the Decalogue command in 21c, v. 28 picks up on the verb of the prohibition, “commit adultery,” and defines what (already) falls under it. The thrust of the second thesis, however, functions very much like the first. It is not a matter of extending the scope of the command itself, but of overcoming a narrow or even literalistic understanding of the command, which in 5:27–28 becomes recognizable in the counterthesis. The definition of what constitutes adultery given in v. 28 implies an interpretation of the command as its counterpart, according to which adultery only occurs when one has intercourse with another (married) woman. This understanding, which in the light of v. 28 is presupposed in the thesis, disregards everything below this threshold. Jesus, however, starts with the look that already signals sexual intentions. In the light of the recourse to Decalogue command in 5:27, it is evident that the woman of 5:28 can only be the wife of another. Verse 28 thus refers neither to initiating relationships between lovers nor to the sex life of married couples. The subject is respecting the relationships of others. For a closer understanding, it is of central importance to note the Greek infinitive construction, translated above with “in order to lust for her,” is not consecutive “with the result that he desires her,” but is to be understood as a purpose infinitive, as the Matthean analogies to this construction make clear (6:1; 13:30; 23:5; 26:12). Thus 5:28 does not address the case in which looking at a woman arouses sexual desire (cf. Sus 7–8 LXX/Theod.; Prov 6:25 LXX; T. Reu. 3:9–10), but is about looking at a married woman with a covetous intention. Already with this look—irrespective of whether the gaze has “success” or not, whether or not the coveted woman

86

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

notices and responds positively to it—the fact of the matter is that adultery is already present, for in the look it becomes clear that the man in his inner self has already willingly decided to commit adultery. Analogous to the anger of 5:22, here too the reference to the heart means the whole person, along with his inner disposition, is involved in the act (on the “heart,” see above on 5:8). At the same time, the focus on the lustful gaze lies on concrete behavior that puts the decision of the heart into effect. On the other hand, the case not discussed in v. 28, that looking at a woman triggers desire, is hardly to be considered “committing adultery with her in one’s heart.” Here, there is still the option of being the master of one’s “desire,” so that it does not become a decision and action of the “heart” or decision of the “will,” which, given the opportunity, results in a corresponding act. The covetous look, on the other hand, is already proof that lust has taken possession of the heart. In the light of the parallel to 5:22b, introducing the counterthesis with “everyone + participle (in Greek),” it is to be taken into consideration that in v. 28 too, it is the word “everyone” that is to be emphasized. Not only the one whose lustful gaze finally leads to the adulterous sex act is guilty of adultery, but everyone who looks at another woman with such an intent is guilty of adultery. The inclusion of the covetous, lustful gaze in reflecting on sex ethics is also found in early Jewish texts. For example, the patriarch Issachar, in a declaration of his own innocence, says, “I have not had intercourse with any woman other than my wife, nor was I promiscuous by lustful look” (T. Iss. 7:2; cf. also T. Benj. 6:3; 8:2). Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 23 (on Lev 18:3) states succinctly, “Even the one who breaks his marriage with his eyes is to be called an adulterer.” It is to be noted that Matthew 5:28 is directed only to men. One can consider this as an androcentric perspective. But it can also be noted that this text attributes the role of the seducer to the man (cf., e.g., Pss. Sol. 4:4a, “His eyes are indiscriminately focused on every woman”), in contrast to the critical view of women typical of Jewish wisdom literature, which primarily casts women in this role (Prov 6:25; 7:4–27; Sir 26:9, 11 LXX; T. Reu. 5; T. Jos. 9:5; 4Q184 frag. 1.13–14). However, the leitmotif behind the extensive exposition of the Seventh Commandment is hardly the protection of women from the lustful gaze of men, but a radical understanding of the sanctity of marriage. This is seen not only in the connection of Jesus’ teaching with the prohibition of adultery, but also in the third antithesis that follows (5:31–32), which continues the adultery theme under the aspect of divorce.

[29–30] In the instruction that continues the actual antithesis, the saying about the eye—differently from Matthew 18:8–9, parallel to Mark 9:43–47—is placed first, in order to connect directly to the saying about “looking” in v. 28. While for v. 28 the interpretation that the subject of the verse is that lust was caused by looking at the woman is to be rejected, in v. 29 Matthew addresses precisely this aspect. The instruction to tear out the eye (and to cut off the

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

87

hand) can hardly be taken literally; it is not a matter of recommending partial self-mutilation in order to save the whole person from the judgment of God (one would then have to ask how many unscathed people would have been left in Matthew’s church). What we have here is rather hyperbolic, metaphorical speech. “To tear out the eye” means simply turning away one’s gaze (cf. Sir 9:8–9) before lust takes over the disposition of the heart. This difference from v. 28 corresponds to the fact that the charge of adultery is not repeated, which in turn confirms the interpretation of v. 28. Verse 29 then deals with the stage that precedes v. 28. Correspondingly, being seduced by one’s hand can be paraphrased in the sense that desire emerges to touch someone else’s wife. Significantly, 5:30 makes no reference to the foot, unlike Matthew 18:8. The drastic metaphor of tearing out the eye and cutting off the hand—against the background of the threatening eschatological consequences—sharpens the meaning of the statement: if the actuality of adultery is already present when one casts an adulterous look on someone else’s wife, one must be careful to turn away immediately from situations in which such desires emerge. In contrast to such warnings as found in some other Jewish teaching (e.g., T. Reu. 3:10–12; 6:1–3), Jesus does not speak of avoiding all contact between the sexes from the outset. To be noted and held on to: Jesus does not consider only the actual sex act with the wife of another to be a violation of the Seventh Commandment, for an adequate understanding of the commandment itself includes all the actions that lead up to it, including the “disposition of the heart” that generates the act (cf. 15:19). This is the only way to do justice to the deeper and actual intention of the command. Verses 29–30 add instruction on how to avoid the heart’s being overcome by lust: as soon as desire arises, one must consistently turn away. Analogously to 5:22, this goes far beyond the realm that earthly courts are able to deal with. Again, the courtroom that matters is the courtroom of God’s judgment. II.4.3.2.3 Third Antithesis: Divorce (5:31–32)

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone (pas ho) who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, forces her into adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” 31

[31] The introductory phrase to the thesis is abbreviated because of the direct connection with 5:27–28. The thesis takes up the issue of a certificate of divorce (cf. Deut 24:1– 4) as an element in a regular divorce case. Josephus documents that this could be understood as a “commandment” (Josephus, Ant. 4.253). The thesis corresponds verbatim to the objection of the Pharisees in Matthew 19:7.

88

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

One will hardly go wrong to suppose that we have here the reflection of a debate in which Matthew’s community was engaged in dealing with its Pharisaic counterpart. By understanding a second marriage made possible by divorce to be a matter of committing adultery, the counterthesis takes a stance fundamentally opposed to divorce. The New Testament cites the divorce logion several times. Besides the Q version cited here (cf. Luke 16:18) and Mark 10:11–12 (paralleled in Matt 19:9), it also recurs in Paul (1 Cor 7:10–11). This multiple attestation clearly indicates that it goes back to Jesus himself. Matthew 5:32 presents it in a formulation peculiar to this Gospel which, apart from the “unchastity” clause, could be the oldest form of the tradition. Only the husband had the legal right to divorce, which corresponds to the contemporary Jewish law of the land. When the woman who has been released (re-)marries, this is a violation of her first marriage, which, according to Jesus (see on 19:3–12), is still in force. That is to say, divorce forces the woman into adultery, since in the prevailing social conditions of that time, she had to be vitally interested in remarrying. So also, in the second case (5:32), adultery is considered a violation of the marriage of the first husband of the one who has been divorced, the complementary case to the previous one concerned with the man who becomes an adulterer by marrying a divorced woman. The ruling in 19:9 then covers the case of a man who, in the event of remarriage, violates his first marriage. It is obvious that in 5:32 (and 19:9) Jesus takes a different direction from Deuteronomy 24:1– 4, which clearly presupposes the legitimacy of divorce (and remarriage) without any question. By introducing the exception clause, which he also inserts in a slightly different form in 19:9, Matthew, however, does not directly contradict Deuteronomy 24. In the case of unchastity, the instruction to issue a certificate of divorce retains its significance, but regulating this procedure must not obscure the prior question of whether divorce as such is legitimate. Since the theses in 5:21– 48 are to be understood as sketching the scribes’ and Pharisees’ inadequate understanding of the Torah (see above in the introduction to 5:21– 48), they are here implicitly charged with dealing only with procedural questions. Matthew does not respond with an absolute prohibition of divorce, but he restricts the legitimacy of a divorce to cases of unchastity (cf. 19:3–12), thereby offering a strict interpretation of the “something objectionable” given in Deuteronomy as grounds for divorce (see on Matt 19:3). According to ancient Jewish understanding of the law, in such cases divorce is not only permitted, but required (cf., e.g., t. Soṭah 5.9; b. Giṭ. 90b), because through union with another man the woman has become ritually unclean to her husband (cf. Jub. 33.7; T. Reu. 3.15; 1QGenAp 20.15; see also Matt 1:19). In view of Matthew’s stance toward the Torah, it is fundamentally important in the interpretation of

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

89

Matthew 5:32 that the question of divorce and remarriage is dealt with under the aspect of adultery, which means that what is at issue is keeping one of the central commands of the Torah. The option of divorce and remarriage—except in a case of unchastity—is therefore categorically denied, because on the basis of the underlying understanding of marriage, this results in violation of the will of God expressed in the Seventh Commandment. Verse 32 thus continues the radical interpretation of the prohibition of adultery in 5:27–30. II.4.3.2.4 Fourth Antithesis: Oaths (5:33–37)

“Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not commit perjury, but fulfill the oaths you have sworn to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King! 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this is from evil.” 33

Matthew is the only Gospel that contains the prohibition against swearing, but there is a parallel in James 5:12, whose parenetic form is more primitive than the antithesis form found in Matthew. Reclothing the saying in antithetical form, thereby beginning the statement with the thesis, is thus secondary. It is possible, but by no means certain, that the prohibition of swearing comes from Jesus. James 5:12 does not cite it as a saying of the Lord. The thesis does not present a verbatim citation of an Old Testament command, but has a pentateuchal basis in such texts as Leviticus 19:12 (for 5:33b, cf. also, e.g., Zech 8:17), Numbers 30:3, and Deuteronomy 23:22 (for 5:33c). The close parallels to 5:33b in Pseudo-Phocylides 16 (“Do not perjure yourself, neither knowingly nor deliberately!”) and in Didache 2.3 indicate that the warning against perjury was at home in contemporary Torah parenesis, and thus point to this as the historical context of 5:33b. Verse 33c is particularly close to Psalm 50:14, but it speaks only of “vows,” while Matthew, striving for a thematically uniform counterpart to the prohibition of swearing in the thesis, also speaks of oaths in 5:33c. Perjury (and vows that have not been carried out) are regarded not only from the point of view of their social dimension as offenses against fellow human beings, but at the same time, above all as offenses against God, because God’s name is profaned (Lev 19:12). On this basis, the Third Commandment of Exodus 20:7, which forbids the misuse of God’s name, could become the central reference point for the theme of oath violations in early Judaism (Philo, Decalogue 82–95, 157) or even be paraphrased as a ban on false or trivial oaths, as documented not only in Philo (Spec. Laws 2.224) and

90

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

Josephus (Ant. 3.91), but also Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Onq. on Exodus 20:7. The explication of the prohibition of oaths in Matthew 5:34a in 5:34b–35 makes it clear that the fourth antithesis is also to be included in this line of tradition. It should also be noted in this context that the ethical discussion of antiquity includes significant tendencies critical of swearing oaths, which at the same time seem to reflect a social context in which oaths in everyday life were used in an almost inflationary manner (cf. Philo, Decalogue 92; or the warning in Sir 23:9–11). Critical voices, as well as outright rejection of oaths, are at home not only in “pagan” philosophical ethics (e.g., Epictetus, Ench. 33.5), but also in early Judaism. Josephus even mentions that the Essenes rejected in principle the swearing of oaths (Josephus, War 2.135; cf. Philo, Good Person 84), which of course he means only in a restricted sense, since only a little later he refers to their entrance oath (2.139; cf. 1QS 5.8). The rejection of oaths as such thus probably refers only to everyday conversation. According to Philo, Decalogue 84–86, it would be best “not to swear at all, if people would learn to be so true in every statement that all their words could be considered oaths,” but still and all, the “second best way” would be to be true to what one swears. The prohibition of all oaths in Matthew 5 is related to these tendencies and develops them into a categorical rejection of all swearing. Here too (at least), the (primary) reference point is to be seen in everyday communication.

Regarded in the context of the series of antitheses, the embedding of the ban on oaths in the history of tradition sketched here—entirely in line with the sense of the opening words to this section in 5:17–20—illustrates that in its ancient Jewish context there is no criticism of the Torah here, but these words are to be understood as taking a decisive position in the Torah-oriented ethical discourse of Judaism. The emphasis does not fall on a criticism of the Torah to the extent that it permits the swearing of oaths to which one faithfully adheres. Since, in the series of antitheses, the theses are intended to represent the way the Torah commands are interpreted by the scribes and Pharisees (5:20), the criticism is rather directed against their minimalist understanding bound to the letter of the law, insisting on the truthfulness of sworn testimony and the reliability of promises vowed under oath, instead of revealing the claim behind these procedures, that all human speech should be truthful and reliable. The intention of the prohibition of swearing to what is false (Lev 19:12), or taking an oath for something that is unlawful (Lev 19:12 LXX), is not, of course, to make room for some leeway for untruthfulness that is not covered by the oath! Conversely, the prohibition of oaths is aimed at positively excluding graded levels of truth and reliability in human speech. [34b–35] The “heaven and earth” phrase in the oath-formula in 34b–35 is also found in James 5:12 (cf. also Philo, Spec. Laws 2.5), without, however, the grounding statements taken from Isaiah 66:1. The rationale for the third phrase, “by Jerusalem,” alluding to Psalm 48:3, also echoes Old Testament wording. In this way, too, it becomes clear that Matthew sees Jesus’ statement as fulfilling

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

91

the Torah and the Prophets. The common reference point of the three grounding statements in 5:34b–35ab is the concept of the kingdom of God. In this context, the three clauses have the function of pointing out that the substitute formulas provide no way out of the problem of profaning the name of God, because these expressions, too, refer to God. In addition to the demand for truth as itself an ethical commandment, this reinforces the function of the prohibition of oaths, which is essentially about preserving the holiness of God’s name (cf. 6:9). To use the name of God in an oath as a way of enhancing the truthfulness of the statement always points to an existing problem of truthfulness and to that extent draws God down into the sinful reality of a lack of human honesty and trustworthiness. Conversely, swearing oaths and vows are obsolete where God’s name is hallowed, where human acts are consistently determined by God’s will. [36] In verse 36, where Matthew again switches to the second-person singular (cf. 5:23–26, 29–30), he changes the perspective and adds that even swearing by one’s own head (cf. e.g., m. Sanh. 3.2; Vergil, Aen. 9.300) does not present an alternative. Speaking of white and black hair presumably is to conjure up images of age and youth. The majesty of the God who is enthroned in heaven is placed over against human impotence: an oath invoking one’s own head grabs at empty air for support, for one’s own life ultimately lies solely in God’s hands (cf. Matt 6:27). Implicitly, this once again points to God. [37] The “Yes, Yes” or “No, No” which, according to 5:37, is to replace swearing an oath, is not a formula that substitutes for the oath formula. The doubling of the word is a means of intensification: every yes should indeed be a yes, every no an unambiguous no. But where one supposes that the truthfulness of what is said must be reinforced by sworn oaths, as the final sentence emphasizes, the reality of evil is already manifest. II.4.3.2.5 Fifth Antithesis: Renunciation of Revenge (5:38– 42)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer, but to whomever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also! 40 And if anyone wants to take you to court and take your undergarment, give them your coat as well! 41 and whoever forces you into compulsory labor for one mile, go the second mile with them! 42 To the one who begs from you, give, and from the one who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away!” 38 39

As is the case with the second and third antitheses, the fifth and sixth have a close thematic connection. Both deal with behavior toward the enemy—in complementary ways. The fifth antithesis has in view the response to hostile behavior by the other person, the sixth calls for positive initiative, loving and

92

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

praying for the enemy, thus advancing to the viewpoint where one acts for the welfare of the enemy. In 5:38–48, Matthew takes up the thread of the inaugural sermon he has adopted from Q, from which he earlier has taken the Beatitudes in 5:3– 4, 6, 11–12, but there is already a serious difference from the parallel in Luke 6:27–36, which comes into view in the Matthean sequence of the sayings: the Lukan composition is framed by the commandment to love the enemy in v. 27 and v. 35; the sayings about renouncing retaliation in vv. 29–30 are set within this framework. Matthew’s composition contrasts with this, in that he has divided the instruction into two sections and redactionally arranged them with an antithetical thrust. The theses in 5:38 and 5:43 have been composed by Matthew, as foils for Jesus’ own instruction. [38–39a] By reformulating the tradition in the form of antitheses, Matthew places the admonitions taken from Q 6:29–30 in the context of the debate about the lex talionis found several times in the Torah (Exod 21:24–25; Lev 24:19–20; Deut 19:21; cf. in early Jewish tradition, e.g., 11QT 61.12). At first glance, there appears to be a direct contradiction between Jesus’ counterthesis and the Old Testament command. To go no further than this impression, however, has against it the clear declaration of 5:17–19. One can thus ponder, however, whether the point of the lex talionis is to be seen precisely in that the saying here calls for a limitation of retaliation—in contrast, for example, to the saying about retaliation seven or seventy-seven times in Genesis 4:24, to which Matthew 18:21–22 juxtaposes the demand to forgive seventy-seven fold. It could be added here that rabbinic interpretation includes an understanding of the lex talionis in the sense of financial compensation for damages (see the discussion in b. B. Qam. 83–84), already known to Josephus (Ant. 4.280). On this basis, the counterthesis can be understood: the critique of retaliation already found in the Torah is taken up and consistently carried forward. If the intention of the lex talionis is to place restraints on retaliation, or to cushion it by interpreting it in terms of financial compensation, the ultimate consequence would be to renounce retaliation altogether. It is another factor, however, that proves decisive. In the context of the Pentateuch’s legislation, the lex talionis is not about establishing measures for taking justice into one’s own hands, but about a principle for determining sentences in the courtroom. On the other hand, the counterthesis in Mathew 5:39–42 makes it clear that what is being discussed is the lex talionis as a rule for everyday life. If we are to read the thesis in the sense of 5:20, as an example of how the Law was understood by the scribes and Pharisees, i.e., the understanding of the Law that underlies their inadequate level of justice, then what is criticized here is taking the lex talionis as a principle of behavior in personal conflicts, as though every individual has the right to respond to experienced injustice with “appropriate” retaliation: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

93

[39b] In the counterthesis, Matthew has four cases as examples (5:39c– 42; cf. Luke 6:29–30) prefixed by a prohibitory clause in 5:39b, which he has formulated in connection with the prefixing of the thesis in 5:38. In itself, 5:39b is a relatively open formulation. In connection with v. 38, it is to be understood as the abrogation of the lex talionis as a rule for everyday life, especially since such a contextual interpretation is corroborated by the way the Greek text sounds when read aloud: the first syllable in the Greek verb anti-stēnai translated above as “resist” corresponds to the preposition in the phrase “an eye for (anti) an eye,” so that there is a direct connection with 5:38 to be recognized here. In accord with this, v. 39b then states that one should not resist the evildoer (“the evil” here is to be understood as referring to a person) by repaying in the same coin. The rejection of the principle of repaying evil with evil is already found in Old Testament wisdom literature (Prov 20:22; 24:29), and continues in the writings of early Judaism (e.g., 2 En. 50:4; Ps.-Phoc. 77; 1QS 10.17–18), and is condensed in Joseph and Aseneth to an ethical principle: it is not appropriate for those who fear God to repay evil with evil (Jos. Asen. 23:9; 28:5; cf. also 28:10, 14). Matthew takes up this critical evaluation of the impulse toward retaliation that was already present in Judaism (cf. in the New Testament Rom 12:17; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9). A noteworthy characteristic is that this is directly connected with the lex talionis or, more precisely: connected with the criticism of carrying over the lex talionis into the realm of everyday conduct. [39c–41] The profile of a contextual interpretation of 5:39b is sharpened when one notices that the command not to resist evil cannot be interpreted in isolation from the examples given in 5:39c– 41, which are positive instructions that follow the prohibitory clause in 5:39b. The relation of 5:39b and 5:39c– 41 is not that of a basic principle illustrated by concrete examples. Such an interpretation would have to note that the principle and individual cases do not fit together very well, since 5:39c– 41 is by no means merely a renunciation of resistance. Rather, what we have are negative and positive statements, namely negation of the lex talionis and positive examples of an alternative kind of behavior. The examples Matthew gives thus illustrate that 5:39b is concerned with something more, and something different, from mere passive acceptance of injustice. The victims do not remain passive, but provocatively offer themselves to “the evil one,” allowing the unjust treatment to continue. In particular, as Matthew lets the issues come into view in verses 40 and 41, he has in mind of concrete situations of those who are socially oppressed, for whom retaliation cannot realistically represent a serious option. In 5:40—differently from the parallel in Luke 6:29b, where an attack by thieves is in view—what is involved is a court procedure involving the seizure of one’s property: the opponent in

94

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

the courtroom who seeks to take the undergarment by legal action is to be voluntarily offered the outer garment as well. In 5:41, the third example (not found in Luke), pictures the case of being forced into service against one’s will. The first example that comes to mind for the Matthean reader is the compulsory service that Roman soldiers could demand of local residents (cf. 27:32, where the same verb is found). In the light of vv. 40 and 41, it is also likely that the victim of the blow (cf. Isa 50:6) in v. 39c is a socially inferior person. By the provocative response of voluntarily turning the other cheek, the socially inferior person changes the situation. The passive object of injustice becomes the acting subject and thus regains a measure of independent sovereignty and dignity. Even if the aggressor is not stimulated by the victim’s “compliance” to pause and think over his behavior, but has the unscrupulousness to accept the “invitation,” the constellation of the event has fundamentally changed compared to the first blow. Likewise, the offer to go the second mile in v. 41 changes the situation. This one is voluntary. That here the response has in view provoking the opponent to rethink his or her actions is especially suggested by the second case: those who make a point of also giving up the coat are naked and defenseless against the cold, thus provocatively demonstrating how the conduct of the economically powerful is “a matter of life and death” for the oppressed. Moreover, the legal seizure of a person’s coat is forbidden by the Torah (Exod 22:25–26; Deut 24:12–13); the opponent may not legally take away one’s coat. The action thus takes on the character of a “symbolic act,” that asks what kind of (moral) legitimacy can lie behind the supposedly legal conduct of the powerful, in this way appealing to creditors to reconsider their behavior toward the poor—and to change it. [42] The theme and perspective changes in v. 42 (par. Luke 6:30). Now it is a matter of acts of charity, in v. 42a in the giving money to help the needy, v. 42b in the sense of granting loans. Now, it is property owners who come in view. In the context of vv. 38– 42, at first glance, this verse looks like a foreign body. The element of counter provocation characteristic of 5:39c– 41 is lacking, and Matthew hardly intends to present every beggar as an evil person (5:39). Did Matthew not omit the Q saying here only because the theme was important to him as 6:19–24 shows, and maybe because he wanted to prepare for 6:2– 4? But a connection with the present context can also be seen, inasmuch as v. 42 also applies to those who have previously been hostile: instead of repaying them for their evil doings, one should not fail to help them when they are in need. So understood, v. 42 is at the same time a good transition to the command to love one’s enemies.

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

95

II.4.3.2.6 Sixth Antithesis: Love of Enemies (5:43– 48)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what is special about that? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” 43

For the compositional rearrangement of Q 6:27–36, see the information given above in section II.4.3.2.5. In 5:43– 48, thesis (v. 43) and counterthesis (vv. 44– 45) are expanded by the formation of parallel rhetorical questions in vv. 46– 47 and the concluding exhortation in v. 48. [43–44] As in 5:38(– 42), here, too, Matthew has secondarily related the Q material to the interpretation of a Torah command; thereby the command to love the neighbor was the obvious choice. Since Matthew introduces this command in 19:19 and 22:39– 40 without explaining or correcting the concept of “neighbor” as the main point of the Torah’s teaching, it is evident that for Matthew the command to love one’s enemy does not imply any criticism of the scope of the command in Leviticus 19:18. Thus, for Matthew, the contrasting of neighbor and enemy was not included in the command itself, but is the misunderstanding of other teachers, namely the scribes and Pharisees (5:20), and it is only in this sense that it is included in the misinterpretation presupposed in 5:43– 44. In the light of the examples in 5:46– 47, it thereby becomes clear that the restrictive understanding of neighbor assumed here does not refer to a presumed limitation of the scope of the command within an inner-Jewish context (cf., e.g., Tob 4:13; Jub. 36:4, 8; 46.1; CD 6.20–21). It is more concerned with the limitation of love to those from whom one receives love, and thus to their own group (cf., e.g., Sir 13:15). Verse 43 accuses the scribes and Pharisees of something like this, that they flank their definition of the neighbor by teaching that one should also hate the enemy. An emotional understanding of “hate” is no more in the foreground than in the understanding of “love.” To “hate the enemy” means denying them support or, in extreme cases, even directly harming them. The thesis in 5:43 is thus in fact nothing more or less than a variation of the maxim of popular ethics to do good to one’s friends but to hurt the enemy (e.g., Plato, Meno 71e, etc.), formulated in biblical language. The closest parallel to v. 43 in early Judaism is to be found in Qumran (see 1QS 1.3, 9–10; 9.21–23).

96

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

By beginning the command to love the enemy with v. 43 as an explicit interpretation of Leviticus 19:18, in v. 44 Matthew unites with it a programmatic, principled definition of “neighbor”: even the enemy is to be loved. This understanding is in fact in accord with Leviticus itself, in that the original context of the love commandment (Lev 19:17–18) is the overcoming of breaks in the relationship with other people that they have caused. Instead of holding the evil done by others against them, paying them back in kind, or continuing to bear a grudge against them in one’s heart, one should rather correct them and, even beyond that, “love them as you love yourself,” being as concerned with their welfare as with one’s own life, which is here taken for granted. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Joseph’s response to his brothers who wanted to kill him and sold him into slavery is stylized as a model of such love that does not harbor resentment (T. Sim. 4:4; T. Zeb. 8:4– 6; T. Jos. 17). We may place alongside these those texts in which, without the general concept of “love” being used, concrete good deeds for the enemy are called for (Exod 23:4–5; Prov 25:21–22; on Exod 23:4–5 see Philo’s exposition, Virtues 116–118; Q.E. 2.11; and in Ps.-Phoc. 140–142). Compared to these, Matthew sets his own accents insofar as his call for love is fundamental and universal. In v. 44b, the plural and reference to persecutors should be especially noted (cf. 5:10–12), for they make it clear that it is not only the personal “enemy” who is in view (cf. 5:41). While the admonition to love the enemy is concerned with concrete acts of caring for the lives of others in the sense of helpful actions, v. 44b also includes prayer in one’s care for them (cf. T. Jos. 18:2). Along with all the (unfair) polemic that Matthew launches against the Pharisees, there is still no reason to conclude that the church did not include them in their prayers. In Matthew’s own perspective, the harsh disqualification of opponents serves to protect others from what, in his own opinion, is the soteriologically catastrophic consequences of their influence (see, e.g., 23:13). Nonetheless, one should pray for them. [45] Verse 45 connects love of enemies with the promise of becoming sons of God. In light of the Beatitude of 5:9, this is to be read as an eschatological promise. Sonship is the eschatological “reward” (vv. 46– 47), which is denied to those who only do good to their peers. The connection between 5:9 and 5:44–45 by the motif of divine sonship suggests that, for Matthew, love of enemies and being peacemakers interpret each other (see on 5:9). The continuation of v. 45 explains why those who do good to their enemies are sons of God: God himself causes the sun to rise on bad and good alike (cf. Ps 145:9; Seneca, Ben. 4.26.1), and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. The admonition to love without discrimination both the “good neighbor” and the “bad enemy” is thus theologically anchored in God’s own love for humanity and identified as imitation of God. While Luke 6:35—corresponding to its reference to

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

97

enemies as the only addressees of love—mentions only the negative designations of the “ungrateful and wicked,” the Matthean contrasting pairs “good/ evil” and “righteous/unrighteous” corresponds to the way the practice of the love command overcomes the tendency to split others into the two groups of “neighbors” and “enemies”: the Creator demonstrates that he makes no distinction in his benefits, and those who offer love to others without discrimination are like God. The Son of God motif here includes this correspondence motif. [46–47] In vv. 46– 47 the command to love one’s enemies is disconnected from doing good to others oriented to a reciprocity principle, the soteriological consequence of which is indicated by the rhetorical question of v. 46, “What reward do you have?” Those who only do good on this principle have already received their reward, when they have been repaid in this world, and can expect nothing from God. The variation of the question, “What is special (perisson, surpassing expectations) about that?” in v. 47 refers to the demand made on the disciples in 5:20 that their righteousness must go far beyond that of the scribes and Pharisees (perriseusē). In order to distinguish the disciples’ behavior from that of the tax collectors and Gentiles (always evaluated negatively in Matthew; cf. 18:17), this reference also implies that distinguishing the conduct here called for from that of the scribes and Pharisees, which has influenced the whole series of antitheses, is again brought into play. In fact, here the behavior attributed to the Pharisees in the thesis of 5:43 places them on a par with the tax collectors and Gentiles. [48] The concept of the imitation of God, already the basis of v. 45, is emphatically underscored by the conclusion in v. 48. While Luke 6:36 commands mercy, probably an authentic reflection of the Q original, Matthew’s editorializing speaks of perfection (cf. 19:21). The motif of the imitation of God (cf. Lev 19:2, as well as, e.g., Let. Aris. 208–210) is thus, in comparison with Q, more axiomatic and, at the same time, given more weight than in the Q version. The command in v. 48 thus appears not only as the final point of the sixth antithesis, but as the summarizing conclusion of the series of antitheses as such, climaxed by the interpretation of the love command in 5:43–47. The admonition to be perfect (cf. Deut 18:13; 1QS 3.9–10; Jas 1:4) brings to a focused point what is expressed in 5:20 with the motif of the “better righteousness.” Correspondingly, the concept of “being perfect” includes, among other elements, the radical practice of the Decalogue commands in 5:21–32 against murder and adultery—and indeed the indiscriminate love for all people, following the example of the goodness of the Creator God. The one whose love (also) embraces the enemy practices the love command perfectly and thereby imitates God.

98

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

Since Matthew 5–7 unfurls what it means to repent in view of the nearness of the kingdom (4:17), it is necessary to keep in mind that, in addition to the aspect of creation theology of 5:45, in which the command to love the enemy is based on the demonstration of the boundless goodness of God, the dawning of God’s kingdom is part of the context for this command. The “gospel of the kingdom” (4:23; 9:35) implies the gracious care of God that includes especially the sinners, just as it characterizes the way Jesus lives his own life. With the call to repentance, even such sinners have the opportunity to make a fresh start. Loving the enemy can be seen here as corresponding to the unconditional love of God for humanity, the God whose search for the lost opens a new future for them. This way of setting the loving care of God and the command of the disciples to love corresponds to the fundamental idea of the imitation of God in 5:43– 48. II.4.3.3 Righteousness Not for the Purpose of Being Seen by Others (6:1–18)

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before human beings in order to be admired by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So whenever you [sg.] give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by human beings. Amen I tell you, they already have received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left (hand) know what your right one is doing, 4 so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you (for it). 5 “And whenever you [pl.] pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by human beings. Amen I say to you, they have already received their reward. 6 But whenever you [sg.] pray, go into your room and, after you have shut the door, pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you (for it). 7 “When you [pl.] are praying, do not babble on as the Gentiles do. They think, in fact, that they will be heard because of their torrent of words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 “Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. 10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our bread for tomorrow. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And do not bring us into temptation, but rescue us from evil. 14 “For if you [pl.] forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive other human beings, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. 1

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

99

“Whenever you [pl.] fast, do not put on a sullen face, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show human beings that they are fasting. Amen I say to you, they have already received their reward. 17 As for you [sg.], when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 so that your fasting may be seen not by human beings, but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you (for it).” 16

The basic structure of this section, composed of Matthew’s special material, is formed by an admonition of three strophes (6:2– 4; 5– 6; 16–18), based on three elementary themes of Jewish piety: almsgiving, prayer, and fasting (cf. Tob 12:8, “Prayer with fasting is good, but better than both is almsgiving with righteousness”). In each of the three strophes, a negative introduction stands antithetically over against positive instruction. They follow a fixed formal scheme rather strictly: the introductory statement of the situation or theme is followed by a prohibition or command, concluded by a third element that states the intention (“so that . . .”). On the deviation from this form in the final clause of v. 6, see commentary below. At the end, the consequences are given in each case. The evangelist has prefaced this three-strophic arrangement with a statement of the basic principle in 6:1, which is rightly generally regarded as a formation of the evangelist. He then extended the second strophe devoted to prayer by adding vv. 7–15, so that the prayer thematic clearly receives the emphasis in his composition of 6:1–18 (see also 7:7–11). It is also to be noticed that the theme of almsgiving is directly continued in 6:19–24 (see further 19:21; 25:35; [26:9]). Likewise, 6:7–8 belongs to Matthew’s special material, but there is a parallel to the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:2– 4 (see also Did. 8.2). In addition to knowing the Lord’s Prayer from his Q source, Matthew was certainly also familiar with it from the liturgical use in his congregational context. There is a distant parallel to 6:14–15 in Mark 11:25, but the Matthean doubled logion is not dependent on it. [1] Verse 1 has a kind of hinge function in the composition of the Sermon on the Mount. On the one hand, it takes up the speaking about “doing righteousness” of 5:20(– 48), and “before human beings” is reminiscent of 5:16. On the other hand, the criticism of situations in which one acts in order to be admired by other human beings introduces the leitmotif of 6:2– 6, 16–18. Depending on whether one reads 6:1 in the light of what precedes or what follows, there is a slight shifting of the accent. Regarded from the point of view of 5:16, the problem is not that the disciples already do their righteous deeds and are seen by other human beings—this is unavoidable in many cases, and according to 5:16, the disciples should let their light so shine that others may in fact see their good deeds. On the other hand, such acts should not be done with the intention

100

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

of being admired by others. The common translation of “to be seen by them” overlooks the fact that Matthew does not here use the usual verb for “see,” but a verb that means “to look on with interest, to admire” (theaomai). As 5:20– 48 outlines the content of the kind of righteousness required of disciples, so now he brings to bear the aspect of attitude and intention: such works must not be driven by the intention that one is seeking social recognition from them. Moreover, the composition of 6:2– 6, 16–18 in which the contrast between “public/hidden” emerges as the leitmotif, shows further that there are actions in which the intention of improving one’s reputation can only be credibly excluded if they are not done in public at all, but in secret (6:4, 6, 18). If one reads 6:1 in the light of the religious rules that follow, the problem is already present in the fact that one’s own religious acts are publicly visible. To be sure, the shift of emphasis is not to be overstated; rather, the two perspectives are mutually supplementary. The injunction in 6:1 is the valid basic principle for all righteous deeds. No act may be guided by thinking of oneself and how one’s reputation may be enhanced by doing it. This means that some things do not belong in public view at all. As illustrations, and after already focusing on personal interactions in 5:21– 48, the practice of personal piety comes into the foreground in 6:2–18. The goal of all such actions is the praise of God. From this point of view, the injunctions of 6:1 and 5:16 are complementary. The phrase “in order to be admired by them” recurs verbatim in 23:5, in the charge against the scribes and Pharisees. Moreover, Matthew’s references to “hypocrites” (6:2, 5, 16) belong to his fixed inventory of anti-Pharisee polemics (15:7; 22:18; 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29, found elsewhere only in 7:5 and 24:51). Thus, without being limited to this application, the section 6:1–18 implicitly carries on the debate with the scribes and Pharisees begun in 5:20. The antithetical form in 5:21– 48 corresponds to its counterpart in 6:1–18, in that each is formed by a series of negative and positive elements. Thus the scribes and Pharisees, in addition to their inadequate understanding of the will of God (5:20– 48), are also charged with acting on the basis of bad motives: when they give alms, fast, or pray, they are only thinking of their own reputation. The reward motif at the end of 6:1 not only links the verse with the preceding (5:11–12, 46– 47), but also is taken up in the consequences expressed in the negative element of the three strophes of 6:1–18 (vv. 2, 5, 16). [2–4] Charity (i.e., almsgiving) occupies an important place in the whole tradition of Jewish ethical instruction (e.g., Sir 7:10; 35:2; Tob 1:3, 16; 12:89; T. Job 9:8). The combination with fasting and prayer in Matthew 6 makes clear that in Matthew’s view, gracious concern for the neighbor is counted as worship (cf. Prov 14:31; Jas 1:26–27). This corresponds to his interpretation of acts of mercy as service to Christ in 25:31–46. The problem addressed in 6:2,

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

101

that giving to charity redounds to the praise of the giver, who dramatizes the act of giving, is relevant in every time and place. It was usual in antiquity, for instance, that benefactors perpetuated themselves in inscriptions. The picture of sounding trumpets is a caricature, not a report of actual practice. In the Greek sentence, the location “in the synagogues” does not modify the subject (“the hypocrites in the synagogues”), but the verb. It does not label all who worship in the synagogue as hypocrites, but, along with the streets, the synagogue is the preferred location where the hypocrites seek to be seen. The wording of the intention in 6:2, which deviates from 6:5 and 6:16, is probably to be attributed to the evangelist, who wanted to make an additional cross-reference to 5:16: the hypocrites’ goal is not that human beings join in praise of God, for they seek their own praise. Their hypocrisy thus consists in their pretense that they are acting in the service of God (or the neighbor), while in reality they have their own reputation in mind all the while. The result: they can expect no reward from God. Reward comes from the one who is served. If one serves God, one is rewarded by God. If the goal is to gain prestige, which means serving yourself, the reward is no more than the prestige gained. Over against such public display, in the positive part of each saying the private, unobserved character of one’s deeds becomes the leitmotif of this section. The caricature of sounding trumpets of v. 2 corresponds to the exaggerated formulation that the left hand should not know what the right hand is doing. To suppose that this means that one’s good deeds should be hidden even from oneself pushes the metaphor too far. It may still be implied, however, that one should not evaluate one’s own praiseworthy deeds, even to oneself, as “heroic,” but as a self-evident commitment by those who have the resources to help others, especially when seen in the theological perspective that one’s own share in all the good things of life are first and foremost to be seen as the gift of God. To put it in one sentence from an early Jewish didactic poem, “Share what God has given you with the needy” (Ps.-Phoc. 29). In the concluding promise of 6:4, this hiddenness of one’s gracious acts corresponds to what is said of God, who observes what is done in secret. When this promise (“he will reward you [for it]”) of heavenly reward is juxtaposed to the reward of 6:2, it is not a matter that one should merely calculate better but a matter of living one’s life entirely open to the divine reality. In particular, it should be noticed that the reward theme is not already present in the goal specified in v. 4a, but only in the concluding assurance of v. 4b. [5–6] Verses 5– 6 do not have in view the prayers of the gathered worshiping community, but private prayer at the three specified times of morning, noon, and evening, which Jesus warns are not to be misused by making them into a public display of one’s purported piety. The “room” into which one is to go

102

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

instead is either the storeroom in the house where one cannot be observed (cf. Luke 12:24) or a room in the inner part of the house (cf. Luke 12:3). Again, what we have here is striking, hyperbolic language. The usual form of expressing intention by a purpose clause is here replaced by the infinitive. Prayer is communion with God, for which the appropriate place is unobserved by other people (in 14:23, Jesus himself prays in solitude; see further, e.g., Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16). [7–8] The section about prayer is supplemented in vv. 7–8 by a warning against imitating the torrent of words characteristic of Gentile prayer. In view here is probably the long stringing together of names or predications for the deity (cf., e.g., Apuleius, Met. 11.2), of invocations to conjure up the presence and assistance of the deity. To this is contrasted the faith, that even before one prays, God already knows what one needs. Thus the passage is also about the right notion of God: as the caring “Father.” This title pervades the entire section 6:1–18. God always has the concerns of his own children in view. This does not mean that prayer is superfluous, but it does not require a lot of words and extravagant invocations to bring our needs before God. In this context, the Lord’s Prayer appears as a contrast to the endless babbling of Gentile prayers, or, said positively, as an example of a short prayer that is not unnecessarily verbose (cf. Eccl 5:2; Sir 7:14). As in 6:2– 6, 16–18, negative and positive examples are juxtaposed also in 6:7–8, 9–13. The Lord’s Prayer (6:9b–13)

The Lord’s Prayer has been transmitted in two different versions, Matthew 6:9–13 and Luke 11:2–4. The Lukan version not only has a shorter address, but also lacks the third petition and the second line of the sixth. Moreover, there are differences in the wording of the fourth and fifth petitions (in Matthew’s enumeration). The different wording is hardly to be explained by differing translations of the Aramaic original, for the fact that, in the petition for bread, Matthew and Luke use a word in common not documented prior to the Lord’s Prayer supports the assumption that both versions go back to a common Greek translation. The general rule should then probably be that the wording is better preserved by Matthew, while Luke, in view of his shorter version, is closer to the original extent. There are no compelling reasons to suppose that the differences in wording, taken as a whole, are to be explained by developments in the tradition in the Greek-speaking congregations prior to the evangelists (or free variations in the prayer). In any case, we cannot rule out the possibility that Luke himself has made modifications in the traditional prayer. On the other hand, it is probable that the additional material in the Matthean petitions were already part of the liturgical version used in the Matthean context. The Matthean version can be divided into three you-petitions and three we-petitions;

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

103

this distinction is underscored by the “on earth as it is in heaven” in v. 10c. The Matthean additions are in each case found at the end of subsections. With minor variations in the address and in the fifth petition, the version found in Didache 8.2 stands in the tradition of Matthew 6:9–13. [9] Jesus’ address to God as Father takes up a way of speaking to God found in other Jewish prayers (e.g., Sir 23:1, 4; Tob 13:4; 3 Macc 6:3, 8; Apocr. Ezek. frag. 3; 4Q372 frag. 1.16; 4Q460 frag. 5.1, 5), which he brought to the center in a way that is characteristic of his understanding of God: the address “Father” is not flanked by other divine names (differently 11:25). The occurrence of the Aramaic word “Abba” in Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6, and Mark 14:36 should probably be regarded as distinctive of Jesus’ own way of speaking of God, especially in the Lord’s Prayer. “Abba” is a vocative status emphaticus, which in Jesus’ time simply meant “father” (cf. Luke 11:2). Further research has made the thesis that “abba” is babytalk used by small children now outdated. Nevertheless, it remains true that, by teaching his disciples to address God in prayer with “(our) Father,” the loving kindness and active care of God is placed in the foreground, echoing the sentiment already found in 6:8. The sequence of the first two petitions corresponds closely to the Kaddish, a Jewish prayer that probably dates back to the time before 70 CE, which begins with “Magnified and sanctified be his great name in the world which he hath created according to his will. May he establish his kingdom during your life and during your days, and during the life of all the house of Israel, even speedily and at a near time.” This analogy can hardly be understood otherwise than as an intentional reference to the Kaddish (on the correlation of the first two petitions, however, see also Ps 145 and Pss. Sol. 5). The passive formulation of the first you-petition, “hallowed be your name,” does not explicitly indicate who is the subject that causes God’s name to be sanctified. The Old Testament speaks of God himself as the one who sanctifies his name (Ezek 36:22–23; 38:23; 39:7), as well as human beings who cause God’s name to be sanctified (Isa 29:23; Deut 32:51; cf. also e.g., Exod 20:7; Lev 22:32; 1 En. 61:12). If human beings are considered the subject of the action in the Lord’s Prayer, we should probably think of acknowledging and reverencing God (= God’s glory) manifest in obedience to God’s will. The first petition would then be closely related to 5:16: through the good works of the disciples, other people are to be led to praise God. If God is the acting subject of the sanctification, one can interpret the first three you-petitions in a unified eschatological perspective: may God sanctify his name through the establishment or consummation of his kingly rule that makes God manifest as Lord of the world and executes his will and saving plan. It is not possible to make a confident decision between these two options, but this could be more than making a virtue of necessity. The text

104

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

may be intentionally open on this point to both understandings, whereby the sanctification of God’s name by God himself is not to be understood exclusively as an eschatological reality. The prayer encompasses both the aspect that God himself will glorify his name through his historical and ultimately his eschatological action, demonstrating his own lordship over the world, as well as praying for human beings to acknowledge God in his holiness and honor him by their way of life. [10] The second petition takes up the central theme of the kingship or realm of God regarded from an eschatological perspective, with the hope of the establishment of God’s rule in the near future (cf. 4:17). The implicit subject is here God himself. When one prays to God for his kingdom to come, this, however, presupposes that the one who prays “seeks the kingdom of God” (6:33). Compared to the Kaddish (see above), the brevity of the prayer for the coming of the kingdom is striking. There is no elaboration of what the kingdom exactly is, or what it means. In particular, there is no explicit reference to Israel. The establishment of God’s kingdom is thought of in universal terms. In the third petition (added by Matthew), the interpretative difficulty of the first petition recurs. Here, too, there is the question of who is the acting subject. This is related to the other question, whether, as in 18:14, God’s salvific will is meant, or is “will” meant ethically as in 7:21; 12:50; 21:31? Aspects of both meanings are included in Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (26:42), where the petition inserted by the evangelist repeats verbatim the third petition of the Lord’s Prayer. God’s will as his saving action in history is in view, but the motif of the obedience of the Son of God, i.e., the ethical dimension of his own active affirmation of God’s will also plays a role. In the light of Matthew’s use of “will” elsewhere, an open-ended understanding of the third petition—analogous to the first petition—suggests itself, which would include the (eschatological) execution of God’s will, i.e., God’s saving plan for the world, and the individual’s (active) getting in step with the coming kingdom by ethical conduct that fulfills the will of God. “Your will be done” is thus a prayer with multiple concrete applications. In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, the aspect of doing the will of God has special significance (cf. 7:21!). In this aspect as well, however, the third petition—like the first—is not an affirmation of one’s own ability clothed in the form of a prayer, nor a disguised form of exhortation. The emphasis is on the prayer as asking God for ability and strength to act. The concluding clause “on earth as it is in heaven” emphasizes “on earth.” God’s will already happens in heaven; what matters in the prayer is that it will be manifest on earth as well. [11] The three we-petitions focus on the earthly situation of the one who is praying and address three central problem areas: the material provision of the

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

105

necessities of life, the need for forgiveness, and the seductiveness of sin. The thesis that all three petitions are to be understood eschatologically—bread would then refer to the eschatological banquet, forgiveness would be concerned only with the Last Judgment, and the temptation/testing only to the troubles of the last days (cf. Rev 3:10)—is not plausible in the Matthean context, as already indicated by the reference to everyday needs in 6:8. This particular understanding of the request for bread is burdened with the problem that “bread” is here qualified by an adjective (epiousios) that occurs here for the first time in Greek literature, a word of disputed etymology and meaning. The meaning “bread for the present day” is very unlikely. More often, an interpretation is advocated that understands the adjective in the sense of existential necessity, so that one could translate, “The bread we need to survive, give us today!” Philologically, the most plausible interpretation is to understand the adjective as referring to the coming day, with the resulting translation, “Give us today our bread for tomorrow.” In the Jewish prayer known as Shemoneh Esreh (The Eighteen), the ninth petition asks God for a good harvest. In contrast to this, the fourth petition of the Lord’s Prayer reflects a social situation in which material necessities must be regulated on a day-by-day basis. In the ancient world this would reflect the situation of a large part of the population, indeed the majority. The prayer for bread shows that, for Jesus, the physical well-being of people is anything but irrelevant (cf. Matt 14:13–21; 15:32–39), which is also expressed in the healing stories. The plural “our” here gains a special significance: here it is not just an individual praying for his or her own food, but a community praying that all its members will have enough to eat. At the same time, the prayer for bread is illuminated by its immediate context in the Sermon on the Mount, 6:19–34. For Jesus’ disciples, a modest standard of living is appropriate, not absorbed in the concern for material goods, but rather to place the seeking of God’s kingdom and his righteousness in the center. By assuring them that they will receive enough to live on, it becomes clear that the physical necessities of life are by no means disdained. The goal of the text is rather to nourish the basic trust that God cares for his own. The Lord’s Prayer’s petition for bread is in step with this view of the disciple’s life. There is nothing in the text to suggest that this applies only to the life of the wandering charismatics. [12, 14–15] With the petition for forgiveness, the Lord’s Prayer again picks up a familiar theme of Jewish prayers, as illustrated by the sixth petition of the Shemoneh Esreh: “Forgive us, our Father, for yes, we have sinned. Forgive us, our King, for yes, we have not acted faithfully . . .” Matthew 6:12 uses the metaphor of financial debt (cf. 18:23–35), which is graciously remitted (in Luke 11:4, this is translated into the everyday language of “sins”). As in 18:23–35, the prayer presupposes a connection between God’s forgiveness

106

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

and one’s own readiness to forgive fellow human beings, but, differently from Matthew 18, the willingness to forgive others precedes God’s forgiveness. To be sure, this difference should not be artificially construed as a contradiction. Rather, 18:23–35 can be seen as the counterpart to 6:12, 14–15, for the forgiveness granted the slave is revoked when he shows himself to be unforgiving to a fellow slave. And conversely, it is to be noted that 6:12, 14–15 does not focus on the new beginning that is caused by receiving forgiveness, but extends to the disciples’ whole life. The aspect of the prior grace of God of 18:23–27 is not excluded in 6:12, 14–15. Since Jesus teaches his disciples to pray for the forgiveness of their sins, it is clear that Jesus sees his disciples as people always in need of forgiveness and who trust in the mercy of God. Already here—in the midst of the Sermon on the Mount itself—it becomes clear that the radical ethical demand expressed paradigmatically in Matthew 5 is not a matter of a ruthless rigidity, but is balanced by an ethic of forgiveness that is no less strong. The interpretation of Jesus’ name in 1:21 also shows itself here as the structural center of Matthean theology. [13] While the fifth petition is concerned with the forgiveness of sins already committed, the sixth prays for deliverance from future sin. The Greek noun peirasmos above translated as “temptation” can also have the neutral sense of “testing.” That God puts people to the test is a common biblical idea (e.g., Gen 22:1; Sir 2:1–5; T. Jos. 2:7). However, such testing can mutate into a temptation for the one being tested and so lead him or her into doing evil. That is where the accent lies in this text, which is not concerned with the fundamental theological issue of whether God is himself the author or initiator of evil (Jas 1:13 categorically rejects this option). Rather, it is those who pray who see their own weakness and ask God to spare them from coming into situations that might overwhelm them. This is what “rescue us from evil” means here. Verse 13b does not then add a seventh petition to this, but strengthens the sixth, giving it a positive twist. The grammatical form of “evil” can here be either neutral or masculine, “evil” or “the evil one.” In favor of the latter, one can argue that in 13:19 Satan is called “the evil one,” and, if one brings in the first half of the double petition in 6:13, in 4:3 the devil is called “the tempter;” moreover, 13:38 also speaks of “the sons (children) of the evil one.” For the neuter interpretation, one can point to the prayer in Didache 10.5, which probably echoes Matthew 6:13b (cf. Did. 8.2), “Remember, Lord, your church, and preserve it from all evil.” The addition of “all” here points to a neuter understanding. Once again, in Matthew 6:13b, one cannot exclude either of the two options. However, for today’s theological reflection this is a secondary consideration anyway, inasmuch as Satan is demythologized, a symbol for all negative phenomena, structures, and persons that obstruct life as God intends it to be. The sixth petition thus

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

107

makes contact with the third, inasmuch as the ethical dimension of both is expressed by asking for something that is influenced by one’s own decisions and actions. In view of the criticism of prayer that has been occasionally articulated in the modern age, it should be noted that in this passage the teaching of the Lord’s Prayer well exemplifies that prayer is not presented as an alternative to one’s own action. Among other things, prayer turns out to be the place to assure oneself of the will of God, to get in tune with it, and to make it binding on one’s own life. At the same time, it is from prayer that one receives power to act. Finally, it must be noticed that the prayer for deliverance from evil includes an eschatological dimension that relates it to the first three petitions, especially the second: when God brings his reign to fulfillment, those who enter his kingdom will be delivered from evil (cf. 13:36– 43). The concluding doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (cf. 1 Chr 29:11–12) occurs for the first time in the version of the Lord’s Prayer in Didache 8.2, which is similar to the Matthean form—albeit only in the bipartite form (power and glory). However, in the light of Jewish prayer practice, in which concluding doxologies are common, it is likely that the Lord’s Prayer included this doxology from the beginning, and that Didache merely preserves the earliest written form that includes a doxology.

[14–15] With the insertion of 6:14–15, Matthew takes up the motif of the fifth petition, illustrating how important the theme of forgiveness is for him (see the interpretation at 6:12). At the same time, integrating the saying about forgiveness into the subject of prayer in Matthew 6:7–15 points out that prayer is the place where human beings seek forgiveness from God (cf. the connection of prayer and forgiveness in Mark 11:24–25, and also in Jas 5:15–16). The idea that those who seek God’s forgiveness must qualify by the readiness to forgive others is also found elsewhere in ancient Judaism (for a good example, see Sir 28:2–5). [16–18] After alms and prayer, in 6:16–18 fasting, another basic element of Jewish piety, is added as a third member illustrating v. 1. Fasting is an expression of the (humble) concentration on one’s relation to God and encounter with him. (e.g., Exod 34:28; T. Jos. 3:4; 9:2). It is thus often found in relation to prayer (e.g., Dan 9:3; T. Jos. 4:8). Fasting is also especially connected with mourning (e.g., Dan 10:2; Jdt 8:6) and repentance (e.g., Joel 2:12; Neh 9:1; Jonah 3:5; cf. also the elaboration of the Jonah story in Ps.-Philo, Homily on Jonah 136–137). Matthew 9:14 lets us see that it was not only the Pharisees (according to Luke 18:12, on two days per week; cf. Did. 8.1), but also the disciples of John the Baptist who regularly fasted. Fasting is here not occasioned by particular events, but has become a fixed element of religious practice. In 6:16–18, Matthew does not oppose fasting as such. In the probably redactional phrase “after he

108

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

had fasted” in 4:2 (cf. Luke 4:2), Jesus himself is portrayed as fasting (cf. on 9:14–17). Matthew is only against the misuse of fasting by making a public show of one’s piety that puts on a mournful face, making it unsightly (he may be thinking of the practice of putting ashes on the head), to emphasize the sincerity and severity of the fast. Rather, Jesus’ disciples should continue (or even intensify; cf. the anointing of Eccl 9:8) the usual bodily care, so that the fast is visible to God alone. II.4.3.4 The Relation of the Disciples to Possessions, and Worries about the Material Necessities of Life (6:19–34)

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and consumption destroy, and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor consumption destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal! 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is single, your whole body will be full of light; 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 No one can serve two masters; for they will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. 25 “Therefore I say to you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the sky; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ 32 For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness! and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 So do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring anxieties of its own. Each day’s trouble is enough for that day.” 19

As in 6:1–18, so also in 6:19–34 Matthew has material that does not come from the inaugural sermon Q 6:20–49. Differently from 6:1–18, however, here he

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

109

draws exclusively from Q. If one follows the basic rule that Luke has preserved the order of Q better than Matthew, Matthew’s composition has here drawn together texts from different passages in the Sayings Source. The texts 6:19–21 and 6:25–33 were already connected in Q (Luke 12:33–34 + Luke 12:22–32), although in reverse order. Between these two blocks, Matthew has inserted further Q material that seemed to him appropriate to the topic: 6:22–23 has a parallel in Luke 11:34–36, 6:24 in Luke 16:13. After the subject of giving to charity has already been broached in 5:42 and 6:2– 4, Matthew now turns more comprehensively to the issues of the relation of the disciples to material possessions and the economic security of their lives. Elsewhere in the Gospel, only in 19:16–26 does the ethics of wealth take center stage. In quantitative terms, Matthew clearly falls short of Luke’s wide range of relevant texts (see esp. Luke 12:13–34, all of Luke 16). Nonetheless, the few places where Matthew raises the question of the right handling of property make plain the immense importance that Matthew also attributes to this issue. The composition in 6:19–24 makes this impressively clear, and the positioning of this passage within the structure of Matthew’s fundamental speech on the ethics of discipleship emphatically underscores it. The section 6:25–34 warning against worry is joined as a conclusion to the previous passage by the introductory “Therefore I say to you.” In the following interpretation, we will need to inquire more closely into the precise nature of this connection. [19–21] The formal structure juxtaposing negative and positive statements characteristic of 6:1–18 is continued in the strictly analogous exhortations of 6:19–20. Instead of treasures on earth, disciples are to collect treasures in heaven. The explanation in 6:19b has some features of the Jewish wisdom tradition: the earth is unsuitable for collecting treasures, because here moths and consumption corrupt and destroy, and thieves lurk in ambush. “Consumption” here probably refers to a destructive insect, perhaps woodworms that attack treasure chests (cf. Gos. Thom. 76). Following the pattern of the strict symmetry between vv. 19 and 20, the advantage of heavenly treasures is explained only ex negativo—the “earthly” dangers do not exist. The heavenly treasure consists in acceptance into the kingdom of heaven (e.g., 5:20; 21:31) and in participation in eternal life (e.g., 7:14; 19:16–17). Matthew does not say explicitly how one collects such treasures. One can think of the practice of righteousness/justice in general (cf. Pss. Sol. 9:5), but the parallels in early Judaism (cf. Tob 4:8–9; 2 En. 50:5), and especially in view of the antithesis in 6:19, suggest that Matthew is thinking primarily of acts of charity. This is confirmed by the recurrence of the motif of heavenly treasure in the challenge to the rich young man in 19:21 to give his property to the poor. Luke’s use of Q 12:33, prefixed with the injunction to “give alms,” only makes explicit what is

110

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

already implied in the call to collect treasures in heaven (cf. also 1 Tim 6:17–19). Matthew 6:21 makes clear that the question of whether one collects treasure on earth by accumulating property or collects treasure in heaven by sharing the good things of life, is nothing less than the fundamental orientation of the whole self, for the heart stands for the human personal center (see on 5:28). The relation of treasure and orientation of one’s heart can be understood as reciprocal: the orientation of the heart is revealed by the kind of treasures one collects, while at the same time the heart is enslaved to the collecting of this treasure, as illustrated by the rich young man’s failed response to Jesus’ call in 19:21–22. [22–23] The logion about the eye appended in vv. 22–23 emphasizes the aspect that one’s stance toward possessions reveals one’s orientation to life as a whole. The widespread idea in the ancient world, that the eye contains a light that makes vision possible, is interpreted metaphorically in what follows. A person’s eyes are an index to his or her whole character. The eye that sees simply and clearly stands for the sincerity, integrity, and goodness of the whole person, which comes to expression in generosity (cf. Prov 22:9), while the bad eye (cf. T. Iss. 4:6) represents resentment, greed, and envy (cf. Matt 20:15!). Depending on what the “eye” reveals, the whole person is either in darkness or filled with light. In the context of 6:19–21, 24, this means: the way one handles possessions is decisive, revealing the moral quality of the person’s whole life. [24] Finally, v. 24 makes the relation to God explicit: at the end of the verse, the principle that no one can serve two masters is applied to God and “Mammon.” The originally Aramaic word with the neutral meaning “supplies, possessions, wealth,” is here clearly used with negative connotations. Serving Mammon is the absolute opposite of service to God. It is always an either/ or choice. The point is that Mammon is revealed as a kind of countergod, an idol, served in everything one does, by which one is thus ruled. Behind this warning against Mammon is the observation that in one’s dealing with possessions and money, a specific dynamic can develop that takes on an idolatrous character. What is meant to be a means that facilitates life—indeed, everyone’s life—gradually becomes the goal and content of life itself and thus sets itself up as Lord of life. Dealing with money and possessions turns out to be the question of whether one serves God or some other lord. The connection between v. 24 and vv. 19–21 makes it clear that Matthew has in mind more than the attitude expressed in the common motto, in which one may calmly continue to accumulate possessions so long as one’s heart is not fixed on them. Rather, the alternative “God or Mammon” corresponds to the either/or choice between “concrete acts of helpfulness or the collecting of treasures on earth.” Conversely, the prohibition of heaping up earthly treasure does not advocate the ethos of

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

111

abandoning property in principle (see further on 19:21). But Matthew expects a clear commitment to acts of charity from those who have property. [25–34] The binary structure of one’s options continues in vv. 25–34. The fundamental alternative presented here is based on the opposition between the admonitions in vv. 25, 31 and in v. 33, which determines the whole passage: Don’t worry about your life—what you have to eat or drink—or about your body—what you have to wear (v. 25; cf. vv. 28, 31, 34)—but seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (v. 33)! The text also manifests a clear formal structure: The introductory admonition in v. 25 is theologically grounded first in vv. 26–30 by two illustrations from the world of nature that express the concern of the Creator. Verses 31–33 then draw the parenetic conclusion, at the same time elaborating the underlying theological argument. Verse 34 then takes up a varied form of the introductory admonition. [25] The admonition in v. 25 is hardly interested in instructing people that they should not bother at all to take care of the basic human needs of food, drink, and clothing. As the rhetorical question at the end of the verse makes clear, the focus is, in the first place, rather on the reality that one’s life is determined by this concern, that one’s life is completely taken up with worries about material things, even though life is much more than food and the body more than clothing. This decisive “more” is named in v. 33. In the second place, such worry expresses the attitude toward life of a person for whom God does not even appear in their field of vision, and who thus believes that they alone are responsible for taking care of their own life, living as though their life were in their own hands. The references to those of little-faith and to the Gentiles fit in here (vv. 30, 32). [26–30] In order for the disciples to gain insight into the Creator’s loving care, these verses picture the creation as a kind of “school of visual education.” The two examples in vv. 26–27 and 28–30 take up successively the two areas of concern introduced in v. 25, namely eating and drinking (vv. 26–27) and clothing (vv. 28–30). Each of the subsections is introduced by an imperative: the disciples are to observe the birds of the sky (v. 26) and ponder the lilies of the field (v. 28). They would then notice that God, who in v. 26—as previously in 6:1–18—is again emphasized as the heavenly Father (differently in Luke 12:24, “God”), feeds the birds, even though they neither sow or reap or gather into barns (cf. Ps 147:9; Job 38:41; Pss. Sol. 5:9). Likewise, the lilies, although they neither toil nor spin, the heavenly Father clothes in such splendor that human cultural achievement pales in comparison, even in such developed form as in Solomon’s court (cf. 1 Kgs 10:4–5). The text brings together the typical work performed by men in antiquity with that of women, creating the impression of a paradigmatic wholeness. Juxtaposing the birds of the sky and the lilies of the

112

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

field corresponds to the aspect of the wholeness of the Creator’s care. The trust in the Creator’s care that can be learned from this is then undergirded by an inference from the smaller to the greater: if this is the way God cares for birds and lilies, how much more for human beings who are much more precious in his sight (vv. 26, 30). With these comparisons taken from the world of nature, Matthew does not suggest that, since birds and lilies do not work in the fields or manufacture clothing, people should not do these things either. People are neither birds nor lilies, which do not here function as models that could be adopted for human conduct. The emphasis rather lies in each case on the second part of the comparisons, on the statement that God cares for his creatures. The criticism of worries about life and the body, about what one eats, drinks, and wears, is not aimed at getting people to abandon their daily work by which they earn their living, but intends that they go about their daily tasks serenely, trusting in the Creator, rather than losing oneself in anxious concern about one’s life. (Thus the text above is not translated “do not be concerned,” but “do not be anxious,” since “do not be concerned” can be misunderstood as a call for inactivity.) Since such anxiety points to a lack of faith in God, the disciples are addressed at the end of v. 30 as “little-faith people.” Matthew found this motif in his Q source (cf. Luke 12:28), and has elaborated it into a weighty aspect of his portrayal of the disciples, in order to indicate the specific form of the disciples failure in their trust in God (cf. 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20). The insight that the examples in 6:26–30 are not intended to lead to a life of idleness but to trust in the “fatherly” care of the Creator for human lives, goes hand in hand with the understanding that the text is not addressed only to the itinerant wandering missionaries who have given up their settled lives or neglected their everyday work, but is addressed to disciples in general and those who overhear what is said to them. This corresponds to the setting of the Sermon on the Mount Matthew has described in 4:25–5:2 and 7:28–29. While the central concern of the text is the “fatherly” care of the Creator—without thereby denying that satisfying the basic necessities of life normally presupposes that the addressees go about their everyday activities—this stands alongside the anthropological insight which is also true, that human beings, no matter how hard they work, are dependent every day on the loving, providential rule of God. Human beings are creatures who do not finally have control of their own lives, for this power belongs to God alone. Verse 27 then expresses this ex negativo with the motif common in antiquity, that anxiety about one’s life cannot add a single hour to one’s span of life. It is the Creator who determines one’s lifespan.

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

113

[31–33] Verses 31–33 draw the parenetic consequence from what is to be learned by observing the created world of nature in vv. 26–30, not only by repeating a shortened form of the prohibition of v. 25 in v. 31, but by juxtaposing to it the positive course of action (v. 33). In addition, both the prohibition in v. 31 and the command in v. 33 receive a brief commentary by further extending the theological thread that extends through the argument of the pericope, God’s care for the creation. The prohibition in v. 31 is first reinforced in v. 32a by identifying the anxious quest for food, drink, and clothing as the concern of Gentiles who do not know the living God. At the same time, this verse confirms the understanding of the admonition in vv. 25 and 31, since in v. 32a such anxiety is bound to a perspective on life determined solely by striving for earthly goods. What is implied here is a call to mark oneself off from the Gentiles; the disciples should not identify themselves with this perspective on life. After all, they can shape their lives on the basis of, and in the light of, their faith that God, their heavenly Father, knows what human beings need (v. 32b; cf. v. 8). This, then, becomes the basis of the freedom to make one’s top priority the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Matthew here adds the words “and his righteousness” to his Q source. As elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount (5:6, 10, 20; 6:1), “his righteousness” has the ethical sense of the righteousness which God demands. This addition underscores Matthew’s view that striving for the kingdom of God is not merely a hopeful longing for the future coming of God’s kingdom (cf. 6:10), but implies an extremely active sense of submitting to God’s rule by living according to God’s will. This imperative is followed by an affirmation that reaffirms the loving care of the Creator’s administration of the universe: those who strive for God’s kingdom will not only enter the kingdom of heaven when it comes at the end (5:20), but in addition will receive “all these things”—food and clothing will also be supplied. In the broad context of the Sermon on the Mount, 6:33 is to be read in the light of 5:16. Because they can trust in the providential care of their heavenly Father, the disciples should—and can—concentrate on their mission by striving after justice/righteousness. By these good works they are the light of the world. The juxtaposition of anxiety about food and clothing on the one hand, and seeking God’s kingdom on the other, has a near equivalent in Letter of Aristeas 140–141. Here, too, the life of the believer is marked off from that of the Gentiles, who are reproached with the accusation that their whole life is focused on food and clothes. This is an underestimation of human life, which is more than vegetating. The Letter of Aristeas defines this “more” as the (philosophical) contemplation of the kingdom of God. In Matthew 6, the question raised in v. 25b about this “more” finds its answer in v. 33, which points to the striving for the kingdom of God and the righteousness it calls for.

114

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

[34] This verse, which has no Lukan parallel, is probably a secondary addition to the composition. On the basis of the assurance in v. 33b, the admonition not to be anxious is once again taken up in conclusion and formulated consistently: do not even be anxious about tomorrow. In the Matthean context, v. 34 is reminiscent of the petition for “bread for tomorrow” in the Lord’s Prayer (6:11). Instead of losing oneself in worry, the disciples should bring their petition before their heavenly father in prayer, trusting in the Creator’s providential care (cf. the contrast between worry and prayer in Phil 4:6!). Verse 34b then adds an explanation with a bit of wisdom coloration, which points to the troubles that every day brings on its own (cf. Sir 40:1–7). In any case, human beings have no control over this (cf. Prov 27:1). So today should not be filled with anxiety about the day to come, but, trusting in God, one should each day strive for God’s kingdom and his righteousness. [19–34] With the connecting phrase “therefore I say to you” in v. 25, Matthew has identified the exhortation in vv. 25–34 as the direct consequence of vv. (19–)24. It was already pointed out above that the binary structure of available options for action in vv. 19–24 is continued in 25–34. The interpretation above shows that the formal similarity corresponds to the parallel content. Verse 33 attaches to the course of action of v. 20 and portrays the fundamental orientation of the person who serves God. In 19:16–22, Matthew will make clear that the charitable use of one’s possessions is the realization of the requirement of the love command. On the other hand, the warning against anxiety extends the admonition in v. 19 not to heap up treasures on earth (in this connection, see Sir 31:1–3). This fits in with the reference in 13:22 to the “cares of the world and the lure of wealth” which are placed alongside each other as the two big obstacles that stifle the word. “Collecting treasures” in this world reveals an anxious attitude toward life, while, conversely, the assurance of vv. 25–34 liberates from the misguided, anxiety-fueled striving to “secure” one’s own life by the heaping up of earthly treasures (cf. Luke 12:16–21). But whenever “anxiety” about the security of material existence determines one’s life, such worry indicates that the person is not serving God, but Mammon. Idolatrous striving for (more and more) possessions and the “Gentile” anxiety about securing one’s life appear to the evangelist as two sides of the same coin; the alternative he poses is trust in the Creator’s providential care. In today’s context, in which human life, under the dictatorship of the economic system, all too often seems to be reduced to a purely materialistic perspective, the insight of the text is to emphasize that a human life requires more than food and drink, but finds its true meaning only in active striving for God’s kingdom and righteousness.

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

115

II.4.3.5 On Judging, and Confidence in Prayer (7:1–11)

“Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the splinter in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother or sister, ‘Let me take the splinter out of your eye,’ while the plank is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the splinter out of the eye of your brother or sister. 6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and attack you. 7 “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who seeks finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” 1

In 7:1–5, Matthew takes up the thread of the inaugural sermon from Q he had been following (Q 6:20– 49). He dropped this connection to his source at 5:48 but here picks it up again at exactly the place he left it (cf. Luke 6:37–38, 41–42). The saying about measuring in 7:2b also has a parallel in Mark 4:24, which Matthew will pass over in the parable discourse. The logia in Luke 6:39– 40 are found in Matthew in other contexts (Matt 10:24–25; 15:14). It is not clear whether Matthew has relocated the sayings, or whether, in this case, it is Luke who has inserted them secondarily into the Q discourse. One can only say that, at the synchronous level of the text, the metaphor of the splinter and plank in Matthew 7:3–5 fits thematically well with 7:1–2. Matthew 7:6 is the evangelist’s special material. In 7:7–11 it is again clear that Matthew has inserted a text that in Q was not part of the inaugural sermon, but is from the same passage from which he previously took the Lord’s Prayer (cf. Luke 11:2– 4, 9–13). [1–2] With the prohibition of judging, Matthew again takes up the theme of dealing with the offenses of others. The evangelist has already indicated the importance of this topic for him by taking up the petition for forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer (6:12) in 6: 14–15. The eschatological orientation of the warning against judging is concretized in v. 2 by the principle that the standard which one imposes on others will fall back on one’s self (at the Last Judgment) (cf. m. Soṭ ah 1.7, “With the measure with which one measures, one [= God] measures him”). Since v. 2 is introduced as the basis or

116

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

explanation of the initial warning in v. 1, v. 2 implies not merely the admonition that one should set a mild standard in dealing with others, but the insight that every judgment against others leads to one’s own condemnation. For whatever offense a person may discover in another that deserves judgment stands before the reality that all of one’s guilt is revealed in the presence of God. However, as vv. 3–5 show, v. 1 does not mean that one should not address the sin of others at all. Thus, in this instruction, “ judging” means addressing the offense of another in a specific way, namely the unloving condemnation of another (from an assumed superior position). There is thus no contradiction here with 18:15–17, where Matthew elaborates the concern for straying church members (18:10–14) in harmony with an early Jewish interpretation of the love command in Leviticus 19:17–18. In contrast, such “ judging” would be a violation of the love command (cf. Jas 4:11–12 and T. Gad 4:2–3). The sins of other people should thus be met by turning to them in mildness and mercy, not by branding and judging them. [3–5] Moreover, the image of the splinter and the plank in 7:3–5 (cf. b. B. Bat. 15b; b. Arak. 16b) makes it clear that the spotlight is directly and concretely focused on the realm of personal relations (not on the state and society), even if v. 1 is formulated as a fundamental principle. The use of “brother” (and “sister”) does not compel us here, any more than in 5:22–24, to understand the instruction as applying only within the church (see below for the reading perspective derived from 5:13–16). In distinction from the ecclesial use of “brother” (12:49–50; 18:15, 21, 35; 23:8; 28:10; cf. also 5:47), the designation “brother” functions here rather as a signal intended to evoke the idea of interhuman connection: the other is to be treated like a “brother.” The point of vv. 3–5 is that one’s gaze is redirected to one’s own ethical inadequacy—and thus on one’s own need for mercy. Those who want to deal judgmentally with the mistakes and sins of others must first of all deal with their own failures. They will then realize that they are not authorized to judge and leave judgment to God (cf. again Jas 4:11–12). “Judging” is thus only for hypocrites (v. 5) who condemn others but are oblivious to their own failures and seek to hide them from others. The saying about the “plank in the eye” intentionally and grotesquely exaggerates the image: those who judge others cannot themselves see, so of course they can’t see the splinter in the eye of another. Accordingly, v. 5 makes tearing out the plank from one’s own eye the prerequisite for being able to take care of other people’s splinters. But this also should happen. The sins of the “brothers” are thus not declared to be simply their own private business. Rather, removal of “splinters” can come only after the insight of one’s own guilt, not as a reprimand from a superior, but only in the friendly spirit of a fellow member of God’s family, a correction determined by love.

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

117

[6] The interpretation of v. 6 is difficult. The two admonitions, not to give what is holy to stray mongrel dogs, and not to go cast pearls before swine, in each case describe inappropriate, even absurd behavior. The expensive pearls would be trampled in the mire by the pigs, and one must expect the dogs to become aggressive (the two imperatives and the two final clauses form a chiasm on the pattern a–b–b–a). The option of treating dogs and swine as metaphors for Gentiles cannot be supported by appealing to 15:26–27, for there the (house-) dogs receive a share of the bread; moreover, this comparison is excluded by the whole Matthean context (cf. 28:19). The Didache (9.5), a text related to Matthew, understands the injunction to refer to the exclusion of the unbaptized from the eucharistic celebration, but this has nothing to do with Matthew’s own understanding. Rather, in the narrower context of 7:1–5, the logion should be understood as imposing a limit on the efforts to correct others. There are cases in which every loving effort is in vain, and a clear distancing is in order. This also applies to the Christian mission. In the light of the thematic words of the Sermon on the Mount in 5:13–16, the whole composition of 7:1–6 can be specifically related to the conduct of the disciples in their missionary existence. They should address neither the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” nor the Gentiles as unloving judges who look down on their previous lives, but turn to them in love and compassion (cf. 9:13, 36). At the same time, v. 6 indicates there are limits. Where the disciples’ proclamation of the good news of the near approach of the kingdom of heaven (10:7) and their teaching (28:20) encounters decisive rejection, they can and must follow the principle that one does not give what is holy to dogs nor cast pearls before swine (cf. Matt 10:14–15). [7–11] While 7:1–5 has taken up the theme of the petition for forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer, strengthened by 6:14–15, 7:7–11 develops a motif which Matthew briefly touched on in the context preceding the Lord’s Prayer: one does not have to use many words, for the Father already knows what his children need (6:8). The instruction here is no longer about the “what” and “how” of prayer, but gives encouragement to pray, for the disciples can pray in the unconditional certainty that their prayers are heard (cf., e.g., Jer 29:12–13; Job 22:27; Sir 3:5). “Seeking” and “knocking” are just other words for “asking.” The future tense in the apodoses of v. 7 are not eschatological, but logical, i.e., they only determine the temporal relation between the actions; this is underscored by the change to the present tense in v. 8ab (the future reappears in 8c). The certainty that one’s prayer is heard is undergirded by the juxtaposing of human beings and God in vv. 9–11. Theologically, the passage is again based on the concept of God as a loving, caring Father (cf. v. 11), just as those who pray are pictured as God’s children. Likewise, the examples in vv. 9–10 deal with the requests of a son. By using the staples of bread and fish (Luke 11:11–12 speaks

118

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

of fish and eggs), their fulfillment is pictured as something that can be taken for granted, due to the effective bread-stone contrast (cf. Matt 4:3) and the fishsnake contrast, underscored by the rhetorically skilled form of the question that includes the addressees (“who among you?”). The answer can only be, “None of us, of course!” That it is self-evident that such requests as mentioned in vv. 9–10 will be answered is the presupposition for the function of these statements as support for the a minori ad maius conclusion in v. 11: If even human beings answer positively to such requests as mentioned in vv. 9–10, how much more will God answer prayers. The difference between human beings and God is underscored by identifying humans as “evil,” which is not to be understood as a programmatic anthropological statement about human essence, but in its contextual function of sharpening the contrast to God, the one who is named “good” in 19:17. At the same time, the fact that vv. 9–10 again refers to basic foodstuffs (cf. 14:17, 19; 15:34, 36) can be related to the content of prayers that one can confidently rely on God to hear, since vv. 7–8, despite the general formulation, does not intend to promise that all possible requests will be granted. This aspect is also implied in the talk of the good things God gives to those who ask (v. 11; cf. Jas 1:17). For the worshiper, this means that his or her prayer is oriented to God’s will for human life (cf. the limitation in James 4:3). Prayer is also the place where one can assure oneself of the will of God. If one reads 7:7–11 again within the horizon of the task of the disciples set forth in 5:13–16, one can think of prayers for the positive reception of their message or help in the troubles involved in their missionary work. The section 7:1–11 would then not be merely a colorful appendix to the substantial thematic blocks 5:17–48, 6:1–18, and 6:19–34 in the body of the Sermon on the Mount, but a thematic thread can also be seen in these verses: Matthew concludes by taking into account the concrete encounter with those people for whom the disciples have been called to be “salt and light . . .” (cf. Burchard, “Versuch,” 47–49). So interpreted, it is also understandable why 7:7–11 was not inserted earlier in connection with the Lord’s Prayer. II.4.3.6 The Concluding Bracket: The Golden Rule as the Summary of the Law and the Prophets (7:12)

“Everything you want people to do to you, do in the same way to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets.” 12

Matthew has relocated the Golden Rule, apparently found in Q in connection with the command to love one’s enemies (cf. Luke 6:27–35), so that it comes directly before the concluding eschatological passage in 7:13–27. The concluding commentary, that this rule “is the Law and the Prophets” (cf. b. Šabb. 31a),

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

119

forms a connecting arc with 5:17, thus framing the main body of the Sermon on the Mount with statements about the Law and the Prophets. Various forms of the Golden Rule were widespread in Greco-Roman antiquity (including early Judaism). Formally, one can distinguish a negative formulation (e.g., Philo, Hypothetica [in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.7.6: What someone does not want to put up with from others, do not do to them]), and a positive form such as found in Matthew 7:12. There is a difference between the two, in that in the negative form the emphasis is on passive refraining from injurious behavior, while the positive form includes active care for others and one’s own initiative. With its universal scope, the positive formulation of the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 stands out from related pre-Christian parallels, since in pre-Christian occurrences of the positive form of the Golden Rule one can note a concentration on specific areas of life, such as in the areas of family ethos (Isocrates, Or. 1.14; Diogenes Laertius 1.37), friendship ethos (Diogenes Laertius 5.21), and the ethics of the use of power (Isocrates, Or. 2.24; 3.49; 4.81; Let. Aris. 207). It is only the negative form that is found in pre-Christian literature in the form of a basic principle (Isocrates, Or. 3.61; Tob 4:15; Philo [see above]; cf. Theissen, “Die Goldene Regel”).

The insight is of central importance for the interpretation of Matthew 7:12 (and Luke 6:31) that the form of the Golden Rule here found is not involved in considerations of reciprocity or retaliation. It is not about repaying a received benefit (differently, e.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 6.1.47), nor doing good for others with the expectation of being repaid (differently, e.g., Seneca, Ep. 94.43 [Publilius Syrus, Sent. 2]). The core principle is rather to make the behavior one wants to receive from others the measure of one’s own actions. Regardless of how others in fact behave toward you, one should act toward them in the manner one wants to experience from them. In the Matthean context, this “wanting” is not a matter of individual arbitrariness, as the plural “what you (pl.) want” makes clear. The moral consensus presupposed by this plural is determined by Matthew by the attached reference to the Law and Prophets, and by Jesus’ ethical instruction, which itself is related to the revelation of God’s will in the Torah and the Prophets, as indicated by his framing the body of the Sermon on the Mount by 5:17 and 7:12. The presumed connection in Q between the Golden Rule and the command to love one’s enemies is accordingly not lost in Matthew, but extended to the whole instruction in 5:21–7:11. The connection between the Golden Rule and the love commandment (see [Sir 31:15]; Tg. Ps.-J. on Lev 19:18; Did. 1.2), and thus the material ethical explication aimed at in the Golden Rule by Matthew’s radical interpretation of the love command is further underscored by the fact that, in addition to the Golden Rule, the double commandment of love is also given as a summary of the Law and Prophets (22:40).

120

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

As the concluding point of the main body of the Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Rule bathes the preceding challenging instructions in the light of its own internal evidence and thus functions as a contribution to their plausibility. The behavioral perspectives developed here basically formulate “only” what one expects from one’s fellow human beings (including the “enemy”). No one wants to be angrily insulted by another person (cf. 5:22); everyone wants to be able to depend on the word of another (5:37), to receive help when one is in need of food, money, or whatever (5:42; cf. 6:1–4, 20); no one wants to be judged unlovingly and condescendingly (7:1–5). The positive form of the Golden Rule set forth in Matthew 7:12 presupposes a developed capacity for empathy, since it is expressed as a universally valid principle that also applies in asymmetrical relationships. It requires the ability to step back from one’s own life situation and imagine how one would like to be treated if one were in the situation of the other, even if one considers it utterly improbable that one would ever actually be there. II.4.4 Concluding Warnings (7:13–27)

In the concluding passage of the Sermon on the Mount, three subsections can be discerned (7:13–14, 15–23, and 24–27). While the soteriological significance of one’s actions was already an overtone in the Beatitudes (5:3–12), and came to expression in various ways in the body of the Sermon on the Mount itself (e.g., 5:19–20; 6:2, 4; 7:1–2), Matthew now explicitly impresses on his readers the soteriological dimension of the previous instructions dealing with ethical living. To this effect, Matthew has combined two Q passages in his own composition: the conclusion of the Sermon on the Plain in Q 6:43– 45, 46, 47– 49 (= Matt 7:15–20, 21, 24–27), and the eschatological paraenesis in Q 13:23–24, 25–27 (= Matt 7:13–14, 22–23). Looking ahead to final judgment is characteristic of the conclusions of each of the five major speech compositions of the Gospel (cf., e.g., 10:41– 42; 13:49–50; 18:34–35; 24:42–25:36). In general, the idea of judgment plays a considerably greater role in Matthew than in Mark. This increased importance of the idea of judgment corresponds to the emphasis throughout the Gospel on the action dimension of the Christian life. II.4.4.1 The Narrow and Wide Gates (7:13–14)

“Enter through the narrow gate! For the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in through it. 14 How narrow is the gate and how hard is the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” 13

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

121

There is only marginal agreement between Matthew 7:13–14 and Luke 13:23–24. Matthew probably found in Q only the admonition to enter through the narrow gate, which he expanded with the contrasting wide gate (cf. T. Ab. B 8:3–16 [the parallel in Testament of Abraham A 11 is clearly influenced by Matt 7:13–14]). He has also expanded it by the metaphor of the two ways, which is not only widespread in biblical parenetic tradition (e.g., Jer 21:8; Ps 1:6; 1 En. 91:18–19; 2 En. 30:15; Philo, Spec. Laws 4.180; Did. 1– 6; Barn. 18–20), but is familiar elsewhere in Greco-Roman antiquity (e.g., Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.20–34; Cicero, Off. 1.117–118). “Way” and “gate” can probably be coordinated with each other, so that the gate stands at the end of the way. With the admonition to go through the narrow gate, Matthew turns programmatically to the guiding aspect of his final section: at the center now stands the issue of entrance into the kingdom of heaven, for which 5:20 has set the condition of the “better righteousness.” Describing the gate as “narrow” anticipates that only a few will be able to actually pass through it (v. 14). At the same time, it may be implied that it is not easy to pass through this gate, which again fits the high ethical claim of the Matthean demand for righteousness. To explain the admonition, Matthew first follows it by referring to the negative alternative. In contrast to the connotation of the “narrow” gate, the broad way and wide gate conjures up the image of comfortable swimming along with the masses. But at the end of this road stands destruction. There is a problem in determining the meaning of the description of the way that leads to the narrow gate. The Greek participle (tethlimmenē) translated above as “hard” could also be translated with “narrow,” in the sense of “cramped” (the underlying verb thlibein means “squeeze, push, constrict, harass, torture”), but this does not fit well with the statement that only a few are on this way. It is thus preferable to proceed from the meaning “oppress, torment,” as the meaning of the word, and to see here an expression of the affliction of the disciples (cf. 13:21; 24:9, 21, 29, where the Greek noun thlipsis is found), an affliction that, according to 5:10–12 is the result of their walking in the “way of righteousness” (cf. 21:32). The effort required by striving for justice/righteousness is followed by external hardship. The motifs that only a few walk the arduous path of virtue (e.g., Philo, Agriculture 104; Tablet of Cebes 15.2), or only a few enter into salvation (e.g., 4 Ezra 7:47– 61; 8:1; 2 Bar. 44:15; T. Ab. B 8:15–16), are quite common. For the community addressed here, to speak of “few” implies reassurance: they need not be bothered by their minority situation, but should be all the more inspired to be sure that they belong to these few. That in Matthew’s view this is not to be taken for granted, even for Christian faith, is unmistakably clear in the following verses (cf. also 22:14).

122

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

II.4.4.2 Warning against False Prophets (7:15–23)

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s robes! But inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruits, but the bad tree bears bad fruits. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruits, nor can a bad tree bear good fruits. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Consequently: you will know them by their fruits. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not speak in your name as prophets, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many deeds of power?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who commit lawlessness.’” 15

In vv. 15–23, Matthew has created a coherent unit from different Q passages (cf. Luke 6:43– 45, 46; 13:25–27), but vigorously reworking the traditional material he received, he has thematically redirected the whole section by prefacing it with an admonition against false prophets entirely from his own pen. After the contrast between the two ways and two gates in vv. 13–14, vv. 15–23 make clear that the ruin to which the “many” on the broad way are going applies not only to the outsiders, but also to those who, even though they confess Jesus as their Lord, do not follow the will of God (v. 21)—this context, too, speaks of “many” (v. 22). The threat of final judgment is not only directed to outsiders, but parenetically addresses those on the inside as well. [15–20] If the followers of Jesus want to enter into life through the narrow gate, they must be alert to the danger of being misled by false prophets (cf. 24:11, 24). The metaphorical talk of ravenous wolves (cf. Acts 20:29; Did. 16.3) who come robed as sheep and thus appear to belong to the “flock” of the church (10:16; 18:12–14; 26:31) distinguishes cuttingly between their friendly appearance and the danger they really represent. The contrast between external appearance and inner reality is found elsewhere in Matthew, in the context of his polemic against the Pharisees (see esp. 23:27–28). They are at least among those included in the renewed talk about “wolves” in 10:16. Moreover, the image of the tree and its fruit is repeated in 12:33–35, in the context of the dispute with the Pharisees. In light of 7:21–23, where the reference to prophetic speech (v. 22) which is concerned with Christian prophets makes contact with v. 15, the false prophets of 7:15 should also be seen as believers in Christ. The parallels with the disputes with the Pharisees can thus be understood as indicating that Matthew sees that the danger emanating from the

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

123

false prophets is analogous to that of the Pharisees. The expression “those . . . who come to you” suggests they are not from within the congregation itself, but invade it from outside (cf. 10:41). The combination of prophetic speech with the exorcism of demons and acts of extraordinary power suggests that the prophets were characterized by such acts. These are not adequate, however, as a criterion for evaluating prophetic claims (cf. Did. 11.3–13.7); rather, Matthew focuses entirely on their “fruits” (v. 16). This does not refer to the effects of their appearance in the congregation, whether positive or negative, but to their own works (cf. Matt 3:8, 10), as shown not only in the narrower context by 7:21–23, but as already suggested by the imagery of vv. 17–18, in which Matthew uses the ethical evaluations “good” and “bad” (in Q the terms “beautiful/good” and “rotten” fruit were used throughout [Luke 6:43/ Matt 12:33]). Since Matthew regards the false prophets as a grave danger to the church (v. 15), one can suppose that the ethical shortcoming, which Matthew thinks he is able to diagnose on the basis of his own Torah-oriented ethics, does not merely consist in character weaknesses of the prophets, but is accompanied by dubious teaching. He does not, however, explicate what is wrong about their teaching. He does not need to do this, for his addressees knew well what he had in view. For later readers, however, this state of affairs makes it difficult to say anything more specific about the false prophets. If, in view of the charge of lawlessness in 7:23, one takes into consideration the declaration of 5:17, one can surmise that the stance toward the Torah was a weighty point of difference. Since Matthew apparently considered Mark to be deficient in this regard (see 4. in the introduction above), those who introduced Mark to the Matthean churches may be included in the warning of 7:15, but it can hardly be restricted to them. And no one should be led astray by the contrasting connection between 7:21 and Romans 10:9, in which everyone who confesses Jesus as Lord will be saved (cf. 1 Cor 12:3), by supposing that a specific anti-Pauline front comes to expression here—especially since Paul is citing traditional material in Romans 10:9. In any case, differently from Mark, there is no substantial indication that Paul was a relevant figure in the Matthean context. In this regard, it should be a basic principle that the texts collected in the New Testament allow only a very fragmentary view into the details of the history of the development of early Christianity, and that much remains in the dark. Caution is thus called for in the attempt to identify Matthew’s false prophets. Given the data available, precision is here a vain hope.

On the other hand, it is clear that for Matthew prophets must prove themselves to be true prophets by their blameless conduct. In Luke 6:44a, the motif of recognizing people by their fruits is part of a general image (“every tree is known by its fruit”), which, as confirmed by Matthew 12:33, is what was found in Q. Matthew has not only changed the focus of the saying (it is false prophets who

124

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

can be recognized by their fruits), but also relocated it to this earlier position, thus creating the transition from the admonition he placed in v. 15 to the image of the tree and its fruit. In addition, he takes up v. 16a again in v. 20 to repeat and reinforce his point, framing the paragraph by the image of the tree and its fruits that serves in Matthew 7 as the criterion for evaluating prophetic claims. Matthew here omits the conclusion of the Q passage (cf. Luke 6:45)—differently than in 12:33–35—because the verse does not fit the theme for this paragraph set in 7:15. In the course of moving Q 6:44a to the beginning of this section, Matthew has also moved the rhetorical question taken from Q 6:44b nearer the beginning of the pericope: of course, no one can gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles (cf. Jas 3:12; Theognis 1.537; Seneca, Ira 2.10.6). Through this change, v. 17 appears in Matthew as a principle derived from the examples, whose universal application the evangelist has underscored by the addition of “every.” Differently from Luke 6:43 (= Q), Matthew formulates the principle first as the positive correspondence between tree and fruit: every good tree produces good fruit, every blighted tree produces bad fruit. The plural (in Greek) “fruits” facilitates the application of the imagery to human actions. Verse 18 then reinforces the principle by excluding any exception: a good tree cannot produce bad fruits, and, conversely, a blighted tree cannot produce good fruits. Verse 19, which takes up verbatim the conclusion of the Baptist’s sermon at 3:10b, allows the imagery to fade into the notion of judgment: just as a tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire, so people who have no good works to show go into destruction (cf. Jas 2:14–26). In this context, this gloomy perspective is first applied to false prophets, but secondarily also to those who suppose—under the influence of the bad example set by the false prophets—they can neglect the actions taught by Jesus and therefore avoid the hardships involved in walking the road that leads to the narrow gate (7:13–14). [21] Verse 21 underscores this, for while this verse is concretized in vv. 22–23 with regard to the false prophets, it is formulated as a fundamental principle which is not exhausted by this reference. The contact with the parallel in Luke 6:46 is limited to the core idea that merely saying “Lord, Lord” means nothing unless it corresponds to appropriate action. Again, it appears that Matthew has significantly altered the Q text. Connecting the saying to entrance into the kingdom of heaven, in which the Q saying is explicitly related to the question of salvation, also corresponds to Matthean terminology (cf., e.g., 5:20), as does “doing the will of the Father” (cf. 12:50; 21:31, as well as 6:10), which—entirely in line with 5:20—is set forth as the decisive soteriological criterion. In a manner similar to Matthew 7:21, James 2:19 pointedly emphasizes the soteriological inadequacy of a mere confession of faith that does not go hand in hand with corresponding works. [22–23] By repeating the doubled

II.4 Jesus Teaches with Authority: The Sermon on the Mount

125

“Lord, Lord” in v. 22, vv. 22–23 appear in this context as an exemplary illustration of the principle enunciated in v. 21, which—through the reference to prophetic speech (v. 22)—is connected to the warning against false prophets. Matthew has thus once again dealt quite freely with the text of his Q source (cf. Luke 13:25–27). The eschatological horizon, introduced in v. 19 and reinforced by the saying in v. 21 about entering the kingdom of heaven, continues to be decisive, but now the event of the Last Judgment itself comes explicitly in view. On that day, the Day of Judgment, many who are denied entrance into the kingdom of heaven will protest against the decision, declaring that they have prophesied (possibly Matthew here alludes to Jer 14:14 or 27:15 [34:15 LXX]), driven out demons, and done many powerful acts in Jesus’ name. The Lukan parallel to this text speaks of eating and drinking in Jesus’ presence and listening to his teaching (Luke 13:26). The triad in Matthew 7:22 probably goes back to Matthew himself, who thus makes contact with 7:15. In spite of the things they have done in the name of Jesus, in his function as judge of the world (cf. 25:31– 46), Jesus will harshly reject them, denying their claimed connection (“in your name”): “I never knew you” (cf. 25:12). The basis for this rejection is their lawlessness. Matthew has aligned his concluding statement with Psalm 6:9 LXX, reinforcing the validity of his claim from the Scripture. This reference to the Law is central for Matthew (Luke 13:27, on the other hand, refers to those who do “wrong”). Among the Gospels, only Matthew speaks of “lawlessness” (see also 13:41; 23:28; 24:12). In 7:23, one need not think of dire offenses; “lawlessness” exists wherever anyone does not adhere to the Torah as interpreted by Jesus—24:12 combines the prevalence of lawlessness with the cooling of love, and love is the summary of the Torah in 22:40. The statement in 7:22–23 is not against prophecy or the working of miracles as such (cf. 5:12; 10:1, 41; 23:34), but relativizes their soteriological importance in comparison to doing the will of God, which is for Matthew the all-important criterion. Consistent with this, Matthew omits Mark 9:38– 40. II.4.4.3 The Parable of the House Builders (7:24–27)

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The heavy rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The heavy rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and its fall was great.” 24

126

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

With the simile of house building, which was already the conclusion of the inaugural sermon in Q (cf. Luke 6:47– 49), the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount emphasizes as forcefully as possible the fundamental importance of one’s actions. The configuration of the imagery manifests significant differences in Matthew and Luke. Luke distinguishes between digging into the ground in order to lay the foundation on solid rock and simply building the house on the ground; the danger comes from a raging river when it overflows. Matthew, on the other hand, does not contrast different building techniques, but different locations: one house is built on sand, the other on solid rock. In addition, he speaks of rain, of a river (a wadi that becomes a river after a rain), and of wind. Unlike Luke, in Matthew the two halves of the simile are strictly parallel. The expression “these my words” refers back to the whole preceding teaching of Jesus since 5:3 (cf. “these words” of 7:28). Jesus concludes by making it clear that it is not enough just to applaud his teaching. What matters is that what is heard becomes the measure of one’s own conduct carried out in practice (cf. Jer 11:4– 6; Ezek 33:31–32; Sir 3:1; T. Job 4:2; Jas 1:22–25; as well as Rom 2:13). The storm is an image of court proceedings (cf. e.g., Isa 28:2; Ezek 13:11), and whether the house stands or collapses is like the verdict of the Last Judgment. This accords with the choice of the future tense “will be like” in vv. 24 and 26 (cf. 25:1): the Last Judgment will show that those who only hear Jesus’ teaching without putting it into practice will be like the foolish man, while those who both hear and do will be like the wise man. Jesus thus declares that whether or not one follows his teaching is the criterion that determines salvation or calamity (cf. 10:32–33), just as he has already declared that doing the will of the Father is the decisive factor (7:21–23). For Matthew, Jesus’ claim does not compete with the Torah and the Prophets, for his teaching is understood as unfolding the will of God expressed in them. The parabolic character of the passage implies that Matthew’s characterizing the housebuilders as “wise” or “foolish,” which is colored by the tradition of Jewish wisdom (cf., e.g., Sir 21:11–28; and once more Matt 25:1–13), also applies to those who only hear and those who both hear and act accordingly. Those who keep in view that the final judgment will be based on doing or not doing the will of God turn out to be the “wise” (cf. Luke 16:8–9). Their house will “stand” (cf. Prov 12:7; 14:11). These are contrasted with the “foolish,” those who suppose that just hearing the teaching is enough, without letting the way they live their lives be shaped by what they have heard. Matthew concludes with the negative picture, which bears the emphasis. The Sermon on the Mount thus ends with a clear warning—the collapse of the house was great. The hearers of the sermon should do everything they can to avoid such a catastrophic end to their own lives. That they take care to steer

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

127

their lives toward the narrow gate (7:13–14) is important not only for them. As “salt of the earth” they must not become “insipid,” “foolish.” Rather, their actions should attract others and lead them to praise of the heavenly Father (5:16). II.4.5 The Narrative Framework: Closing Bracket (7:28–29)

Now when Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, 29 for he taught them as one who has authority, and not as their scribes. 28

Matthew uses the expression “Now when Jesus had finished . . .” (7:28a) after each of the five great discourses (cf. 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), which distinguishes them from Jesus’ other speeches. On the one hand, the expression may have been inspired by Q (cf. Luke 7:1); on the other hand, the influence of analogies from the Old Testament is possible (cf., e.g., Deut 31:1 LXX, 31:24; 32:45). With v. 28, however, Matthew does not make an immediate transition to the following narrative, but first pictures the reaction to the Sermon on the Mount, which distinguishes Matthew 5–7 from the other major discourses in the Gospel. In vv. 28b–29, the evangelist returns to the Markan thread (Mark 1:22), although the explicit reference to the crowds comes from Matthew himself, thus referring back to the opening frame of the Sermon on the Mount in 4:25–5:2. The large crowds who come from all Israel (4:25) and have already experienced his healing power (4:24) are now astounded at his teaching, which—according to 5:1–2—was directed to his disciples but was also heard by the crowds as the outer circle of the addressees. In the light of v. 29, it is clear that they were overwhelmed and astonished in a positive sense (cf. 22:33), for according to v. 29 the crowds recognize something extraordinary in the teaching of Jesus, which sets him apart from the scribes with whom they are familiar: he teaches with authority. We may think especially of his authoritative “But I say to you . . .” of the antitheses. Jesus’ authority is for Matthew an important christological motif (9:6; 21:23, 24, 27; see also 8:9; 9:8; 10:1), which culminates in the word of the Risen One in 28:18. The crowds are thus pictured here as having come a good way on the road of christological perception (cf. 9:33; 12:23; 21:9). Accordingly, they continue with him as he descends from the mountain (8:1; cf. 4:25). II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority (8:1–9:34) While Matthew has composed the exemplary presentation of Jesus’ authoritative teaching in Matthew 5–7 from Q and his own special material, the following section in chapters 8–9 is based on Mark, with only a few exceptions (8:5–13, 19–22; 9:32–34). Beginning with Matthew 12:1, the evangelist will closely follow the Markan order of pericopes, but in this section he

128

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

differs conspicuously from the Markan order: He first takes up Mark 1:40– 45, then, after the insertion of a Q text in 8:5–13, in 8:14–15 he returns to Mark 1:29–31. Matthew does not take up the Markan passage 2:1–22 that follows Mark 1:40– 45 until 9:2–17. Before this, in 8:18–9:1, Matthew inserted Mark 4:35–5:20, the first part of the miracle series, the second part of which he reworks in 9:18–26 (cf. Mark 5:21– 43). At the end of this unit, in 9:27–31, 32–34, Matthew duplicates texts he will later use again in 20:29–34; 12:22–24. Matthew here uses his sources rather freely, which raises the question of the intention of his rearrangements. It is fundamentally important to note here that Matthew 8–9 by no means is merely a collection of miracle stories, as though they simply illustrate the last item in 4:23. There are no miracles in 9:9–13, 14–17, and even in 9:2–8 the focus is not on the miracle, but the forgiveness of sins. Not least, it is to be noticed that the insertion of the sayings about discipleship in 8:19–22 shows that Matthew has more in mind than presenting a collection of miracle stories. It is thus better to speak more comprehensively of Matthew 8–9 as presenting Jesus in action with power and authority, not only as a healer. Moreover, 8:19–22 indicates that the ecclesiological implications of Jesus’ actions in 8:1–9:34 must be taken into account (see the introduction above in 2.2). The composition can be divided into four major subsections: 8:1–17; 8:18– 9:1; 9:2–17; and 9:18–34. The explanation of this structure will be given in the following interpretation. II.5.1 Jesus’ Ministry of Healing (8:1–17)

The first subsection is clearly recognizable, being marked off by the summary and the following fulfillment-quotation in 8:16–17. The three healing stories in 8:1– 4, 5–13, and 14–15 are geographically located as Jesus is on the way from the mount where he has been teaching to the house of Peter in Capernaum. Each of the three pericopes begins with a verb of movement and a statement of the location: Jesus descends from the mountain (v. 1), enters Capernaum (v. 5), and finally goes into Peter’s house (v. 14). According to Luke 7:1–10, the healing of the centurion’s son in Q follows directly on the teaching in Q 6:20–49. The progression from teaching on the mountain to his ministry in Capernaum was already present in Q. The healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, which in Mark 1:29–31 follows directly on the visit to the synagogue in Capernaum—in Matthew, replaced by the Sermon on the Mount (Mark 1:21–28)—could then be added in an appropriate place. The healing of the leper (Mark 1:40– 45) is moved forward in the narrative, as an episode on the road, since leprous people are typically found outside the city (cf. Lev 13:46; Num 5:2–3; 2 Kgs 7:3; Josephus, Ant. 3.261). If one notes the ecclesiological meaning of such a

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

129

compilation of stories about healing a leper socially marginalized by his illness, a non-Jew, and a woman disadvantaged by a patriarchal society, the passage points paradigmatically to the socially integrative power and character of the church. II.5.1.1 The Healing of a Leper (8:1– 4)

When he had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed (after) him; 2 and behold, there was a leper who came to him and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” 3 He stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, “I am willing. Be made clean!” Immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4 Then Jesus says to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” 1

Matthew 8:2–4 is based on Mark 1:40– 45, but Matthew’s retelling has reduced the word count by almost half. Mark 1:43 and 1:45 are completely omitted as inappropriate (in this context). The transitional first verse has been composed by Matthew himself. [1] The reference to descent from the mountain is reminiscent of Moses on Sinai (Exod 19:14; 32:15; 34:29). The large crowds from all Israel continue to “follow” Jesus (see on 4:25), [2–3] as he meets a leper on his way to Capernaum. His falling down before Jesus (cf., e.g., 2:11; 9:18; 15:25) and addressing Jesus as “Lord”—in Matthew, used by Jesus’ disciples and those who seek his help—express the sovereignty which the leper attributes to Jesus. This is underlined by his assumption that Jesus has authority and power to heal him (cf. 9:28), as well as by his (only implied) request made with the reservation “if you are willing.” In the narrative logic, this presupposes the widespread reputation of Jesus mentioned in 4:24. The healing happens directly at Jesus’ word (cf. vv. 8, 16). In the Greek text, Jesus says only two words: the healing word “Be made clean” is preceded only by the word “I am willing” that reflects the leper’s own words. This “I am willing” is found only here in a Matthean healing declaration, paradigmatically in this first healing Jesus performs, expressing the saving will of God enacted in Jesus’ mission. A story of healing a leper is told of Elisha in 2 Kings 5, in which the leprous Naaman is told to wash seven times in the Jordan, but in the story in Matthew 8 it is the commanding word of Jesus that stands at the center. [4] The command to silence (taken from Mark 1:44) is in Matthew functionally coordinated with the command to show himself to the priest (cf. Luke 17:14). The healed person himself should not anticipate and replace the judgment of the priest, who, according to the Torah, must both confirm that a person had leprosy (Lev 13), and that he or she has been healed (Lev 14:3),

130

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

although the outcome of the priest’s judgment cannot be in doubt, as confirmed by the command to offer the prescribed sacrifice that immediately follows (Lev 14:4–32). In addition to the geographical reason for placing the story in this location given above in the introduction to 8:1–17, locating this pericope immediately after the Sermon on the Mount is understandable in terms of Matthew’s thematic interest in the Torah. Matthew 8:1– 4 illustrates that Jesus does not, in fact, abolish the Law and the Prophets, but attends to the smallest iota (5:17–18). The phrase “as a testimony to them” is here filled with positive meaning: those who confirm the healing or learn about it receive not only a testimony to Jesus’ authority, but also to his claim in 5:17–18 that he has not come to abolish the Torah and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. II.5.1.2 The Healing of the Centurion’s Son at Capernaum (8:5–13)

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealed to him and said, “Lord, my son is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.” 7 And he said to him, “Am I supposed to come and heal him?” 8 The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak one word, and my son will be healed. 9 For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” 10 When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “Amen I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such great faith. 11 But I say to you, many will come from east and west and will recline at table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the son was healed in that hour. 5 6

The Matthean version and the Lukan reception of the narrative from Q have considerable divergences prior to the dialogue in Matthew 8:8–10 par. Luke 7:6b–9. Matthew portrays an immediate encounter between the centurion and Jesus; Luke has the centurion send two representatives. Of these two delegations, the second in Luke 7:6 is certainly not original, since the direct discourse in Matthew 8:8–9 / Luke 7:6b–8 refers to the centurion as the (original) speaker. A sufficiently plausible decision with regard to the first delegation is not possible. But even if this delegation was first introduced by Luke or his tradition, the fact that Matthew 8:5–7 strongly bears the stamp of Matthew’s vocabulary indicates that Matthew has reworked his source. In any case, the insertion of the double saying in vv. 11–12, found in a different context in

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

131

Luke 13:28–29, also goes back to Matthew. The conclusion in v. 13 is formed analogously to Matthew 15:28, which clearly indicates that Matthew intends for the two narratives to be understood as belonging together. In both, nonJews ask for the healing of their child, and at the end of each, their great faith is commended, which is without further parallels in Matthew. [5–7] The centurion is probably in the service of Herod Antipas, and in any case is a Gentile. His words describe the situation of his son. The Greek word pais could also be translated as “servant,” but the analogy of the word usage in 17:(15,) 18 supports “son” as the meaning here. The narrator’s introduction in v. 5 marks the words (v. 6) as an appeal, but, to say the least, this is not made explicit. Instead, Jesus immediately intervenes and speaks on his own initiative. Understanding the text requires the central insight that v. 7 is not an indicative statement signaling Jesus’ readiness to go with the centurion. Rather, the sentence should be punctuated with a question mark (the early manuscripts contained no punctuation; all such marks are decisions of later editors). This interpretation receives philological support by the presence of the first-person singular personal pronoun, not necessary in a Greek indicative sentence and therefore suggestive of some emphasis, which would be better understood in an interrogative sentence. The decisive factor, however, is that the motif of the (initial) rejection of the Gentile petitioner is also found in the parallel pericope 15:21–28, where Matthew has significantly reinforced it. Jesus thus reacts to the centurion with a question, which expresses not only amazement, but unwillingness, for his mission is “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24; cf. also 2:6). Jesus is not (yet) responsible for the centurion. The rejection motif is not found in the Lukan parallel (nor in the related Johannine story in John 4:46–54). Most likely, this motif was not in Q, but has been added by Matthew to correspond with his overall conception in which Jesus’ earthly mission is focused on Israel. In conjunction with the insertion of this rejection motif, it is to be noted that in Matthew, differently from Luke 7:2 (and John 4:47), the son is not on his deathbed. In order to soften the harshness of the rejection, which would be incomparably greater at a time when a person’s life was in danger, Matthew has changed the description of the illness, which was probably influenced by the story of the paralyzed man in Mark 2:1–12, which in the Markan source followed the story of healing a leper (Mark 1:40– 45 par. Matt 8:1– 4). [8-10] One consequence of the rejection motif in vv. 5–7 is that the words of the centurion in vv. 8–9, unlike the tone of voice in Luke 7:6b–8, do not express humility, but have more the character of an argument. They move Jesus to back off from his objection. The decisive factor is often seen in the centurion’s extraordinary trust in the effective power of Jesus’ word: without coming to his house, Jesus is able to heal from a distance merely by his word

132

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

(v. 8). Verse 9 would then only further illustrate the power of Jesus’ word by the centurion’s examples from the realm of his own authority. As someone who himself stands under authority (in v. 9, the same word is used that is translated “authority” in 7:29), he has authority over the soldiers under his command, and they do what he says. So also, Jesus has authority to heal by his mere word. However correct this understanding may be in its details, it is not convincing to regard this as the main reason Jesus attests in v. 10 that the centurion has a faith that he could not find in Israel. The Jewish crowds also manifest faith in Jesus’ authority by bringing their sick to him (4:24; 8:16). Verse 16 will again speak of the power of Jesus’ word to heal, and on various occasions Jesus testifies to the faith of those who turn to him for help (9:2, 22, 29). Thus the central aspect that qualifies the centurion’s faith as “great” is that he anticipates the universality of salvation brought by Jesus (cf. Burchard, “Zu Matthäus 8,5–13,” 74). In v. 8, “only speak one word” functions primarily as the positive counterpart to the words that he is not worthy that Jesus come to his house. The centurion accepts that Jesus’ mission applies only to Israel, so that he is outside the realm of those who can ask that Jesus enter his house. He asks no more than that Jesus heals “en passant” by his word. It is not until v. 9 that the centurion explains why he can expect help from Jesus despite the limitation of Jesus’ mission to Israel. The key word here concerns the “right to command,” the “authority” that the centurion uses to construct an analogy between himself and Jesus. The context thus makes it evident that his view of Jesus is about the universality of his authority. Alongside his acceptance of the priority of the people of God to whom Jesus’ mission is directed, there emerges the faith that already sees in Jesus an authority that extends beyond Israel, which Jesus himself will only reveal after his resurrection (28:19). Even if this is not yet provided within the framework of his earthly mission, in principle Jesus has the authority to accomplish his saving work outside Israel. The centurion asks Jesus to make extra ordinem use of this authority. This faith in the ultimately universal scope of the salvation God is accomplishing through Jesus links the centurion to the Canaanite woman (15:28) and distinguishes him from what Jesus has so far found in Israel (v. 10). It is to be noted that Jesus does not attest this great faith by speaking directly to the centurion, but addresses those who are following him. This formulation is intentionally open ended. In the context, it calls to mind 4:25 and 8:1, in which crowds (from all Israel) “follow after” Jesus alongside the disciples who “follow after” Jesus (cf. 4:20, 22; differently Luke 7:9 [= Q?]). Only in 8:23, as followers who get into the boat (of the church) are the disciples distinguished from the crowds. The designation of the addressees in v. 10 underscores that the “great” faith of the centurion is not contrasted with

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

133

unbelief. What the Jewish crowds as well as the disciples (still) lack is faith in the universal scope of God’s saving act in Jesus. [11–12] The double logion introduced by Matthew in v. 11 continues the aspect of the universality of salvation. Verse 11 is often understood as linking up with the theme of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion (Isa 2:2–3; 60:3– 6; 66:18; Pss. Sol. 17:30–31) and interpreted as the coming of the Gentiles to salvation, while the expulsion of the “sons of the kingdom” was prevalent in older research as primary evidence for Matthew’s supposed rejection of Israel. Neither is tenable. The reference to the cardinal points of the compass (“from east and west”) is never found in any text for the idea of the pilgrimage to Zion, but is often found in reference to gathering of the exiled Israelites (Isa 43:5– 6; Zech 8:7; Bar 4:37; 1 En. 57:1; Pss. Sol. 11:2). “West” here alludes to Egypt (cf. Isa 27:13; Zech 10:10), “east” to Assyria/Babylon (in dependence on Ps 107:3, Luke 13:29 adds “north and south”). If we ask about the meaning of the double logion in Q (cf. Luke 13:28–29), it has to be noted that the contrast is indeed an inner-Jewish one: between the exclusion of Palestinian Jews, who did not respond to the personal encounter with Jesus (Q/Luke 13:26), and the eschatological salvation of Diaspora Jews (cf. Allison, “Who Will Come from East and West?” 165– 67). When Matthew inserts Q 13:28–29 into the context of the centurion pericope, Matthew has broken open the purely innerJewish orientation of the contrast, but by no means has he replaced it with a contrast between Gentiles and Jews. Rather—corresponding to the faith of the centurion—he has emphasized the universality of salvation that encompasses both Jews and Gentiles: in addition to the eschatological regathering of Israel, which God has inaugurated through the mission of Jesus and his disciples (cf. on 10:2– 4, 6), people from among the Gentiles also become “Abraham’s children” (3:9) and participate with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the eschatological meal of the kingdom of heaven (Isa 25:6–8; 1 En. 62:14; 2 En. 42:5; 2 Bar. 29:3–8). Matthew gives the motif that hovers in the background behind Q 13:28–29 a new accent, but without going against the grain. This new accent already has points of contact within the tradition itself. Thus the motif of the eschatological banquet in Isaiah 25:6–8 has a universalistic perspective; moreover, in a few texts a connection between the gathering of scattered Israel and the pilgrimage of the Gentiles to Zion can be seen (Tob 13:5–13; 14:5– 6; T. Benj. 9:2; cf. also Zech 8:23). Here, too, Matthew’s Gospel is about the fulfillment of the Old Testament’s promises of salvation for both Jews and Gentiles. If speaking of the “many” is to be understood in a universalistic or inclusive sense, then, conversely, the expression “sons of the kingdom” in Matthew 8:12, inserted by Matthew as the subject of the sentence (cf. Luke 13:28, “you”) is not to be referred simply to the Israelites. To be sure, taken by itself, the phrase

134

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

could be understood (ironically) alluding to Israel’s confidence that they will attain eschatological salvation, but in the Matthean context it is more likely to be linked with Jesus’ message of the kingdom. The people meant by this phrase are here called “sons of the kingdom” because they have allowed themselves to be addressed by the “gospel of the kingdom” (4:23). This fits in with the fact that the threatening word of v. 12 is still addressed to those who “follow” Jesus. In addition, Matthew has redactionally added the phrase “sons of the kingdom” in another context, where it refers positively to the “fruits” of the work of the Son of Man, i.e., to Jesus’ followers. The difference between the two occurrences consists solely in the fact that the “sons of the kingdom” in 13:38 attain their goal, while those in 8:12 fail. Since Matthew does not assume that Christians are immune to judgment (cf. on 7:13–27), such a differentiation actually presents no difficulty. As said in 22:14, who among those called as “sons of the kingdom” will actually turn out to be among the elect will not be revealed until the end. The contextual meaning of the failure of the “sons of the kingdom” in 8:12 is that they do not believe in the universality of salvation, as does the centurion. On the narrative level, this dimension of faith for those addressed in 8:10–12 appears as new territory. However, this is primarily to be read on the level of communication between the evangelist and his addressees. If vv. 11–12 is to be taken as an indication that the mission to the Gentiles was not uncontested in the Jewish-Christian environment of the evangelist, then v. 12 is a threatening word on those members of the community who oppose the Gentile mission because of a particularistic understanding of salvation: those who hold on to the view that messianic salvation applies only to Israel and therefore want to exclude others, will themselves be excluded. This “ecclesiological” thrust of 8:12 is also supported by Matthew’s recourse to the judgment motif of being cast into the outer darkness, where there is howling and gnashing of teeth. While 13:42, 50 includes only a warning undertone addressed to Christians, the other three examples in 22:13; 24:51, and 25:30 stand clearly within the framework of community parenesis. This is no different in 8:12—on the theme of Jews and Gentiles, vv. 10–12 speak to those within the church and say nothing about a rejection of Israel. [13] Not until v. 13 does Jesus turn back to addressing the centurion. In place of the previous rejection there now comes the promise of healing, which takes up the motif of faith and emphasizes that it is not one’s origin, but faith that is the decisive factor in the reception of salvation. The verb used in the brief concluding note about healing, here inspired by v. 8 (par. Luke 7:7), is found redactionally elsewhere in a Matthean healing story only in 15:28, a detail that once again underscores the coherence of the two narratives. For a closer

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

135

understanding of 8:5–13 within the framework of Matthew’s theology, the interpretation of 15:21–28 should be used in tandem with this text. II.5.1.3 The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law, and Many Sick People (8:14–17)

When Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. 15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and served him. 16 And when it became evening, they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, 17 so that what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah was fulfilled, who said, “He took (away) our infirmities and bore (away) our diseases.” 14

The section 8:14–17 can be divided into two subsections. First, there is a concisely narrated healing story (vv. 14–15), in which Matthew has significantly abbreviated his Markan source (Mark 1:29–31). In the second section, Matthew has connected a summary, which is based on Mark 1:32–34, but which he has also abbreviated in v. 16 (Mark 1:33 and 1:34b are omitted) with another fulfillment-quotation (v. 17). [14–15] The way of Jesus from the mountain where he has taught ends in the house of Peter. Comparison with Mark 1:29–31 reveals that the reference to the disciples who accompany Jesus has been omitted; the spotlight is focused on Jesus alone. A distinctive feature of the narrative is that no request is made of Jesus, but the initiative for the healing—effected by a mere touch (cf. 20:34)—emanates from Jesus. The fact that Peter’s mother-in-law immediately “serves” (diakoneō)—which here probably refers in the first place to table service but has a wider sense if understood independently of the concrete situation (cf. 25:44; 27:55)—illustrates her miraculous, immediate recovery from the fever. [16] The summary that follows in v. 16 lets the three preceding stories be seen as examples of a larger collection. Matthew has added that Jesus drives out the spirits through his word (cf. v. 8), thus placing the emphasis on the authority of the word of Jesus. While in Mark, all the sick are brought and Jesus heals many (1:32, 34), in Matthew 8:16 many possessed people are brought, and he heals all the sick. The messianic shepherd’s devoted care to the harassed and helpless flock (2:6; 9:36) is comprehensive. [17] With the concluding quotation from Isaiah 53:4, Matthew explicitly points out that Jesus’ healing activity is the fulfillment of Scripture (cf. on 11:5). The citation is close to the MT, while the LXX speaks of the bearing of sins. “Our diseases” in the quote is reminiscent of 4:23, 24, which uses the same word (nosos, in Matthew elsewhere only in 9:35 and 10:1), which means that 8:17 has already been prepared for by 4:23, 24. It is disputed whether the context of the quotation

136

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

in Isaiah 53 (including the motif of the passion of the servant) is to be heard along with the cited text, or whether Matthew quotes Isaiah 53:4a “atomistically,” detached from its context. If there is an allusion to Isaiah 53:12 in the word over the chalice at the Last Supper (26:28), this could be an indication of the former. With the verse cited in 8:17 the focus is on the healings; hovering in the background is already the suggestion that the salvific gift of Jesus to the people finally leads to and includes that he suffers for them. It should be remembered that in 9:2–8, healing is associated with the forgiveness of sins, and that Jesus’ mission is “saving his people from their sins” (1:21), which, according to 26:28, finds its ultimate fulfillment in his death. Thus, in view of a deeper understanding of Jesus’ acts of healing, there is a convergence between the evangelist’s soteriological conception and an interpretation of Matthew 8:17 which would include the context of Isaiah 53:4a. II.5.2 Following Jesus into the Storm and His Rejection by Human Beings (8:18–9:1)

With the next two pericopes (8:18–27; 8:28–9:1), Matthew anticipates and uses material from the cycle of miracle stories (Mark 4:35–5:43) that does not appear in Mark until after the parable discourse (Mark 4:1–34). As we have already seen in 8:1–17, the presentation of Jesus’ acting with full authority is bound up with an ecclesiological understanding. II.5.2.1 Following Jesus in the Storm (8:18–27)

Now when Jesus saw the crowd around him, he commanded to go over to the other side. 19 And someone, a scribe, then approached and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 20 And Jesus says to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” 21 Another person, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” 22 But Jesus says to him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” 23 And when he had gotten into the boat, his disciples followed him. 24 And behold, a great earthquake happened in the sea, so great that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. 25 And they went to him and woke him up, and said, “Lord, save us! We are dying!” 26 And he says to them, “Why are you afraid, you little-faith people?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, which resulted in a great calm. 27 The people were amazed, and said, “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” 18

In 8:18–27, Matthew has taken the pericope about stilling the storm based on Mark 4:35– 41 and the sayings about discipleship from Q (cf. Luke 9:57– 60)

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

137

and reworked them into a unit that makes a new kind of statement: the story of stilling the storm is now also a story about the meaning of discipleship. [18] After the healings in the evening, in view of the constant pressure on Jesus from the crowds, Jesus gives the command to go to the other shore. While the implication here is that Jesus wanted to withdraw with his disciples, there is an overtone that seems to include an invitation to discipleship. Matthew does not say to whom the command applies. Unlike Mark 4:35, where Jesus speaks directly to the disciples (who are not distinguished from the crowds in the stories of Matt 8:1–17; see above on 8:10), Jesus speaks into the crowd. Considered in the context of vv. 19–23, the order in v. 18 takes on a symbolic dimension: after listening to Jesus’ authoritative teaching (chs. 5–7) and experiencing his healing care for the sick and demonized (4:24; 8:1–17), what the crowds have “overheard” now takes on a personal dimension. They are now faced with a decision: whoever gets in the boat no longer belongs to the crowds who have merely taken an interest in Jesus, but enters into discipleship in the full sense of the word. [19–20] It is in this context that the insertion of the two discipleship scenes in vv. 19–22 is to be read. Matthew first has a scribe step up, who declares that at Jesus’ command he is willing to follow Jesus everywhere (in the Greek text, the same word is used for “go” in v. 19 as for “go over” in v. 18). His addressing Jesus as “Teacher” identifies him as one who is (still) an outsider (cf. 12:38; 19:16; 22:16, 24, 36); disciples address Jesus as “Lord.” In making the one who wants to follow into a scribe (in contrast to Luke/Q 9:57, “one”), Matthew implicitly associates the saying in v. 20 with the statement that discipleship essentially means something more, and something different, than merely learning and accepting Jesus’ teaching, which is what is usually meant among the rabbis. The wandering existence that characterizes his ministry (4:23; 9:35; 11:1) means that he has no regular resting place, which even foxes and birds have. On “Son of Man”: For the first time in Matthew, the phrase “Son of Man” appears, which Jesus will use to refer to himself many times, with a variety of meanings: as the one who is now present and at work on earth (in addition to 8:20, also 9:6; 11:19; 12:8, 32; 20:28); as the one who suffers, dies, and is raised (e.g., 17:9, 12, 22–23; 20:18–19; 26:2) and exalted into God’s presence (13:37; 26:64); as the one who will come (as judge, e.g., 10:23; 16:27; 19:28; 25:31). The last category is especially important for Matthew. The expression is found exclusively in the mouth of Jesus; he is never described in this way by others in the narrative, nor by the narrator. Corresponding to this, the phrase has no titular function analogous to “Son of David” or “Son of God.” Rather, the number and variety of references serve to emphasize that the differing stations or stages in Jesus’ ministry all belong together. The one whose earthly work was marked by deprivation (8:20), and who was called a glutton and drunkard (11:19), will at the end prove to be the One before whose throne all people will have to answer in the Last Judgment.

138

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

From the point of view of the history of tradition, the saying about the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13–14 is a key reference text for Matthew (cf. on 24:30; 26:64; 28:18 below). Also important in this tradition are the similitudes of Ethiopic Enoch (1 En. 37–71) where the references to the Son of Man are based on Daniel 7:13–14 (1 En. 46:2– 4; 48:2; 62:5–11; and elsewhere; cf. also 4 Ezra 13). On the other hand, the sayings about the present Son of Man suggest a commonplace Aramaic idiom as their context: “son of man” can here be used in general for “human being” in the generic sense, or for “somebody,” “anybody.” The point of contact with the usage by the historical Jesus is probably to be sought here: he used the phrase in a distancing, yet emphatic way, to speak of himself.

[21–22] A second person steps up, who asks for a temporary exemption because he first wants to bury his father (cf. Gen 50:5; Tob 4:3). Since the one making the request is a disciple, Jesus’ call to discipleship (cf. Matt 9:9; 19:21) can only mean here that he must continue as a disciple without regard to family concerns. If the saying about letting the dead bury the dead is to be understood as meaning that the spiritually dead (cf. Luke 15:24; Eph 2:1; Col 2:13; Rev 3:1) can bury the physically dead—otherwise, it is not only mysterious but absurd—the saying involves a decidedly critical view of the situation of those who do not belong to the circle of disciples (cf. 4:16). Either way, Jesus’ answer violates any sensitivity for piety (but cf. Lev 21:11; Num 6:6–7); here is expressed in a drastic way a trait of the call to discipleship, with its demand for a consistent setting of priorities (see on 4:21–22). Both sayings in vv. 20 and 22 make clear the high demand—in fact the total commitment—called for in being a disciple. Seen in context, these are the “conditions” under which those who decide to board the boat enter the realm of discipleship. [23–27] The reformulation of v. 23 corresponds to the insertion of vv. 19–22: Jesus gets in the boat and the disciples follow him. In view of the call to discipleship that still echoes from v. 22, and differently from 4:25 and 8:1, this is clearly to be understood in the full sense of the word “discipleship.” While the command of v. 18 was an open invitation, only those who have decided to actually be disciples will step forward out of the wider circle of the crowds, who are only interested. Whether the scribe of v. 19 and the “disciple” of v. 21 are among those who respond remains open. By changing the order of the stilling of the storm and the word of Jesus directed to the disciples in 8:26 from the way they appear in Mark 4:39– 40, Matthew has produced a strictly concentric composition. The introduction in v. 23 corresponds to v. 27; the “great calm” (v. 26c) contrasts with the “great earthquake” in v. 24; the action of the disciples (v. 25a) stands in sharp contrast to the sovereign authority of Jesus’ act in v. 26b. In the center there is a short

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

139

dialogue (vv. 25b, 26a). This dialogue reveals what the Matthean story is all about. [24] The symbolic dimension of the narrative is already indicated by the way the predicament is described. The threatening waves are not caused, as in Mark 4:37, by a strong wind, but by an earthquake, by which Matthew characterizes the plight of the disciples as part of the troubles of the last days, for in apocalyptic thought, earthquakes belong to the inventory of the eschatological events (T. Mos. 10:4; 2 Bar. 70:8; Rev 6:12; and elsewhere; cf. Matt 24:7). Water symbolizes the threating power of death (cf., e.g., Ps 69:2–3, 15–16). Despite the danger, Jesus sleeps (the omission of “on the cushion” from Mark 4:38 could be a consequence of Matt 8:20), [25–26] and the fearful disciples must wake him up. In place of the almost reproachful question of the disciples in Mark 4:38, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” Matthew has an appeal to Jesus for help, in which the disciples, clearly with more respect, address him as “Lord.” Matthew has also reformulated Jesus’ reply. In place of their lack of faith, Matthew speaks of their “little-faith.” With sovereign authority, Jesus commands the wind and the sea. The powerful authority here even surpasses that which is manifest in the healings; here, Jesus’ participation in God’s own authority and power appears in a special way (cf. Pss 65:8; 89:10; 107:28–33; Job 26:12 LXX). [27] In a surprising scenic change (Matthew omits the accompanying boats of Mark 4:36), and unique among Matthew’s miracle stories, v. 27 speaks openly of people who ask in amazement, “What sort of man is this?” Are we to imagine that the crowds left behind in v. 18 are still observing the event? It is more likely that, as in Mark 4:41, it is the disciples who speak. Either way, Matthew’s choice of words is striking and requires some explanation. By explicitly speaking of “the people” (lit., “human beings”) who can only be amazed at what is happening, there is indirect reference to the superhuman authority manifested in calming the storm. In 14:33, the disciples have advanced one step further in their perception. The question of 8:27 finds its answer there, in that Jesus is confessed as Son of God. [26] Special attention should be paid to the designation of the disciples as “little-faith people.” “Little-faith” is a phrase typical of the first evangelist, which he found in the Sayings Source (Matt 6:30 par. Luke 12:28) and, in addition to 8:26, also added redactionally in 14:31; 16:8; and 17:20. Matthew speaks of little-faith exclusively in regard to the disciples, who have committed themselves to the “venture” of discipleship (8:19–22); it is always used with reference to their specific failure and losing heart in situations that call for strong faith and firm trust. Concretely: the disciples are little-faith people when, instead of trusting in God’s providential care, they lose themselves by being anxious (6:30; 16:8), when they lose heart in times of distress and danger (8:26; 14:31), and

140

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

fail in their healing mission (cf. 10:1, 8) because they have doubts about God’s powerful intervention (17:20). The presence of this motif in a broad spectrum of Matthean literary contexts suggests that Matthew sees little-faith as a problem in his church context. In Matthew 8, little-faith is specifically connected with the question of Jesus’ being-with them, which is emphasized as a christological motif by the inclusio in 1:23/28:20. At the level of the evangelist’s communication with his readers, portraying Jesus as asleep takes up the problem that Jesus appears to be absent, and that the church—symbolized by the boat—sees itself as having been left alone in its distress. The further course of the story is intended to overcome their lack of trust in Jesus’ promise to be with them (28:20). In the reader’s post-Easter situation, 8:25 becomes transparent as the prayer of the church for help. Jesus is not absent, but comes in divine power to help the praying community (cf. 10:19–20). It is also of great importance for today’s theological reflection that for Matthew faith is again and again mixed with doubt. Such attacks of doubt are inherent in faith itself. Matthew seeks to counter this little-faith with stories of the experienced help of Jesus. Every Christian, when shaken by doubts, should call to memory the past experience of preservation. In 16:8, it is exactly this aspect of reconnecting with previous experience that is presented at the level of the narrated world itself. II 5.2.2 The Healing of the Two Possessed Gadarenes (8:28–9:1)

When he had come to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demoniacs coming out of the tombs met him. They were so fierce that no one could pass that way. 29 And behold, they shouted and said, “What do we have to do with you, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” 30 Now a large herd of swine was feeding at some distance from them. 31 So, the demons begged him and said, “If you cast us out, send us into the herd of swine.” 32 And he said to them, “Go!” So they came out and entered the swine. And behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the water. 33 But the swineherds ran off, and went on into the town, and told the whole story, including what had happened to the demoniacs. 34 And behold, the whole town came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their territory. 9:1 And he got into a boat he crossed the sea. And he came to his own town. 8:28

[28] After crossing the sea during the night, Jesus comes ashore in the territory of the Gadarenes. Gadara replaces the Markan Gerasa, which lies some distance inland and does not fit the scene presupposed by the narrative at the Sea of

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

141

Galilee (v. 32). Both places belong to the Decapolis, which Matthew introduced in 4:25 as he outlined the “land of Israel” in biblical perspective. Unlike Mark 5, the term “Decapolis” is not found in Matthew 8, and the mention of a herd of swine in the Markan source indicates that the people whom Jesus meets in this area are Gentiles (8:30 par. Mark 5:11). The Matthean editing of the text confirms this. When Jesus goes ashore, he finds himself immediately confronted by two demoniacs. Compared to Mark 5:1–20, the narrative is extremely compressed. Mark’s vivid portrayal of the unruly forces and even the self-destructive behavior of the possessed (5:3–5) is condensed to the brief note that the two demoniacs—the meaning of the doubling remains unclear (cf. 9:27–31; 20:39–34)—were very dangerous, and therefore no one could pass that way. The narrative is entirely focused on Jesus, the demonstration of his authority in his powerful word. [29] In the encounter with Jesus, the dangerous highwaymen become supplicants. While Mark 5:8 gives the impression that the words of the possessed in v. 7 had been preceded by an exorcistic command of Jesus, in Matthew it is the demoniacs who take the initiative. Like the devil in 4:3, 6, they too know that they are dealing with the Son of God (cf. Mark 1:24, 34; 3:11–12). Demons possess insider knowledge (cf. Acts 19:15; Jas 2:19). Heard in context, their addressing Jesus as Son of God is an answer to the question of 8:27. Matthew’s revision of the Markan version includes the significant words “before the time.” The widespread understanding that this refers to the time of the Last Judgment, when the devil and his demons will be destroyed (e.g., 1 En. 55:4; T. Sim. 6:6; T. Levi 3:3; T. Mos. 10:1; Rev 20:10), breaks down on the fact that in Matthew 12:28 it is precisely the expulsion of demons that is presented as proof that in Jesus’ work, God’s kingdom is already breaking in. Rather, what is to be noticed is that this expression occurs only here, in a Gentile context. Its insertion reflects that the time of turning to the Gentiles occurs only after the death and resurrection of Jesus (28:19), which is its soteriological basis. The demons know this (too). This is why they ask whether Jesus has already come, before the appointed time, to torment them. This interpretation fits in with Matthew’s omission of Mark’s saying in which the beginning of Jesus’ ministry marks the beginning of the time of fulfillment (Mark 1:15; cf. Matt 4:17), but, in connection with the passion, Jesus can say “My time is near” (26:18; differently Mark 14:14). [30–31] No reaction by Jesus has yet been described. Instead, the demoniacs continue with a supplication. To prepare for its content, the narrator mentions a large herd of swine. In Matthew, it is not “there on the hillside” with them (Mark 5:11), but is some distance away, which illustrates the JewishChristian standpoint of the evangelist: Jesus is not in close proximity to unclean

142

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

animals (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8). The demons are now seeking to negotiate a concession. In case Jesus does in fact intend to drive them out, then would he grant them to enter the herd of swine? [32] In place of the Markan phrase “So he gave them permission” (5:13), Matthew has a curt command: “Go!” The course of the story shows that Jesus by no means acts in accordance with the demons’ request. To be sure, they go into the pigs, but they get no new “dwelling place,” since the whole herd immediately plunges into the sea. The change to the plural in the concluding sentence of v. 32 makes it probable that the demons are the subject, and that Matthew assumes that the demons perished in the sea along with the swine. In the context, Jesus’ command is reminiscent of his response to the devil in 4:10, where the same verb is used (cf. also 16:23). Like the devil himself, the demons are repulsed. Jesus impressively demonstrates his authority. [33–34] Jesus’ ministry does not, however, receive a positive response from the Gadarenes. Rather, the residents of the city, informed by the swineherds, ask him to leave their territory. The saying in 8:20 thus quickly finds an illustration. Nothing further is said of those who were healed. Mark’s note that they see the one who was possessed now sitting quietly in a decent, civilized manner (Mark 5:15) is passed over, as well as Mark 5:18–20, because Mark’s portrayal of preaching to non-Jews is contrary to Matthew’s conception of the pre-Easter mission of Jesus and his disciples (10:6; 15:24). The episode has no results. [9:1] Jesus gets back in the boat and sails back across the sea. With the return to Capernaum, “his own town,” the geographical frame begun at 8:18 is closed. II.5.3 Jesus’ Care for Sinners and the Practice of Discipleship-Community in Its Relationship to Jesus (9:2–17)

In Matthew 9:2–17, Matthew takes up a complex of texts that in Mark 2:1–22 followed directly on the healing of the leper (Matt 8:1– 4 par. Mark 1:40– 45). After 8:18–9:1, it also becomes clear in 9:2–17, that the section Matthew 8–9 is much more than a mere collection of miracle stories (see the introduction to 8:1– 9:34). Once again, the ecclesiological interest of the evangelist comes to the fore. II.5.3.1 The Forgiveness of Sins (9:2–8)

And behold, they brought to him a paralyzed man lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, child, your sins are forgiven.” 3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 And Jesus saw their thoughts, and said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.” 7 And he stood 2

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

143

up and went to his home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings. In Matthew 9:2–8, a healing story is combined with a conflict story. Here, too, Matthew has radically abbreviated the Markan scene in which the story is embedded (cf. Matt 9:2a with Mark 2:2– 4), so that again, everything is concentrated on the dialogue: at center stage stands the conflict with the scribes. [2] While the detailed Markan introduction portrays a remarkable scene, Matthew has only the brief note that they brought a paralyzed person to Jesus, in line with other such texts (4:24; 8:16; 9:32; 12:22; 14:35). Through this abbreviation, the faith of the lame man and those who carry him is no longer focused on the unusual circumstances of how they managed to get the paralyzed man before Jesus, so that the statement about their faith appears more as an exemplary account: when sick people ask Jesus for help, or people bring their sick to Jesus, this (in itself) is (already) an expression of their faith. However, in v. 2 it is not the healing that immediately follows, but the pronouncement of the forgiveness of sins (cf. 2 Sam 12:13), formulated in the passive voice, implying God as the acting subject. Verse 1:21 sets forth the forgiveness of sins as the leitmotif of the narrative. This corresponds to the insertion of “for the forgiveness of sins” in the saying over the chalice (26:28). From a readerresponse point of view, it follows that the addressees, as those who participate in the celebration of the Eucharist, can see in Jesus’ forgiveness of the paralyzed person a reflection of their own experience of salvation. Matthew here refers—uncritically—to the traditional connection between sickness and sin (cf., e.g., 2 Chr 21:15; T. Gad 5:9–10; John 5:14), whereby 9:2–8 is hardly to be understood as an isolated case. In any case, the talk of “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6; 15:24) is not only physical distress, but is also concerned with a soteriological plight. In Matthew, the salvific care of Jesus, the Davidicmessianic shepherd, for his people (2:6) is essentially represented in the form of his healing ministry. For Matthew, the recovery from physical infirmity and the forgiveness of sins that separates one from God are closely related (cf. Ps 103:3), without, however, establishing a strict regularity that sin always results in sickness (otherwise, all healthy people must be sinless), and sickness is always caused by sin (cf. the “if ” in Jas 5:15). [3–7] The scribes observing the scene consider Jesus’ pronouncement of the forgiveness of sins to be blasphemous self-assertion. Matthew has Jesus respond in kind, explicitly calling the thoughts of the scribes as “evil” (differently in Mark 2:8), taking up a central motif in his delineation of Jesus’ opponents (cf. 12:34, 39). In the overall structure of Matthew, 9:2–8 is given the prominent role of the first dispute between Jesus and the Jewish authorities. It is precisely

144

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

here that the core of the hostile opposition to Jesus reveals itself: it is directed against the exceptional authority of Jesus. This is underscored by the striking cross-references in the passion story: only in 9:3 and 26:65 is the charge of blasphemy raised against Jesus. There, too, it concerns Jesus’ exalted position, and there, too, Jesus speaks of himself as the Son of Man—now looking forward to his exaltation to the right hand of God (26:64). That Jesus “saw” the thoughts of the scribes (v. 4), just as he previously “saw” the faith of the lame man and those who carried him (v. 2), illustrates his exalted status and already gives an indication that his claim is valid, for otherwise knowing people’s hearts and thoughts is something reserved for God alone (e.g., 1 Sam 16:7; Ps 94:11). The question of v. 5 is to be answered in such a way that it is more difficult to say, “Stand up and walk,” since the effectiveness of these words can be empirically verified in a way that the pronouncement of the forgiveness of sins cannot. This does not mean, however, that forgiving sins is easier than healing. The latter, therefore, is not a proof in the strict sense, but “only” a strong indication that Jesus has by no means assumed an authority he does not actually have, when he, in God’s stead, pronounces the forgiveness of sins with full authority. [8] Matthew has reworked the conclusion in v. 8. While in Mark 2:12, all the witnesses of the healing join in praising God, Matthew assigns the praise to the crowds, thus excluding the possibility of understanding Mark 2:12 to include the scribes among those who praise God. Matthew has also modified the praise itself: formally, in that he does not reproduce it in direct speech, but summarizes it in a predication about God, and in terms of its contents as well, in that the praise does not emphasize the healing, but takes up v. 6a. Generalizing God’s act, who has “given such authority to human beings,” is hardly to be understood to mean that the crowds (mis-)understand the enigmatic saying about the Son of Man (v. 6) as a statement about human beings as such. This does not fit the positive qualification of the statement as praise of God. Rather, the expansion of the statement is determined by the intention to include the corresponding authority of the church, derived from Jesus’ own authority (cf. 8:27 for the use of “human beings” for the disciples). For Matthew, forgiveness of sins is a central hallmark of the church (see on 18:18). II.5.3.2 The Call of Matthew the Tax Collector and Mercy to Sinners (9:9–13)

As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he says to him, “Follow me.” And he got up and followed him. 10 And as he reclined at dinner in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and reclined at the table with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 But when he heard this, he said, “It 9

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

145

is not those who are strong who need a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” [9–10] After 4:18–22, this text presents the only other report of a successful call to discipleship. The replacement of Levi (Mark 2:13) by one of the twelve disciples listed in 10:1– 4 illustrates the interest of the evangelist in the circle of the Twelve. That the choice fell on Matthew could be based on the reference to Matthew as a tax collector in 10:3 (differently in Mark 3:18 and Luke 6:15), but this does not get us beyond speculation. As in 4:18–22, the one who is called immediately becomes a disciple. The spotlight, however, is here focused on the fact that it is a tax collector that Jesus calls. Tax collectors were regarded as henchmen of the financial interests of the rulers and had a bad reputation (Matt 5:46; 18:17), probably justified, of looking after their own financial interests (cf. Luke 3:12–13; 19:8). The phrase “tax collectors and sinners” (9:10, 11; 11:19) does not distinguish the former from sinners, but means “tax collectors and others of their ilk” (cf. also Luke 18:13; 19:7). In 21:31–32, the female counterpart to the tax collectors are the prostitutes! The thematic connection to 9:2–8 is evident: the calling of a tax collector and the meal that follows continues the theme of forgiveness of sins under a new aspect. [11–13] Again there is a conflict with the Jewish authorities, this time with the Pharisees. The dispute reaches a new level, insofar as the Pharisees, though not addressing Jesus directly, no longer are merely thinking their objections “to themselves,” as the scribes did in 9:3–4, but address Jesus’ disciples. They are outraged that Jesus participates in table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners (cf. 11:19). However, the response does not come from the disciples, but from Jesus himself. The image of sick people who need a physician fits well into the preceding context, with its connection between healing and the forgiveness of sins. At the same time, such sharing of table fellowship corresponds to the pronouncement of forgiveness in v. 2. It is characteristic of Matthew that Jesus’ practice is profiled from the Scripture by the insertion of the quotation from Hosea 6:6 in v. 13 (cf. 12:7): Jesus’ conduct stands in perfect harmony with the central biblical demand of mercy. Therefore, before the Pharisees continue their charges against Jesus, they should rather go and study the prophetic word. Their reproachful question in v. 11 identifies them as lacking knowledge of the Scripture. The citation from Hosea is to be read in the wider context of Jesus’ programmatic claim to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets (5:17). That this is followed in 9:13b by a further word about the meaning of the coming of Jesus (the first after 5:17, later only in 10:34–35) confirms the connection. For the evangelist, Jesus’ compassionate devotion to sinners does not reflect a critical stance toward the Torah, but rather

146

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

the manifestation of the fulfillment of the Torah and Prophets by Jesus. Moreover, Hosea 6:6 does not only represent a key text for Matthew’s Torah hermeneutics centered in love (see on 22:34–40), but the evangelist also regards the reference to “sacrifice” as a leitmotif characterizing the program of the Pharisees. He charges them with concentrating on external regulations of the cult and ritual purity at the expense of mercy in interpersonal relationships, which causes them to avoid fellowship with sinners. Since Jesus’ own conduct is intended to serve as a model for the disciples, and mercy has already been presented in 5:7 as an ethical leitmotif, there follows as a supplement to 9:2–8 that the forgiveness of sins as a mark of the ekklēsia includes attending to and accepting (gross) sinners, the religiously marginal. It fundamentally belongs to the congregational structure characterized by mercy that no one be rejected because of their past. A new beginning is enabled through the forgiveness of sins (again and again), new perspectives on life and new opportunities are opened up. The communal meal of the church, in which Jesus’ death for the forgiveness of sins is remembered (26:28) and table fellowship is experienced, represents the key location in which the merciful acceptance of sinners, including the interpersonal dimension, becomes concrete in the life world of the believer. II.5.3.3 The Question of the Disciples’ Fasting (9:14–17)

Then the disciples of John come to him and say, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?” 15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch pulls (something) away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. 17 Neither does one put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but one puts new wine into new wineskins, and so both are preserved.” 14

[14–15] More clearly than Mark, Matthew has linked the new scene with the previous one. Jesus is still “in the house” at the meal (v. 10) when disciples of John appear (cf. 11:2). While the Pharisees are put off by those with whom Jesus eats, John’s disciples are struck by the fact that (of all people) the disciples of Jesus, preacher of repentance (cf. 4:17), do not include fasting—the expression of repentance—as part of their religious practice, even though groups as different as they and the Pharisees (cf. 3:7–10) agree on this point. The thematic thread of the preceding narrative is further developed in vv. 14–15, and not only as an analogy to the forgiveness of sins and mercy toward sinners

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

147

as a practice of the community that distinguishes them from other groups. The crucial factor here is that the practice of the disciples results from their relationship to Jesus. In the image of v. 15, the bridegroom, of course, represents Jesus, and the disciples are the wedding guests. The image occurs again in 22:1–14 and 25:1–13, with a different temporal setting. Here, the picture of the wedding celebration highlights the phase of Jesus’ earthly ministry as a time of festive joy. For the disciples, therefore, as long as Jesus is on earth with them and they witness his saving acts, this is not the time to fast. Matthew here understands fasting as a sign of grief. After Good Friday, the situation will be different (with the words “when the bridegroom is taken away from them,” Jesus refers for the first time to his passion). Matthew 6:16–18 has already indicated that fasting as a religious practice belongs in the Matthean community; it only depends on how it is done. [16–17] The two metaphorical sayings that follow serve in this context to illustrate the incompatibility between the time of the earthly presence of Jesus and the traditional practice of fasting; this means they refer back to 15a. These do not fit together any better than a patch of unwashed (i.e., unshrunk) fabric fits on an old garment, nor any better than using old, brittle leather wineskins for new wine, for they could tear under the pressure of fermentation (cf. Job 32:19). To interpret the metaphors allegorically—as though, for instance, the new is what Jesus has brought, and the old is the old order of the Torah, the old religious practices of Judaism, or even Judaism in general—breaks down in view of Matthew’s theology characterized by the ideas of fulfillment and continuity (cf. also the combination of old and new in 13:52!). Such an interpretation is also opposed to the fact that Matthew by no means rejects fasting for his own time, as we have seen above. II.5.4 Further Healings in Israel (9:18–34)

After the three conflict scenes, in 9:18–34 Matthew presents further healing narratives as a positive contrast, so that in the overall composition of 8:1–9:34, healing stories form a frame around the two central units, 8:18–9:1 and 9:2–17. The composition is striking, because the last two healings in 9:27–34 duplicate texts that also appear later. The meaning of this compositional arrangement will be considered in the interpretation below. II.5.4.1 The Healing of the Woman with a Hemorrhage and the Raising of the Ruler’s Daughter (9:18–26)

While he was saying these things to them, behold, a leader came in and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died; but come and lay 18

148

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

your hand on her, and she will live.” 19 And Jesus got up and followed him, with his disciples. 20 Then, lo and behold, a woman who had been suffering from hemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the tassels of his cloak, 21 for she said to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed/ saved.” 22 But Jesus turned, and when he saw her, he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has healed you.” And the woman was healed from that hour on. 23 And as Jesus came to the leader’s house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, 24 he said, “Go away; for the girl is not dead but is sleeping.” And they laughed at him. 25 But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl got up. 26 And the report of this spread through the whole land. After having already reworked Mark 4:35–5:20 in 8:18–9:1, Matthew here takes up Mark 5:21– 43 in an extremely abbreviated form, that is, the second part of the miracle cycle from Mark 4:35–5:43. [18–19] As a result of this relocation of the pericope in his own composition, he has redesigned the introduction, thus producing a direct connection with the preceding scene. A leader in the community seeks out Jesus to ask for his help while he is dining with the tax collectors. In Matthew, the leader’s daughter is not dying as he speaks, but is already dead. The leader thus not only trusts from the outset that Jesus can accomplish a miraculous healing, but that he can raise the dead! The Markan leader of the synagogue, Jairus by name, has become in Matthew an anonymous leading figure in the community. The explicit reference to the synagogue is deleted, which is likely due to the strained relationship of the Matthean community with the synagogue. [20–22] The story of the healing of the woman suffering from hemorrhages in vv. 20–22, here inserted following his Markan source, is reduced to a bare outline devoid of any colorful details. Nothing is said about the failures of the physicians who had even taken all her possessions (Mark 5:26) or about the press of the crowds (Mark 5:24, 27)—in Matthew, it is only the disciples who follow Jesus into the street (v. 19). Accordingly, Mark 5:30–33 is also completely omitted. This emphasizes all the more the supernatural insight of Jesus, who, as he turns around, immediately gets the picture of the woman and what has happened to her. The aspect that the woman is ritually unclean because of her flow of blood (cf. Lev 15:19) and that she communicates her impurity by touch here plays no role. In fact, the opposite happens, and healing power flows from Jesus to the woman. Her expectation that she would be healed by touching Jesus’ garment is interpreted by Jesus’ pronouncement,

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

149

“Your faith has made you well” (v. 22). A (purely) magical understanding of the event, as though the touch itself would be sufficient, is thereby excluded: the decisive element is faith. Healing means for the woman not only physical health; at the same time her social isolation has been overcome. The detail that goes beyond Mark 5:27, that the woman touches the tassels of Jesus’ garment (cf. Num 15:38–39; Deut 22:12; cf. Mark 6:56 par. Matt 14:36), though it is also found in Luke 8:44, expresses Matthew’s typically Jewish coloring of the Jesus story. [23–26] Having arrived at the leader’s house, Jesus already finds the flute players that belong to the standard “inventory” of a grieving group of funeral mourners (Josephus, War 3.436– 437; m. Ketub. 4.4; Dio Chrysostom, Alex. 57) and a noisy (i.e., probably mourning) crowd. Since they are out of place here, Jesus sends them away, though they laugh disdainfully at his statement that the girl is only sleeping. His words, however, are not meant in the sense of a medical diagnosis, as the crowd (mis-)understands them, as though the girl only appears to be dead. Rather, they deny that the girl’s death (or death as such) is the final reality, because Jesus has authority to bring her back to life (cf. 11:5, “the dead are raised”). Her resurrection is pictured in only a few words. The prayer, which in the Old Testament analogies in which Elijah or Elisha raise someone from the dead is a constitutive element (1 Kgs 17:17–24; 2 Kgs 4:18–37) has here no counterpart. Jesus acts in sovereign power with the authority given him by God (cf. 11:27; 28:18). Differently from Mark 5:41, Matthew does not even mention a word that effects the healing. Analogous to 8:15, so also here, as already expressed in the petition of the father (v. 18), the mere touch is enough. The account of the restoration of the girl’s life and the demonstration of its reality are likewise very brief (and shortened in comparison with Mark 5:42). The reduction of the narrative features makes it even easier for the story to become a symbol that readers can hear as expressing hope for their own lives. This is all the more true since Matthew redactionally uses the same verb (ēgerthē) for “she stood up / was raised”—as also in 8:15—which in 27:64 and 28:6, 7 is used for the resurrection of Jesus (cf. also 14:2). One could thus also translate “she was raised,” which would express even more clearly the reference to the church’s hope of salvation. The concluding note about the spread of the report (for the formulation, cf. Luke 4:14) into the whole country (cf. Matt 9:31) is not only reminiscent of 4:24, but at the same time emphasizes the special aspect of this miracle. It is precisely this miraculous dimension of the story that represents an unavoidable problem for contemporary readers. Even though the stories of miraculous healings already raise difficult questions about the reality of their content, without permitting, however, that one could a priori deny that they may contain a historical kernel, here

150

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

the narrated restoration of a dead person to life simply takes us beyond medical possibilities. As we have seen, Matthew has made the story of the raising of the dead girl transparent to the resurrection hope. For today’s reception of the story, this aspect points to the only viable track. In this regard, the story in 9:18–19, 23–26 is not an isolated case. The same is true for the interpretation of such stories as the stilling of the storm in 8:23–27 and its symbolic dimension. II.5.4.2 The Healing Son of David and the Reaction to His Work in Israel (9:27–34)

And as Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, who cried out and said, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!” 28 And when he had entered the house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.” 29 Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith let it be done to you.” 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly ordered them, “See that no one hears about this.” 31 But they went away and spread the news about him in the whole country. 32 After they had gone away, behold, they brought to him a demoniac who was (deaf and) mute. 33 And when the demon had been cast out, the one who had been mute spoke; and the crowds were amazed and said, “Never has anything like this been seen in Israel.” 34 But the Pharisees said, “By the ruler of the demons he casts out the demons.” 27

Verses 27–31 have been freely composed by the evangelist, using elements of Mark 10:46–52, with numerous references to the preceding texts in Matthew 8–9. In 20:29–34, Matthew will again take up Mark 10:46–52 at the corresponding place in the Markan location, there more closely following Mark. Verses 32–34 also have an internal parallel (12:22–24), where Matthew has taken up the underlying Q text (Luke 11:14–15) and its following context. The first reason for this striking procedure is that Matthew needs stories about the healing of a blind and deaf-mute person as the background for 11:5, but there are other reasons that need to be considered, as the following exposition will show. [27] On the way back from the house of the community leader (9:23), two blind people follow Jesus (cf. 20:34). Their cry, “Have mercy on us, Son of David,” is taken from Mark 10:47. While this address to Jesus as Son of David in Mark is an isolated instance, Matthew has developed the Davidic Messiahship of Jesus into a leitmotif of his christological conception, corresponding to his emphasis on the mission of Jesus to Israel and the fulfillment of the promises of salvation to the people of God (see in the introduction under 2.1). It is entirely in this sense that 9:27–31 is placed in the composition of

II.5 Jesus Acts with Authority

151

Matthew 8–9, alongside the need for the story of healing a blind person in view of 11:5. The story functions to present Jesus paradigmatically at the end of the cycle of miracle stories as the Messiah of Israel. Verse 27 is the first instance of the connection Matthew emphasizes between the Son of David title and the healing ministry of Jesus (see also 15:22; 20:30, 31; as well as 12:22–23; 21:14–15), which serves in this context as the central expression of the merciful, saving action of God for “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6; 15:24) enacted through the Davidic-messianic shepherd (cf. 2:6 and the background of the tradition in Ezek 34). Except for 17:15, the appeal for mercy is always connected with the invocation of Jesus as Son of David (15:22; 20:30, 31). It is also striking that Matthew connects the Son of David title primarily with the healing of blind people (in addition to 9:27–31 and 20:29–34 see 12:22–23; 21:14–15). The only story in which this is not the case is that of the Canaanite woman, a Gentile, in 15:22. Clearly, a metaphorical dimension is here included, also seen in the disqualification of the Pharisees and scribes as “blind leaders” (15:14; 23:16–26): the Davidic Messiah heals Israel of the spiritual “blindness” caused by their incompetent authorities (cf. 5:20). [28–30a] It is not until Jesus returns to “the house” (cf. 9:10) that he responds to the two blind men who have been following him. Once again, in dependence on Mark 10:46–52, Matthew here takes up the faith motif (cf. 8:10, 13; 9:2, 22). Differently from Mark 10:52, this does not stand at the end, in the form “your faith has saved you,” which in Matthew 9 would have provided a perfect analogy to v. 22. Matthew has moved the motif forward in the story into a dialogue in which it looks somewhat artificial: Jesus requests an explicit confirmation from the two blind men in advance that that they believe he can heal them (v. 28). This notable feature, found only here in Matthew, is probably best explained against the background of the first invocation of Jesus as Son of David. Matthew wants to focus attention on the fact that the trust, which is put in Jesus as the son of David, is faith in him (see 18:6 on the personal dimension of faith in Matthew) as the Davidic Messiah, who is able to heal, since he is the medium of the compassionate devotion of God to his people. The healing pronouncement of v. 29b, formed in analogy to 8:13 (cf. also 15:28), once more reinforces the motif of faith. The concise description of the healing with the words “their eyes were opened” (cf. 20:33; differently Mark 10:51) calls to mind Isaiah 35:5 LXX (cf. also Isa 42:7, as well as 29:18; 61:1): the prophetic promise of salvation is fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus. [30b–31] The appended command to silence is reminiscent of 8:4. But while in 8:4 it has the function of not displacing the decision of the priest, it is here—again for the first time—actually a matter of keeping a secret. In 9:26, Matthew has passed over the command to silence in Mark 5:43a, but here he

152

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

is dependent on the Markan formulation that no one should know. Echoes of the parallel to Matthew 8:4 in Mark 1:43– 45 can also be detected. Matthew has no use for these passages in their Markan location; in 9:27–31, however, he sees an appropriate place to use elements from them. Again, the key is to be seen in the invocation of Jesus as Son of David. What those healed should not (yet) talk about is that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, for, as confirmed by subsequent developments in the story, this will attract the attention of Jesus’ opponents (cf. 12:22–24; 21:9–17; and already 2:1– 6). Those who were healed, however, do not abide by Jesus’ command, and make him (!) known, i.e., Jesus as the healing Son of David. This thus prepares the way for the escalation of the conflict with the authorities, which already emerges in 9:32–34. [32–34] In terms of the narrative scenery, the next healing story connects directly to the previous one—as the two healed persons depart, the next sick person is brought on. The healing of the mute person is only told briefly and succinctly in 9:32–33a. The main concern is to bring the section 8:1–9:34 to a conclusion in a way that once again presents a paradigm—in this case exhibiting the whole spectrum of reactions to Jesus in Israel. While 11:14–15 (= Q) portrays a divided response among the crowds, Matthew ascribes to them only the positive reaction in v. 33 (see also 12:23). Moreover, he not only tells of their amazement, but expresses it in direct speech. For this, he is inspired by the Markan conclusion of the pericope about the healing of the lame man (Mark 2:12, which Matthew altered in 9:8), but he takes the report of the crowd’s response, limited in Mark to their experience (“We have never seen anything like this”) and makes it into a declaration about the singularity of God’s saving act for his people in Jesus that spans the whole history of Israel. Once again, Israel is presented as the frame of reference for Jesus’ ministry (cf. 4:23). The negative reaction, on the other hand, is assigned to the Pharisees, who abruptly reappear (cf. Mark 3:22). The authorities, hostile to Jesus, are provoked to action by the positive resonance to Jesus among the people, and they do not shy away from charging him with being in league with the devil. In 12:24, this accusation will then be the point of departure for an extended dispute. Here, this response is not yet developed, for in the composition of 8:1–9:34 Matthew is solely concerned to conclude by firmly emphasizing the difference between the crowds and the authorities in their stance toward Jesus. II.6 Concluding Summary of Jesus’ Ministry (9:35) And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, taught in their synagogues, and proclaimed the good news of the kingdom, and healed every disease and every sickness. 35

II.7 The Mission of the Disciples

153

With only two minor deviations, Matthew repeats the summary in 4:23. “All the cities and villages” now makes specific the “throughout Galilee” of 4:23, in dependence on Mark 6:6b (cf. Matt 10:11). “Among the people” of 4:23 is missing, because through 9:27–34 Matthew has already called to mind the reference to Israel, and the following missionary discourse takes up this thread. Jesus’ proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom, his teaching and his acts with authority, above all his acts of healing, are elaborated in 5:1–9:34. At the end of this section, in correspondence with 4:23, Matthew presents once again a comprehensive picture that includes the whole region, emphasizing that the preceding summary, with its local focus on Capernaum, is to be understood as an example. What happened there, or similar events, is what the reader is supposed to imagine when Jesus went to each of the cities and villages in Galilee. II.7 The Mission of the Disciples (9:36–11:1) After the disciples have received the necessary verbal and visual instruction through the ministry of Jesus as depicted in 4:23–9:35, in 9:36–11:1 the disciples are commissioned to continue the ministry of Jesus (on the macrostructure, cf. the introduction to 4:17–11:1). This compositional layout not only reveals the tight bracketing of Christology and ecclesiology in the Matthean Jesus-story, but also the fundamental meaning of the missionary commission in the Matthean understanding of discipleship. The function of 5:13–16 as the compositional headpiece for the body of the Sermon on the Mount—the disciples are “salt of the earth” and “light of the world”—already points in this direction, which finds its final expression in the universal missionary command as the climax of Matthew’s Jesus-story in 28:16–20. For Matthew, the church is missionary in its essential nature. It is striking that the speech in 10:32–39 glides smoothly into a discussion of the situation of the disciples in the world, which does not give up on the connection with mission, but transcends it, since it addresses issues that also affect settled members of the church. However, Matthew does not seem to regard the wandering missionaries and the settled members of the church as two distinct groups. Sedentary members can be itinerant missionaries for a while, and traveling missionaries can settle down (cf. Did. 12.3–13.1). In any case, for Matthew, missionary work in one’s own place is the task of every Christian. In regard to sources, the discourse in 10:5– 42 turns out to be a mosaic composed of stones of differing origins. Matthew has available a mission speech in both Mark (6:7–13 par. Luke 9:1– 6) and Q (cf. Luke 10:1–16). Differently from Luke, Matthew does not incorporate the two speeches separately, but edits them into a single discourse. However, apart from the use of Q 10:16 in Matthew 10:40, by the time he gets to v. 16 he has already

154

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

incorporated the substance of the mission speeches in both Q and Mark (Q 10, Mark 6). From v. 17 on, he has worked in a variety of other material from Mark, and especially from Q, supplementing them with his own special material (or redactional additions). Both the extent of the discourse, and the independent compositional work of the evangelist testify to the importance of this speech for Matthew, especially for his understanding of the church and discipleship. If one inquires into the structure of the text from a synchronic perspective, then—after the introductory section 9:36–10:4 (or 10:5a), which itself consists of different units—the speech itself can be subdivided into vv. 5–15, 16–23, 24–25, 26–33, 34–39, 40– 42. With such a fragmenting of the text into such small segments, however, the real task of determining the structure of the text has only begun. The main structural signal has sometimes been found in the amen-sayings of vv. 15, 23, 42, each of which is supposed to conclude a major section. Against this, however, is the fact that vv. 24–25 continue the announcement of persecution and hardship in the preceding passage vv. 16–23, while from v. 26 accent shifts from the announcement of persecution to right conduct in view of this situation, so that vv. 24–25 are drawn to vv. 16–23. The exposition below therefore assumes the following overall structure: After the introduction in 9:36–10:4, the section 10:5–15 proceeds with the actual mission, along with the basic rules for the conduct of the disciples. In vv. 16–25, the announcement of distress and persecution steps into the foreground as the signature of missionary work; then in vv. 26–39, in view of this difficult situation, the disciples are charged to hold on to their confession and to stand firm in their mission. Verses 40– 42 then change the perspective once again: the positive theme of the meaning of hospitable welcome of the itinerant missionaries. II.7.1 Introduction to the Mission Discourse (9:36–10:4)

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and languishing, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38 therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.” 10:1 And when Jesus had summoned his twelve disciples, he gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every sickness and every weakness. 2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, who is named Peter, and Andrew, his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew, the tax collector; James, son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas from Iscariot, who also betrayed him. 9:36

II.7 The Mission of the Disciples

155

Matthew has composed this noticeably detailed introduction from several different passages in his sources (for details, the below), thereby prefacing the discourse with several items of interpretation central for its understanding. [9:36] It is of fundamental importance that the evangelist bases the mission of the disciples on the merciful acts of compassion of Jesus himself. In v. 36, Matthew has moved a verse from the Markan story of the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6:34) forward to its present context. In Matthew, Jesus’ seeing of the crowds (cf. 5:1), which evokes his compassion for them, is to be understood in the context of the summary in 9:35: In the course of his travels through all the cities and villages (of Galilee), Jesus sees the full extent of the plight of the people, which even goes beyond Mark 6:34 by the addition of the two participles “harassed” and “languishing.” The reason for this desolate situation is the lack of a shepherd. This image, widespread in the Old Testament (Num 27:17; 1 Kgs 22:17 / 2 Chr 18:16; Isa 13:14; Ezek 34:5, 8; Zech 10:2; Jdt 11:19) does not mean that the role of the shepherd is actually vacant. In the light of the way Matthew perceives Ezekiel 34, a central reference text throughout his Gospel, and in view of the conflict situation that permeates his narrative, readers should conclude that the statement implies an indictment of the previous authorities (Ezek 34:2–10). In Ezekiel 34, their failure is followed by their replacement, for God himself assumes responsibility for his flock (vv. 11–16) and appoints “his servant David” as their shepherd (v. 23). Matthew sees this constellation as fulfilled in Jesus, who, as the Davidic messianic shepherd (cf. Matt 2:6), takes the place of the previous authorities, who have failed as shepherds of the people (alongside Ezek 34, see also Jer 23:1– 6). Jesus’ response to the intensity of their distress is to send out his disciples: the disciples are placed in the service of the messianic devotion of the Shepherd of Israel to his flock and thus participate in Jesus’ own pastoral office. For Matthew, this means that at the same time they replace Israel’s previous authorities. It is this line of thought that the key verse Matthew 21:43 will take up: the vineyard Israel will receive new vineyard keepers. [9:37–38] Through the harvest saying in vv. 37–38, which introduced the mission discourse in Q (cf. Luke 10:2), Matthew provides the mission to Israel with an eschatological horizon (cf. Matt 13:39). “Harvest” often functions as a metaphor for judgment (e.g., Isa 18:4– 6; 4 Ezra 4:28–32, 39; Rev 14:14–20). This aspect is not to be ignored in Matthew 9:37–38: by accepting or rejecting the disciples, the hearers are making a decision about their salvation (10:13–15). If one notes, however, that the harvest metaphor is framed by the motif of compassion for the harassed and helpless flock (9:36) and the sending of the disciples to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (10:6), as well as the way in which the saying itself emphasizes the greatness of the harvest, it becomes

156

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

clear that the positive idea of the gathering of the people in view of the near approach of the kingdom of heaven (10:7) is what stands in the foreground. The specific point of the metaphor here chosen is that there is only a limited time for harvesting, so that all available forces must be deployed in order to bring in the maximum harvest. This is why the Twelve themselves are charged with this responsibility but also instructed to pray for more “harvest laborers.” [10:1] In 10:1, Matthew takes up the beginning of the Markan mission discourse (Mark 6:7; cf. also 3:15). Jesus provides his disciples with his own authority over unclean spirits—already illustrated by the individual examples in the preceding two chapters—so that they, too, could cast them out and, as Matthew has formulated verbatim in 4:23 and 9:35, power to heal every disease and every sickness. By this reference back to the work of the earthly Jesus, Matthew emphasizes that the mission of the disciples is the direct continuation of Jesus’ own ministry. In 10:5–8, this aspect is explicitly underscored. [10:2–4] Matthew’s first reference to the twelve disciples is found in 10:1. In line with this, 10:2– 4 then provides the list of their names, which in Mark (as well as in Luke), is located much earlier in the narrative (Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). In 10:5a, as in the concluding note in 11:1a, Matthew again speaks explicitly of the twelve disciples. In connection with the programmatic limitation of the mission to Israel in 10:6, 23, by the emphasis on the number twelve Matthew guides the audience to perceive the correspondence between the twelve disciples and the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. 19:28). He thus makes it theologically clear that the mission of the twelve disciples is about the eschatological restitution of the twelve tribes of Israel. The designation of the twelve disciples as apostles (= those who have been sent; cf. v. 5), which occurs only in the introduction to the list of names in 10:2, fits in with v. 5a. While Mark’s list distinguishes the special role of Peter and the two sons of Zebedee as an inner circle among the twelve by the order of the list and by the bynames he gives them (Mark 3:16–18; cf. 5:37; 9:2; 14:33, with Andrew included in 1:29 and 13:3), Matthew—as in Luke 6:14—lists first the two pairs of brothers, in analogy to 4:18–22. Mark’s distinctive circle of three appears in Matthew only at the Transfiguration (17:1 par. Mark 9:2) and in Gethsemane (26:37 par. Mark 14:33). However, Matthew’s addition of “first” in 10:2 emphasizes the special position of Simon Peter as primus inter pares (“first among equals”; see on 16:18–19); he is also the only one to mention Simon’s byname. The other eight disciples are mentioned in pairs, analogous to the two sets of brothers. The redactional identification of Matthew as “the tax collector” recalls 9:9. The more specific identification of the other Simon as “the Cananean” goes back to the Aramaic word for “zealot” (cf. Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). Judas Iscariot (= “man from Kerioth”?) stands at the end of the list

II.7 The Mission of the Disciples

157

as in Mark 3:19 and Luke 6:16, and is already identified here as the one who will betray Jesus (cf. Matt 26:15–16, 21–25, 46, 48; 27:3– 4). II.7.2 The Mission Discourse (10:5– 42) II.7.2.1 Commission of the Disciples and Regulations for Their Conduct (10:5–15)

These twelve Jesus sent out, instructed them, and said: “Do not go on a road to the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 As you go, preach and say: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment. 9 “Take no gold, or silver, or copper (money) in your belts, 10 no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for laborers deserve their food. 11 Whenever you enter a town or village, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave. 12 As you enter the house, greet it. 13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whoever will not welcome you or listen to your words— leave that house or town and shake off the dust from your feet! 15 Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” 5

The opening of the discourse in 10:5b–15 manifests a clear structure. Verses 5b– 6 name the addressees of the mission, vv. 7–8 outline the content of their commission. Verses 9–10 instruct them not to take any provisions or equipment for the journey, along with a cautionary note, vv. 11–14 give instructions for their conduct in the places they visit, followed by a threat of judgment in v. 15. A comparison with the brief instructions in Mark 6:8–11 (par. Luke 9:2–5) and the somewhat more extensive mission discourse in Q, whose structure is probably preserved in Luke 10:2–12, shows that Matthew has combined his two sources and has himself created the structure of 10:5b–15 outlined above. Verses 5b– 6 have no parallel and are probably the evangelist’s own composition. But even if these verses belong to Matthew’s special sources (or QMt), one of the evangelist’s own concerns can here be seen. [5–6] Matthew begins the mission discourse with a limitation of the scope of the mission. Like Jesus’ own mission (15:24), prior to Easter the disciples, too, are sent exclusively to Israel. The commission in 28:19 will show that this is not the last word. The relation between 10:5–6 and 28:19 is one of the central questions of the interpretation of Matthew. To see 28:19 as the answer to the allegedly (ultimate) collective rejection of Jesus in Israel, which then results in the rejection of Israel, has no exegetical basis, because Matthew in no way represents such

158

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

a collective rejection of Jesus by Israel. The reactions to Jesus are presented in differentiated ways. Moreover, Matthew never says that Israel is rejected (see in the introduction under 2.1). After Easter, the Gentile peoples are included in the saving work of God on the basis of the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus. This cancels the restriction in 10:5b. But 10:6 remains in force after Easter (cf. 10:23!). The gracious care for “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” with the restitution of the people of God specifically in view (see on 10:2–4) continues to be a part of the mission of the ekklēsia. The commission in 28:19 thus supplements 10:6. In his earthly ministry, Jesus fulfills his task as the Davidic Messiah; the disciples participate in this task. The instructions in 10:5–8 reflect the stage that the narrative of the Jesus-story has reached thus far. With the saving death of the Son of God and the exaltation of the Risen One, a new stage is reached, which is accounted for in 28:19. It should also be noted that the prohibitions in 10:5b are in the form of geographical statements. In the speech situation of 10:5–42, not to go on the road to the Gentiles, and not to enter a town of the Samaritans means, in fact, that the disciples—as previously, and following Jesus’ own model (4:23; 9:35; 11:1b)—should travel around in Galilee, for Galilee has Samaria to the south, and is otherwise surrounded by predominately Gentile areas. The instruction in 10:5–6 thus concentrates the mission not merely on Israel, but at the same time implies that Galilee is the place they are to be concerned about. Their ministry applies to the people of God, and their location is in Galilee, according to the Scripture (cf. 4:12–16). In the light of 9:36, the “lost sheep” are the “harassed and helpless” crowds, in contrast to the authorities, who are responsible for the desolate situation of the people. The differentiation in 9:33–34 emphasized above is also the guiding principle here. Since the disciples of Jesus are entrusted by Jesus, the messianic shepherd of Israel, with responsibility for the multitudes of God’s people, they take the place of the old authorities (cf. on 9:36). This fits in with the fact that the words about the “lost sheep” allude to Jeremiah 27:6 LXX (50:6 MT) and Ezekiel 34:4, 16, and in both texts the situation of the flock is explained in reference to the failure of the shepherds. The expression “the lost sheep” does not imply that for Matthew, there are other sheep alongside these that are not lost. Rather, Matthew here takes up the comprehensive soteriological plight (cf. 18:14) he has already outlined in 4:16 with the citation of Isaiah 9:1— the people of God sit in darkness and the shadow of death. [7–8] The commission in vv. 7–8, a shorter form of which is found in the Luke 10:9–10 parallel (= Q), underscores Matthew’s understanding that the mission of the disciples is a continuation of the ministry of Jesus. Thus the commission to preach in v. 7 is shaped as a parallel to 3:2 and 4:17: the Baptist as forerunner, Jesus as the main character, and the disciples are all united in

II.7 The Mission of the Disciples

159

one category as God’s messengers (cf. 21:28–22:14). Only the call to repentance is omitted in 10:7, which places the emphasis all the more on the message of salvation proclaimed by the disciples. The nearness of the kingdom of heaven is at once the foundation and the horizon of their healing ministry to which they are sent in v. 8, for in the healings the nearness of the kingdom of heaven is already experienced, just as Jesus points out in regard to his own exorcisms (12:28). The commission to this healing ministry, expressed in the series of four imperatives (cf., besides Luke 10:9 [= Q], also Mark 3:15; 6:13; Luke 9:2), calls to mind Jesus’ own deeds narrated in Matthew 8–9, which underscores the connection with 12:28. With the concluding instruction of v. 8, to freely pass on what they have been freely given, Matthew forms a bridge between the commission in vv. 7–8 and the rules that follow for conducting their mission. In the context, “received without payment” refers first to the conferral of authority in 10:1. Along with this, the statement resonates with the compassionate ministry that the disciples themselves have received from Jesus. The former tax collector Matthew is a representative example (9:9–13). As one who has himself received Jesus’ mercy (9:13), he now belongs to those entrusted with the mission grounded in Jesus’ compassion (9:36). As those who have themselves received God’s gift in Jesus, it is now their responsibility to turn to the (still) lost sheep of the house of Israel, among whom they themselves were previously numbered. [9–10] In vv. 9–10, Matthew has reformulated the instructions about equipment for the journey in Mark 6:8–9 and Q 10:4 to a prohibition of earning money by their missionary work. This is prefaced with the admonition in line with v. 8 (“You received without payment; give without payment”) not to acquire any gold, silver, or copper money (on this triad, cf. Exod 25:3). The additional specifications, following Q but in contrast to Mark 6:9, prohibit footgear and carrying a staff (as defense against animals and robbers; see Luke 9:3, influenced by Q 10:4). Viewed in the larger context, the prohibitions of vv. 9–10 present a no-compromise continuation of 6:19–24, 25–34 with regard to the specific situation of itinerant missionaries. The renunciation of even the obvious and ostentatious poverty and no-needs lifestyle become understandable as a symbolic act that dramatizes the importance of the kingdom of heaven proclaimed by the missionaries, to which they categorically subordinate their earthly interests (cf. 6:33). The references to the care of the heavenly Father in 6:26, 30, 32 correspond to the confidence that the itinerant missionaries will be cared for by those who receive them, “for the laborers deserve their food” (cf. Did. 13.1–2). For the wording of the Sayings Source, preference should be given to the saying about payment in Luke 10:7 (cf. 1 Cor 9:14, 17–18; 1 Tim 5:18). By speaking of payment in terms of food, which

160

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

is probably inspired by the saying that preceded these instructions in Q that the disciples should eat and drink what is set before them (cf. Luke 10:7a, omitted by Matthew), Matthew avoids a conflict with the statements in vv. 8–9a, which could emerge if wages were understood to refer to monetary payment (see Did. 11.6). At the same time, by omitting this instruction to eat whatever is offered (see Luke 10:7–8), he avoids a possible conflict with the observance of food regulations that could easily occur if Matthew 10:9–10 is also taken as applying to the Gentile mission. [11–15] The aspect of value or worthiness introduced in the final sentence of v. 10 becomes the leitmotif of vv. 11–15. Matthew has so structured the text that, differently from Luke 10:4–11 (= Q), the series of events is determined by what happens when the disciples arrive at a new location. When they “enter a town or village”—the echo of 9:35 once again underscores the correspondence to the Jesus’ own mission—they should not knock at the first house they come to, but first find out which house is worthy to be their temporary residence and base of operations. At the time of Matthew, v. 11 probably would have meant that, if there were already disciples of Jesus in a particular locality, the itinerant missionaries should attempt to stay with them. If, on the other hand, this is the first mission in a village or town, the reaction of its inhabitants must decide whether the house is really worthy (v. 13). The greeting when entering the selected house (v. 12) in the Lukan parallel (Luke 10:5, probably on the basis of Q), is explained as a salutation, “Peace to this house.” Matthew 10:13 shows this is Matthew’s understanding as well. This is not merely the greeting formula of everyday language, but the peace of God is pronounced in the sense of all-embracing salvation (cf. Isa 52:7). Once the disciples have found accommodation, they are forbidden to switch to another house (v. 11)—probably to exclude the itinerant missionaries, after they have become better acquainted with their new location, from seeking out more upscale arrangements, thereby discrediting themselves or generating disputes among their different hosts. The negative case, in which the house does not prove to be worthy (v. 13b), i.e., rejects the disciples, is further developed in v. 14, which both completes the arc begun at v. 11 and generalizes the pronouncement to the whole town. Shaking off the dust as they leave town symbolizes the turning away and separation, which is put into effect by leaving the town, and thus the coming judgment. The threat of judgment that follows (cf. Luke 10:12) dramatically reinforces the consequences of rejecting the disciples, for the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah (e.g., Gen 18:16–19:29; Isa 1:7–10; Jer 23:14) evokes the images of the prototypically sinful places that received God’s utterly destructive judgment (cf. Matt 11:22, 24).

II.7 The Mission of the Disciples

161

II.7.2.2 The Disciples’ Persecution and Hardship (10:16–25)

“See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves. So, be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 But be on guard against people, for they will hand you over to sanhedrins and flog you in their synagogues; 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles. 19 When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you at that time; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 Brother will hand over brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 22 and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for amen, I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. 24 “A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above their master; 25 it is enough for the disciple to be like their teacher, and the slave like their master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!” 16

The logion in v. 16a, which evidently stood at the beginning of the missions discourse in Q (Luke 10:3), without its content being elaborated any further in the speech itself, functions in Matthew 10:16–25 as the thematic head of the whole section on the hardships the disciples must be prepared to face in their missionary work. In vv. 17–22, Matthew has thus inserted relevant passages from the eschatological discourse in Mark 13:9, 11–13, either moving them forward in the narrative or, in part, duplicating them. Already this observation makes it evident that Matthew 10, apart from v. 5b, by no means addresses only a past phase of the mission. To be sure, Mark 13:10 is omitted, because the evangelist considered its explicit reference to the universal mission as inappropriate in the context of Matthew 10 (cf. 24:14). More precisely: Matthew 10 is adjusted to the narrative context insofar as the evangelist takes account of the pre-Easter concentration on the mission to Israel. Otherwise, however, the text speaks directly into the present of Matthew’s own addressees, also insofar as Israel—now numbered alongside the Gentiles—continues to be addressed by the church’s mission. In vv. 19–20, Q 12:11–12 flows into Matthew’s composition alongside Mark 13:11. Verse 23 is found only in Matthew and could, like 10:5b–6, go back to him. [16] Verse 16a transfers the sheep metaphor, previously referred to the multitudes, to the disciples (cf. 18:12–14; 26:31). It is not the lost sheep of 9:36 and 10:6, the actual addressees of the mission, who now become the wolves who persecute the disciples. Rather, the wolves correspond to the old shepherds

162

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

implied in 9:36: within the framework of their missionary-diaconal devotion to the people, the disciples must be prepared for resistance, indeed the hostility, of the previous authorities, who attempt to defend their position against the disciples, just as they have tried to do this against Jesus himself. This is why it is necessary to be wise as serpents (cf. Gen 3:1), in order to avoid unnecessary danger (cf. the flight motif in 10:23!), and innocent as doves, in order to give their opponents no grounds for bringing charges against them. That such charges will come anyway—even though there are no grounds for them, as was the case with Jesus—is explicated in the following context. [17–18] The elaboration of v. 16 in vv. 17–23 opens with a general warning to beware of people, redactionally shaped by Matthew himself (v. 17a), for which vv. 17b–18 provide the rationale. The sanhedrins of v. 17b refer to local Jewish courts. The synagogues are referred to with the distancing “their synagogues,” but, nevertheless, the punishing of Jesus’ disciples with flagellation (cf. 23:34), i.e., the thirty-nine (forty minus one) whip lashes of Deuteronomy 25:3 (cf. 2 Cor 11:24), indicates that the synagogue still forms the life context of church members, and in particular was the location of their missionary activity. While v. 17b has the inner-Jewish domain in view, this is supplemented in v. 18 with the political courts established by Rome. However, this does not necessarily mean that the horizon of the mission focused on Israel is transcended. In the flow of the missionary discourse, one should rather first think of persecution from the Jewish side, which then leads beyond their own courts to possible persecution—as a second level—by bringing charges in Gentile courts (cf. Acts 17:1–9; 18:12–17), as was the case in Jesus’ own trial. However, the reference to governors and kings in the plural suggests that at least v. 18 implies an extension to Diaspora Judaism, while Matthew’s concluding reference to “a testimony to them and the Gentiles” at the same time provides a signal of what is to come (cf. 24:14). This concluding expression looks at the event positively, as an opportunity to offer one’s testimony as the disciples respond to the charges brought against them. The indictment in the court mutates into a missionary opportunity (cf. Acts 26:28). [19–22] The words of encouragement that follow further develop the aspect of offering one’s testimony in court. Disciples can face such situations without fear and anxiety (cf. 6:25), because the Holy Spirit that has been given them (28:19) will provide the appropriate words. In v. 19, and again in v. 21, Matthew takes up the verb “hand over” from v. 17, where it (as a first stage) dealt with charges before Jewish courts. Here, too, that scenario is at least the primary context. “Hand over” also functions as a key word in the passion narrative (e.g., 26:2, 15–16; 27:2– 4, 18, 26; cf. also 17:22; 20:18–19); the use of the verb in Matthew 10 (cf. 24:9–10) thus connects the experience of the disciples with

II.7 The Mission of the Disciples

163

the fate of Jesus. Verse 21 signals what will be more extensively developed in 10:34–39: families will be torn apart (cf. Mic 7:6; 1 En. 100:2). The blanket statement that the disciples “will be hated by all” is, of course, not to be pressed, but serves rhetorically to dramatize the widespread rejection the disciples will experience. In the same wholesale terms, 24:9 will speak of being “hated by all nations.” Unless these statements are understood in terms of aspect (rather than literally), the mission to Israel—like that to “all the nations” in 28:19—would be completely meaningless. The parallel of 10:17–22 and the passage in 24:9–14 that already presupposes the universal mission makes clear that the experience of rejection is equally the sign of the mission to Israel and the mission to the Gentiles. If “being hated by all the nations” (24:9) does not nullify the missionary commission to the Gentiles, it is also true that the negative experiences among Jews do not justify ending the mission to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6). Rather, the sequence in Matthew 5:11–12, 13–16 illustrates that it is precisely as those who are persecuted that the disciples are called to missionary existence. Another encouraging word is added in 22b, which is intended to motivate the disciples to persevere, in view of receiving eternal life. [23] With verse 23, Matthew connects with the arc begun in v. 6 that refers to the mission to Israel. This verse confirms that Matthew regards the mission to Israel as a task that continues until the parousia, for the point in time “before the Son of Man comes” cannot be different from what is meant in 24:27, 30, 37–39, 44 (cf. also 13:41; 16:27; 19:28; 25:31). So also, the preceding saying in v. 22b about perseverance to the end underscores this eschatological horizon. Rejection, even persecution, in one town (cf. again 23:34) does not lead to discontinuing missionary efforts prior to the parousia but to their continuation in another town. The “towns of Israel” with which the disciples will not finish before the parousia can hardly refer only to the towns in the “land of Israel” (2:20–21)—this would have to have been explicitly stated—but v. 23 extends the mission to Israel beyond the geographical limit set in 10:5– 6, into the realm of the Diaspora. In the context of the post-Easter mission, the disciples will also turn to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6) in the Diaspora. Only in this way can the claim of the restitution of Israel symbolized by mission of the twelve be fulfilled. Verse 23 thus underscores that v. 6, differently from v. 5b, does not look back to something that merely belongs to the past for Matthew’s addressees. Rather, he is speaking to the church’s present. Particularly, the verse, precisely in the spirit of 9:37–38, guides the attention of the reader to focus on the size of the missionary task. If we distinguish at this point the level of the narrative world and that of the world of the evangelist’s own communication, then the addressees can and should see themselves as those workers for whom the disciples of that time prayed to the Lord of the harvest. At the same

164

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

time, this saying includes an encouraging element: despite all the persecution, the missionaries will still find a safe refuge. [24–25] In verses 24–25 Matthew preserves a proverbial saying from Q, which is found in Luke 6:40 in a form that speaks only of the “disciples–teacher” relation (on the relation “slave–master,” cf. John 13:16; 15:20). Matthew places it in a new context in the mission discourse and, with the addition of v. 25b, integrates it into the motif of conflicts with the authorities (cf. 9:34; 12:24). Differently from Luke 6:40 (but analogous to John 15:20), the content of the logion is thus related to the theme that Jesus and his disciples share the same destiny. Verses 24–25 connect with, and explicate, those allusions to the passion already found in vv. 17–22. Since in 9:34 and 12:24 it is the Pharisees who raise the charge that Jesus is in collusion with Beelzebul, this is in line with the interpretation that the “wolves” of 10:16 point to the religious authorities, among whom the most important group for Matthew’s own time are the Pharisees (cf. 23:34!), an interpretation that would be confirmed by 10:25. When Jesus now speaks of the disciples in the imagery of household companions, this suggests the idea of the familia Dei (cf. 12:46–50). Profiling this in the context of vv. 21, 34–39 adds the aspect that the brotherly/sisterly community of the faithful followers of Jesus compensates for the loss of family ties. II.7.2.3 Warnings in View of the Disciples’ Hardship (10:26–39)

“So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing hidden that will not become known. 27 What I say to you in the dark, say in the light; and what you hear whispered in the ear, proclaim from the housetops. 28 Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 And even the hairs of your head are all counted. 31 So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32 Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before human beings, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; 33 but whoever denies me before human beings, I also will deny before my Father in heaven. 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-inlaw against her mother-in-law; 36 and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. 37 The one who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and the one who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and the one who does not take up their cross and 26

II.7 The Mission of the Disciples

165

follow me is not worthy of me. 39 The one who finds their life will lose it, and the one who loses their life for my sake will find it.” While in vv. 16–25 the announcement of affliction and persecution “for Jesus’ sake” (vv. 18, 22) stands thematically in the foreground, focused in vv. 24–25 on the shared destiny of Jesus and his disciples, the emphasis shifts in vv. 26–42 to admonition and exhortation directed to the disciples. [26–33] In verses 26–33, Matthew reworks a passage from the Sayings Source (cf. Luke 12:2–9), the conclusion of which he has already incorporated in vv. 19–20 (cf. Luke 12:11–12). The disciples must not be discouraged by the hardships they will face, but steadfastly confess their faith in Jesus. Matthew already found exhortation to fearless confession before other people in Q (vv. 28, 31; cf. Luke 12:5, 7). [26–27] Matthew also places them redactionally at the beginning of the unit, clearly making them its leitmotif. Verse 26a points back to the preceding context not only by the personal pronoun in “have no fear of them”—which refers to those who persecute the disciples and badmouth them, as they did Jesus, by associating them with Beelzebul (v. 25)—but also by the particle “so” (oun) which indicates an inference from the preceding. In other words, this means that the preceding context provides the basis for why the disciples need not be afraid: because they may be confident of the help of the Spirit (vv. 19–20), if they remain steadfast they will be saved (v. 22), they will always find a city in which they can find refuge (v. 23), and—if one reads the text at the level of the evangelist’s communication with his church in the light of Jesus’ resurrection—those who persecute them will finally be as unsuccessful as were those who killed Jesus (vv. 24–25). Verse 26b then adds another reason. Since the primary contrast in 26b, “hidden—become known,” corresponds to v. 27, one can ponder whether the passive formulation of 26b (in the sense of a passivum divinum, “divine passive”) is expressed in the active voice of v. 27, which focuses on the actors involved and at the same time is made specific, so that in v. 26b one should think of the content of the message which Jesus communicated to the disciples, the “secrets of the kingdom of heaven” (13:11). If one takes the passage vv. 26b–27 by itself, such an interpretation is entirely plausible, but the Matthean context points in another direction. For one thing, the imperative form of v. 27 (differently Luke 12:3), preceded by the admonition of v. 26a, in Matthew appears as its positive counterpart: the disciples should not fear their persecutors (cf. 1 Pet 3:14; Rev 2:10), but proclaim their message publicly “from the housetops.” In the second place, with regard to the saying in v. 26b, it is not immediately clear to what extent the latter would in fact provide a rationale or basis for v. 26a. In particular, because of the link with v. 26a, it is awkward to understand the open-ended, comprehensive declaration that nothing

166

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

will be hidden as narrowed down by v. 27. Rather, one would expect that what is revealed refers to the events that form the background of the admonition in v. 26a, that is, the hardships of the disciples and the ways they deal with them. In this context, the logion in v. 26b is not to be read as merely a wisdom saying like the motto “Everything comes out at the end” (cf. Sophocles, Ajax 646– 647: “Relentless infinite Time! It uncovers the hidden and hides the unhidden” [translated by George Theodoridis, https:// www .poetryintranslation .com/ PITBR/Greek/Ajax.php]), but, in light of vv. 28, 32–33, it refers to the final judgment. Verse 26b thus contains both an encouraging and parenetic-warning aspect. As encouragement, it may mean that, for the disciples, all that their opponents do to them will be evident in the judgment (cf. e.g., Wis 1:8–9; 1 En. 98:6–8). At the same time, the saying resonates with a parenetic overtone that neither will the way in which the disciples have conducted their mission remain hidden. In view of the dangers, alertness and prudence are required (vv. 16b, 17a). When persecution threatens, flight is a way out (v. 23a), but it must not happen that disciples fail to fulfill their mission because they are afraid, withdraw into their own “nook,” and keep a low profile. [28–31] Verse 28 contrasts the fear of human beings with the fear of God required of the disciples, from the point of view that the range of God’s might is incomparably greater than any human power. The idea that human beings may be able to kill the body but not the soul is also found in early Jewish martyr-parenesis (cf. e.g., 2 Macc 6:30; 4 Macc 13:13–15). In the context of the Gospel as a whole, Matthew substantiates this by God’s act in Jesus, his death, and resurrection. In the way in which the all-embracing power of God is portrayed in v. 28b, the threatening-parenetic character of the passage, which already began with v. 26b, becomes obvious. It is not now, as in v. 22, motivated to persevere to the end by the prospect of eschatological salvation, but by the fear of hell (cf. 5:22, 29–30; 18:9). The sovereignty of God, which transcends all human action, is illustrated in v. 29 with an example from everyday life: even the least expensive birds one can buy in the market do not fall to the ground without God’s being involved. In the light of v. 30, the inexplicit formulation “apart from your Father” primarily suggests God’s knowledge, which also fits in well with v. 26b. If God keeps the sparrows in view, the addressees may be all the more confident that God’s eye is fixed on them, since every individual among them is more valuable than many sparrows together (cf. 6:26). Compared to the warning tone heard in 10:26b, 28b, the accent here shifts to God’s fatherly care. Verses 29–31 do not say to the disciples—contrary to v. 28a—that their opponents cannot harm them. From what is said in vv. 29–31, however, they can be confident that God watches over them, and that those who fear God but not human beings God will lead to the promised goal (10:22), even if they

II.7 The Mission of the Disciples

167

are martyred (cf. 23:34). Just as in the case of Jesus, death does not have the last word. [32–33] In vv. 32–33 the juxtaposition of the fear of God and the fear of human beings becomes the alternative of confessing or denying Jesus. Attention is again focused on the consequences of the Last Judgment, in which the “denial of the denier” is emphasized by its final position. However, this judgment perspective is to be understood within the whole context of the Matthean Jesusstory: Peter, despite his denial of Jesus (26:69–75), is still the “rock” on which Jesus will build his church (16:18). This makes clear that, even for those who deny Jesus, the door of forgiveness remains open (cf. on 18:21–35). [34–39] These verses again take up the problem of intrafamilial divisions already broached in v. 21, which suggests that this was currently a concern in Matthew’s historical setting. As v. 21 is based on a passage in the Markan eschatological discourse (Mark 13:12), in vv. 34–36, 37–39 Matthew has combined different passages from Q, as shown by the Lukan parallels in Luke 12:51–53 + 14:26–27 + 17:33; 17:33 may already have been combined with 14:26–27 in Q, in which case Matthew would have preserved the Q order more faithfully than has Luke. With regard to vv. 38–39, reference should also be made to the parallel in Mark 8:34–35, which Matthew includes in 16:24–25 (cf. also John 12:25–26). [34–36] The introduction to v. 34 parallels 5:17. “Peace” is an element of the expectation of (eschatological) salvation (Isa 9:5– 6; Zech 9:10; 1 En. 1:8; 11:2; T. Lev. 18:4; 2 Bar. 73; Sib. Or. 3:750–755; cf. Luke 1:79; 2:14) but must be preceded by the eschatological tribulation. As the “sword” is part of these eschatological troubles (e.g., Jub. 23:20; 2 Bar. 27:5; Sib. Or. 3:796–799; Rev 6:4), its removal can accordingly be specifically indicated as an aspect of the coming peace (e.g., Sib. Or. 3:751, 781). The time of the earthly ministry of Jesus is assigned in v. 34 to the time of the “sword”; it is not yet the time of peace. Of course, the continuation of the discourse makes clear that “sword” does not here refer to military conflicts (there is thus no contradiction to 26:52), but to family divisions ignited by differing attitudes toward Jesus or evoked by Jesus himself, for example, by the rigorous discipline involved in his call to discipleship (cf. 8:21–22). Verses 35–36, without directly quoting the text, draw on a prophetic saying from Micah 7:6 that points to the disruption of fundamental family relationships as a sign that the time of doom is near. By the addition of v. 36, Matthew has reinforced the allusion to Micah 7:6. The provocative aspect of Matthew 10:34–36 is that this division is declared to be the meaning and goal of the coming of Jesus. This is a striking contrast to the expectation of the restoration of these fundamental family relationships by the return of Elijah in Malachi 3:23–24. Also characteristic of the contrast with the expectations of

168

II. Jesus’ Ministry in Israel and the Mission of His Disciples to Israel

early Judaism is that m. Soṭah 9.15 adopts and adapts Micah 7:6 in the context of portraying the circumstances just before the coming of the Messiah (cf., e.g., Jub. 23:15–20; 1 En. 100:2). This suggests that behind vv. 34(–36) stands an objection raised by outsiders, or feared by disciples, against faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The introduction to the passage with “Do not think that I have come to . . .” (cf. 5:17) fits in well with both options. The disciples are thus charged to be careful lest they be led or misguided by misconceptions about the coming of the Messiah. The decision to follow Jesus leads to suffering. True enough, the disciples are charged to pronounce “peace” to people (10:13a) and are called to be peacemakers (5:9), but the advent of the Messiah Jesus does not yet mean the establishment of a universal kingdom of peace. Rather, his own earthly path leads to the cross, and his ministry evokes divisions that even split families. All this is ultimately the manifestation and consequence of the (still) unredeemed state of the world into which Jesus has come, and into which he sends his disciples, which includes signs of the beginning of the eschatological tribulation (see on 8:24). [37–39] Verse 37 draws out the parenetic consequence of vv. 34–36. While in the Lukan parallel the entrance into the life of discipleship is in view (Luke 14:26), Matthew has related the logion to holding fast to this life—corresponding to his placing it in the mission discourse. Differently from its use in Luke 14:26, and probably in Q as well, Matthew does not use the misleading formulation that disciples must “hate” the members of their family. What is meant is a matter of priorities (cf. Gen 29:30–33) or, apart from emotional aspects, the relinquishing of family connections. Matthew’s comparative formulation affirms a basically positive relation to one’s family (cf. the relation to one’s parents in 15:4– 6). It is a matter of setting the right priorities in cases of conflict (see Deut 13:7–12). In such a situation, the follower of Jesus must put aside even parents and children (only Luke 14:26 includes the wife). Matthew has here reworked his source in such a way that the tension with the command to honor one’s parents (cf. Matt 15:4– 6; 19:19) is noticeably reduced. The admonition to take up one’s cross that follows in v. 38 includes the willingness to accept the loss of even the attachment of basic family relationships but is not simply identical with these. It includes every form of hardship into which the disciples might come because of the hostility of their environment. In the worst case, as v. 39 shows, this can even mean losing their lives for Jesus’ sake. The concluding words “will find it” refers to receiving eternal life. Conversely, the one who draws back from hardship and denies Jesus in order to preserve their own life will not be able to stand in the judgment. They will lose their (eternal) life. The saying is here not about a longing for martyrdom, as the instruction to flee shows clearly enough (10:23).

II.7 The Mission of the Disciples

169

II.7.2.4 The Reception of the Missionaries (10:40– 42)

“Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me. 41 Whoever receives a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward; and whoever receives a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous; 42 and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—Amen I say to you, none of these will lose their reward.” 40

At the end of the discourse, Matthew returns to the theme of the disciples’ acceptance (cf. vv. 11–15). More precisely: v. 40 reads like the positive counterpart to v. 14. Luke 10:16 shows that Matthew is here inspired by the conclusion to this speech in Q. At the same time, reference should also be made to the contact with Mark 9:37 (par. Matt 18:5; cf. also John 13:20), especially since v. 42 has a parallel in Mark 9:41. Verse 41 is found only in Matthew. While in vv. 24–25 the solidarity and communion between Jesus and his disciples is pointed out in that they share suffering as their common destiny, v. 40 takes up another form of this idea: in the one sent, the sender is himself actually present. Since Jesus has sent the disciples (cf. v. 5), but Jesus is himself sent from God, the one who receives one of Jesus’ disciples ultimately is receiving God himself. This statement attributes an unsurpassably lofty role and status to the disciples. The continuation in vv. 41– 42 names prophets, the righteous, and little ones, which does not refer to three different groups, but identifies the disciples addressed in v. 40 from various points of view (on the fusion of prophets and righteous, cf. 13:17; 23:29). As those who have been sent from God, the disciples are (or have the rank of) prophets (cf. 5:11–12; 23:34). As people who subordinate themselves to God’s will and allow themselves to be called into service by accepting Jesus’ call to mission, they are righteous. The vulnerability and neediness they expose themselves to by virtue of their mission (cf. 10:9–10) makes them (socially) “little people.” In 18:6–14, Matthew will take the term “little ones” in a different direction. At the same time, the three designations in vv. 41– 42 branch out into mutually complementary motives from which people may receive or provide support for the itinerant missionaries. Their hosts are promised a basically disproportionate and, therefore, gracious reward for their hospitality: they receive the reward that prophets and righteous receive. In the case of the “little ones,” giving a cup of cold water is already enough to receive the reward (cf. 25:31– 46). To the extent that the hosts addressed here are settled, residential Christians (and thus the reader/hearers of Matthew), and without supposing that this instruction is limited in principle to them, vv. 40–42 serves to motivate them toward offering hospitality to the itinerant

170

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

missionaries. At the same time, the fact that their support results in a heavenly reward reveals the value that God places on the itinerant missionaries and the great importance of their missionary work. II.7.3 Conclusion of the Mission Discourse (11:1)

Now when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and proclaim his message in their cities. 1

As is the case with the other four great discourses, Matthew uses the formula “Now when Jesus had finished . . .” (cf. 7:28; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1) as a transition to the following narrative. Differently from Mark 6:12–13, 30, Matthew does not report that the disciples left on their mission, returned, and told of their success. Instead, Jesus himself continues to be the focus of attention: he moves on, in order to continue with his teaching and preaching. From this we should hardly infer, however, that Matthew did not even think about the fact that the twelve disciples actively participated in the pre-Easter mission of Jesus to Israel (15:24). Rather, their mission journey is clearly stated in10:5a. It is instructive to compare Matthew’s version with Luke’s incorporation of the speech from Q in Luke 10. Differently from Mark 6:12, Luke also does not mention that the disciples left on a mission journey after the speech. This is the picture in Luke 10:1 (par. Matt 10:5a). But then Luke 10:17 speaks of their return. This element is lacking in Matthew, but not their having been sent out. Matthew attempts in this way to emphasize that the mission thematized in Matthew 10 is not a completed, rounded-off episode in itself. With the exception of the restriction contained in 10:5b, Matthew 10 also applies to the present. III. B H  C  M: R  J’ M  I  T R (:–:) The systematically composed section 4:17–11:1 has presented Jesus as teaching and acting with authority, then the sending forth of his disciples as the extension of Jesus’ own ministry. In the following section, 11:2–16:20, the focus shifts to the aspect of the divergent reactions to this ministry and the differing answers to the question of Jesus’ identity. This aspect of the narrative is not entirely new. A variety of reactions to Jesus has already appeared in the narrative complex of Matthew 8–9 that leads up to 9:33–34—with the emergence of a circle of disciples (cf. 4:18–22; 9:9, as well as 8:18–23), and the differing reactions of the crowds from among the people and the Pharisees. What is new in 11:2–16:20 is that, with the inquiry of the Baptist in 11:2–3, this aspect now assumes center stage as the guiding aspect of the narrative: “Are you the one who is to come,

III.1 John the Baptist and the Question of Jesus’ Identity

171

or should we wait for another?” In Peter’s confession in 16:16, this question finds its authentic answer. This closes the tensive arc that was opened in 11:2–3. In view of the differing responses to Jesus, three groups are to be clearly distinguished: the disciples, the crowds, and the authorities. The difference between the authorities and the people is a constant motif that shapes the narrative. Especially through the parable discourse in Matthew 13 and the passage that precedes it in 12:46–50, however, Matthew also presses the distinction between the disciples and the crowds, though there is a growing awareness among the crowds that Jesus is the Son of David (12:23). The disciples, on the other hand, are moving in the direction of confessing Jesus as the Son of God (14:33; 16:16). It is this that is the foundation for the promise of building the church in 16:18. The hostility directed against Jesus from the authorities will result in their rejection and punishment in the Last Judgment (12:31–37, 41–42; 15:13–14), but judgment already threatens those who “only” lack a positive response to Jesus during his ministry (11:20–24). The different responses to Jesus thus finally boil down to a separation into two camps (cf. 13:19–23, 36– 43, 47–50). For the crowds, this means that they must make a decision and take a stand. Compared to Matthew 4:7–11:1, the compositional activity of the evangelist in 11:2–16:20 is essentially more conservative. Matthew 11 is basically composed of Q material, which in Q preceded the mission discourse. As already indicated, Q 7:18–23 serves in Matthew as a programmatic opening of a new thematic focus. From 12:1 on, Matthew faithfully follows the Markan chronology that begins in Mark 2:23, into which, so far as his compositional activity is concerned, Matthew merely inserts this or that text from Q or his special material. Some of the texts found after Mark 2:23 have already been incorporated and reworked by Matthew in the preceding main section, above all the large block of miracle stories in Mark 4:35–5:43 (par. Matt 8:18, 23–27; 8:28–9:1; 9:18–26), as well as the call and sending forth of the twelve disciples in Mark 3:13–19; 6:7–13 (par. Matt 10:1–14*). Matthew passes over only a few texts (e.g., Mark 3:20–21; 8:22–26); Mark 7:31–37 is replaced by the summary in Matthew 15:29–31. Although Matthew from this point on basically takes over the Markan sequence of pericopes, he succeeds in giving these texts his own distinctive stamp, as will be shown repeatedly in the following. III.1 John the Baptist and the Question of Jesus’ Identity (11:2–6) When John heard in prison about the works of the Messiah, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?” 4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5 the blind recover their sight, the lame 2

172

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

walk, the lepers are purified, the deaf (and mute) hear, the dead are raised, and the gospel is preached to the poor. 6 And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.” The parallel in Luke 7:18–23 allows us to recognize that Matthew has taken the Baptist’s inquiry from the Sayings Source. In vv. 3–6, Matthew seems to have followed his source without substantial changes, while in the narrative framework of v. 2 his own formative hand is apparent. [2–3] In the narrative logic of this passage, the notes about the spread of Jesus’ fame (4:24; 9:26, 31) provide the basis for John’s hearing about Jesus’ works, even though he is now in prison (4:12). Matthew speaks explicitly of “the works of the Christ.” Since the expression refers back to the narrative in 4:23–9:35 (see on v. 5), the Christ predicate here refers specifically to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (9:27; cf. 1:1; 2:4, 6). The Baptist’s question in v. 3 would be incomprehensible if John had perceived the heavenly voice in 3:17, but the vision and audition in 3:16–17 are given to Jesus alone. Nonetheless, in 3:14 he is portrayed as being aware of Jesus’ superiority. The widespread interpretation that John has now begun to doubt runs strongly against the intention of Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus’ healings as visible proof of his Davidic messianic power, of which the crowds are gradually becoming aware (12:23; 21:9). So understood, one would either have to believe that it is the Baptist, of all people, who does not keep up with the growing insight of the crowds, but is even developing in the opposite direction, or one would have to understand the Baptist as representing a misguided messianic expectation: what one hears about Jesus is not sufficient to prove his Messiahship. This latter view may even be quite true for the “historical” John, but the Gospel narrative is not about John as a historical person, but a character in the narrative. In the literary context of the Gospel of Matthew, hearing about the works of Jesus can hardly function otherwise than as a positive trigger, evoking the question of the identity of Jesus (cf. 12:22–23). If one is not willing to proceed on the basis that the narrative is simply incoherent, which can always only be an ultima ratio (“last resort”), the only option that remains is to read 3:14 in the light of 11:2–3 and to emphasize that the text in 3:14 (intentionally) leaves a blank space: the exact status of Jesus is not explicitly specified in John’s words. For 11:2–3 one can then conclude that, on the basis of reports about Jesus, it dawns on John that Jesus himself might possibly be the Coming One he announced (3:11). [4–5] Jesus does not respond to the Baptist’s question with a clear “yes,” nor does he give a direct description of his person, but points to the testimony of his works, which raised the Baptist’s question in the first place, and thus invites him to form his own opinion on this basis and thereby to come to a

III.1 John the Baptist and the Question of Jesus’ Identity

173

knowledge of his person. In the context, v. 5 reads like a brief summary of 4:17–11:1. Examples of everything named here have been previously narrated: blind people see (9:27–31), lame people walk (9:2–8), leprous people are made pure (8:1– 4), deaf people hear (9:32–34), and dead people are raised (9:18–26). “The gospel is preached to the poor,” with an allusion to 5:3, also refers to the Sermon on the Mount. At the same time, v. 5 is so formulated that intertextually a network of allusions to prophecies in the book of Isaiah can be discerned in the intratextual references to 4:7–11:1, in which the removal of physical infirmities is an essential mark of the promised time of salvation for Israel (Isa [29:18–19]; 35:5– 6; 61:1). Beyond the mere allusions to that which can be heard and seen, Jesus’ answer thus implies the challenge to discover for oneself that in the ministry of Jesus, the promises of salvation given to Israel in the Holy Scriptures are being fulfilled. As specifics of the series in v. 5, a comparison with the Isaiah text reveals the healing of lepers (cf. 2 Kgs 5) and the raising of the dead. For the latter, however, one may mention Isaiah 26:19 (cf. 1 Kgs 17:17–24; 2 Kgs 4:18–37), as well as the Qumran fragment 4Q521 frag. 2.2.12. The Qumran text is of particular importance insofar as healings and, in the wake of Isaiah 61:1, the preaching of good news to the poor is related to the advent of the Messiah (frag 2.2.1). To be sure, the healings here are performed by God himself and not achievements of the Messiah, but the text still offers an important witness for the idea in early Judaism that the elimination of sickness—more specifically than in the book of Isaiah—could be represented as the sign of messianic salvation (cf. also 2 Bar. [29:7]; 73:2). The Qumran text 4Q521 thus testifies to a stream of Israel’s expectation of messianic salvation to which the christological interpretation of Jesus’ ministry in the post-Easter Jesus movement could be linked: Jesus healings are proof of his messianic status (cf. 12:22–23; 21:9, 14–15). [6] The concluding makarism in v. 6 redirects the hearers’ attention to the aspect of taking a stand with regard to the person of Jesus. It is to be noticed that the blessed are not praised in a positive sense as those characterized by discipleship or confession to Jesus (10:32), but only negatively, in that they do not take offense. In this way, attention is directed to the fact that—in spite of his powerful deeds—Jesus’ manner and ministry are not likely to trigger an undivided enthusiastic response, but to evoke opposition. It was not only the Pharisees who were offended by Jesus on the basis of issues involving ritual purity (15:12). Those offended also included those who attended the synagogue in Nazareth, because Jesus’ deeds of power did not fit their expectations, since he—as they supposed—was only the son of a simple carpenter (cf. 1:18–25) and from quite ordinary circumstances (13:55–57). For Matthew, the opposite case, not to take offense at Jesus, cannot be merely not to make a negative

174

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

response to Jesus. His works require that one take a stand; there is no such thing as a neutral ground on which one can simply stay put (cf. on 12:30). The statement in 26:31 is also to be read against this background, according to which in the passion story the disciples, too, take offense at Jesus. This means that not to take offense includes unreservedly affirming Jesus’ works and way, being a disciple one can depend on, which also includes willingness to take up his cross (10:38; 16:24). III.2 The Call to Decision (11:7–30) Following the inquiry from the Baptist, in 11:7–30 Jesus gives a longer speech, interrupted only in vv. 20 and 25 by renewed introductions. The Baptist’s question becomes the occasion for clarifying the stage of salvation history that has been reached by the appearance of the Baptist and, accordingly, by the ministry of Jesus. This highlights the decisive eschatological-soteriological significance of one’s response to the work of the Baptist, and especially to Jesus’ own ministry. To put it pointedly: vv. 7–30 unfold the meaning of the makarism in 11:6. Together with vv. 2– 6, vv. 7–15 and 16–19 already formed in Q a continuous textual unit (cf. Luke 7:18–35). In Q, however, the analogy of the playing children (Matt 11:16–19) followed directly on v. 11. In vv. 12–13, Matthew has inserted another text from Q (cf. Luke 16:16). Verses 14–15 are to be attributed to Matthean redaction. Verses 20–24 are also closely followed by 25–27 in Luke too (Luke 10:13–15, 21–22). Verses 28–30 are found only in Matthew. The renewed introductions in vv. 20 and 25 clearly set off vv. 20–24 and 25–30 as subsections. The break between v. 15 and v. 16 is weaker. The source analysis sketched above also indicates this. The two sections are thematically related by Jesus’ speaking about the Baptist, who is no longer mentioned after v. 20. Nevertheless, the wake-up call in v. 15 provides a kind of closure, and the content of vv. 16–19 sets a new accent, so that it is advisable to subdivide vv. 7–30 into four subsections. III.2.1 Instructing the Crowds about the Baptist (11:7–15)

As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “Why did you go out into the wilderness? To see a reed shaken by the wind? 8 Well, why then did you go out? To see someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal palaces. 9 Why then did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, even more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ 11 Amen, I tell you: Among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist—yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 But from the days of John 7

III.2 The Call to Decision

175

the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent snatch it away—, 13 for all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John came. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15 Let anyone with ears listen!” [7–10] Jesus takes the arrival of John’s disciples as the occasion to instruct the people about the Baptist. The challenge implied in vv. 4– 6, to become aware that Jesus’ works are the fulfillment of the “messianic” promises of salvation, becomes a warning that the crowds should recognize the call to eschatological decision that has arisen since John began to preach. The threefold question, directed to the crowds that according to 3:5– 6 streamed to John, “Why did you go out?” (vv. 7, 8, 9), and the options they might offer as response, also presented in the form of questions, function to establish a consensus. The past-tense form of the questions corresponds to the reality that the ministry of the Baptist is now over, since he is imprisoned (4:12; 11:2). The first two answers are obviously wrong. Rather, the crowds went out to see a prophet (cf. 14:5; 21:26). In 11:9c–15, Jesus wants to lead the crowds beyond their present understanding: John is even more than a prophet. Exactly what this means is first determined in v. 10 by a citation from the prophets influenced by Exodus 23:20, which Matthew omitted when he adopted and adapted Mark 1:2– 6 in Matthew 3:1– 6, in order to use it here in its Q context as an element in Jesus’ instruction to the people: John is the eschatological figure promised by the prophet (Mal 3:1) to prepare the way. Introducing the quotation with “This is” reminds the reader of Matthew’s narrative at 3:3, where Matthew used this way of identifying John with the one who calls out in the wilderness (Isa 40:3). [11–15] In vv. 11–14, the identity ascribed to John in vv. 9c–10 is described in more detail. However, it is not immediately clear how the individual statements relate to each other. The decisive factor is probably to avoid trying to explain the meaning of the sayings by the chronological order in which the units were assembled, as though v. 11 rewords Q 7:28, and vv. 12–13 then take over Q 16:16a,b in inverse order. Rather, vv. 11b–12 are to be taken as a parenthesis, while v. 13 is to be connected to v. 11a. Matthew here provides a masterful demonstration of how he restructures his source documents to create a new meaning. In detail: [11a, 13–14] Verse 11a underscores John’s significance, which overshadows even that of the other prophets. In the context of Matthew 11:7–15, one can attempt to solve the problem that Jesus was also born of a woman (1:16, 25; cf. on this expression, e.g., Job 14:11; 15:14; 1QS 11.21), but for Matthew he is even greater than John (cf. 3:14), by the fact that the verb “has arisen” (differently in Luke 7:28) refers to the appearance of prophets (cf. Luke 7:16; John 7:52; of false prophets in Matt 24:11, 24), and

176

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

in v. 11a thus refers concretely to placing John in the series of prophets (v. 9). Verse 13 establishes this unique significance of John. In contrast to Luke/Q 16:16, Matthew, by inserting the verb “prophesy,” has excluded the possibility of understanding the logion as meaning that the Prophets and Law belong altogether to a past era. For Matthew, the only thing that matters here is that the time of the fulfillment of the promises has come. In accordance with this focus on the prophetic promises, and differently from 5:17; 7:12; and 22:40, Matthew does not here use the phrase “Law and Prophets” (= Luke/Q 16:16), but places the Prophets before the Law. In the narrower context, the reader needs to think back to v. 10, in addition to the broad context of 3:3. John is the fulfillment of the promise of the eschatological one who will prepare the way (Mal 3:1) and who calls out in the wilderness (Isa 40:3). In v. 14, Matthew takes this a step further by explicitly identifying John with Elijah redivivus (cf. Matt 17:12–13). In surveying the whole, it is to be noted that John, with his announcement of the Coming One, is himself a prophet (3:11–12) but at the same time is more than a prophet (11:9), greater than all the others (v. 11), because with him as the promised Elijah redivivus (v. 14) begins the fulfillment of the prophetic promises (v. 13). [11b–12] Both halves of this parenthesis (11b, 12) speak of the kingdom of heaven. To achieve this arrangement, Matthew had to change the order of Q 16:16a and 16b. The intention of v. 11b is not to devalue John the Baptist. Rather, the evaluation of his “greatness” among those “born of woman” serves as an abutment, in order to pointedly emphasize the surpassing significance of the kingdom of heaven. Although the statement is in fact formulated in the present tense, it is here—as in 5:3, 10—concerned with future participation in the eternal life of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever goes into the kingdom of heaven, even if they are the “smallest” there (cf. 5:19), is greater than John was during his earthly ministry. However, the present still includes those violent ones who (want to) snatch away the kingdom of heaven. Just as the nearness of the kingdom was already proclaimed by John prior to the preaching of Jesus and his disciples (3:2; 4:17; 10:7), it has already suffered violence since John’s appearance. The opposition to the messengers of the kingdom is understood as opposing the kingdom itself. Matthew here has the Jewish authorities in view. By no means, however, are the crowds included in this. On the contrary, they are being instructed about the “violent” and are to attain understanding despite the “violent.” By way of illustration, alongside 12:24, where the authorities seek to ward off the dawning christological understanding of the crowds, one can point to the interpretation of the parable of the sower, where the Evil One comes and “snatches away” what is sown in the heart, i.e., the word of the kingdom (13:19). In 13:19 Matthew uses (redactionally!) the same verb as in

III.2 The Call to Decision

177

11:12. If one reads 11:12 in the light of 13:19, the authorities appear here as the agents of the Evil One (cf. 12:25– 45). In the course of teaching about the Baptist, vv. 11b–12 are a parenthesis, but they are anything but a casual comment dropped in incidentally. Quite the opposite: the reference to the kingdom of heaven makes it clear what the whole thing is about, now that the eschatological preparer of the way, Elijah redivivus, has already arrived. By teaching the crowds about John—against the backdrop of the question in v. 3, whether Jesus is the Coming One—Jesus indirectly says something about himself and makes clear the horizon in which the makarism in v. 6 is to be seen: one’s response to him determines one’s participation in eternal life in the kingdom of heaven. [15] The wake-up call (11:15; cf. 13:9, 43) underscores the urgency of the decision. In the overall structure of Matthew, one can locate 11:7–15 as a connecting element in the progress in discernment between 9:33 and 12:23: while in 9:33 it is still vaguely about the exceptional character of Jesus’ deeds in the whole history of Israel, after Jesus’ instruction about the identity of John as Elijah redivivus, the crowds begin to ponder whether Jesus must then be the Son of David, the Messiah. III.2.2 The Similitude of the Playing Children (11:16–19)

“But to what shall I compare this kind of people? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to one another, 17 ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang funeral songs, and you did not beat your breasts.’ 18 For John has come, neither ate nor drank, and they say, ‘He has a demon’; 19 the Son of Man has come, ate and drank, and they say, ‘Look, the man is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” 16

In vv. 16–19—renewed after v. 12—the rejection of John and Jesus becomes thematic. The connection of the similitude (vv. 16b–17) to the introduction (v. 16a), as well as the relation of the interpretation (vv. 18–19) to the similitude, are both difficult, insofar as in vv. 18–19 the reaction to John and Jesus is described, while in vv. 16b–17 the ones who speak are the children who play for dancing or sing for the funeral, not those who are unwilling to respond. Despite this lack of precise correspondence, however, the decisive point is not difficult to recognize. In vv. 16b–17 it is a question of the fundamental unwillingness expressed in the event. “This kind of people” behaves in a similar way toward the Baptist and Jesus. The central question is, Who is meant by “this kind of people”? The underlying Greek word (genea) can mean generation in the sense of a clan (descendants

178

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

of a common ancestor) or a temporal generation, i.e., contemporaries. It is significant that in biblical tradition there are instances in which the word does not refer to an entire nation or ethnic group, but to a particular group of people, which can be qualified positively (e.g., Pss 13:5 LXX; 23:6 LXX) or negatively (Ps 11:8 LXX; Wis 3:19; Josephus, War 5.566). It is implausible to understand Matthew 11:16 in terms of a collective interpretation referring to Israel as a whole or its present generation that would include the crowds being addressed. The crowds do not regard John as possessed by a demon, but as a prophet (vv. 7–9). The contrast between the people’s and the authorities’ reactions to the Baptist in 3:5–10 provides a first indication that speaking of “this kind of people” has the latter in view. The correspondence between the rejection of Jesus as a friend of tax collectors and sinners and the accusation of the Pharisees in 9:11 points in the same direction. Moreover, the phrase “this kind of people” also refers to the authorities in 12:38– 45; 16:4; 23:36. And finally, in the application of the similitude (vv. 18–19), Matthew does not use the second-person plural “you say” as in Luke 7:33–34 (= Q) but, analogous to the similitude in v. 17, the third-person plural. The Matthean Jesus is thus speaking to the crowds (v. 7) about others, in the third person (“they say”). The crowds are not only to be led further in their perception of the identity of the Baptist (vv. 7–15), but also attain insight into the role of the authorities. The use of the phrase “this kind of people” carries a derogatory tone. Corresponding to this tone, the similitude and its application emphasize the arbitrary and absurd character of the opposition. It is a rejection simply for the sake of rejection: whatever sort of music is played, the authorities will not like it. However, their attitude will have consequences, as indicated by the subtle wordplay in v. 19, when read in the overall context of Matthew: the one who is here rejected as a man who is a glutton and drunkard is in reality the Son of Man who will someday judge the world (16:27; 24:29–31; 25:31– 46) and will then condemn his opponents. Likewise, the polemic of the authorities (vv. 18–19) also hic et nunc (“here and now”) cannot disguise the evidence of Jesus’ works, which speak for themselves, as the concluding statement of v. 19 makes clear. By speaking of the works, instead of the children (as in Luke 7:35 = Q), Matthew intentionally picks up on the “works of the Christ” spoken of in v. 2. Jesus is thereby indirectly related to Wisdom, personified, indeed hypostatized, in early Jewish wisdom speculation (Prov 8:22–31; Sir 24; Wis 6–9), even to the mediator of creation (e.g., Prov 8:27–31; Wis 9:9; Philo, Flight 109) and the throne-partner of God (Wis 9:4): Jesus’ works are manifestations of divine wisdom. However, this motif flows in rather casually. Matthew did not develop it into a substantial wisdom Christology.

III.2 The Call to Decision

179

III.2.3 Woes on the Galilean Cities (11:20–24)

Then he began to rebuke the cities in which most of his deeds of power had been done, because they had not repented. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 Nevertheless, I say to you, on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum! Will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 Nonetheless, I say to you that on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you.” 20

As can be seen from the parallel in Luke 10:13–15, the woes come from Q, where they probably stood in the context of the missions discourse presented in Luke. Matthew has already used the judgment saying in v. 24 in 10:15 (par. Luke 10:12). By taking it up again in 11:24, and adding a rationale in v. 23 analogous to v. 21, he achieves a mostly parallel form for the two woes. Only the judgment saying about descending to Hades in v. 23 (par. Luke 10:15) overshoots this structure. [20] In order to soften the transition from the opposition of the authorities thematized in vv. 16–19 to the woes against Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, in v. 20 Matthew has prefaced them with an introductory explanation he has composed himself. Verse 20 does not signal a change of audience from the preceding speech. In vv. 16–19, Jesus has already spoken to the crowds (v. 7) about other people. Accordingly, in vv. 20–24 the objects of his rebuke are not identical with his actual hearers. The perspective of judgment in vv. 20–24 is broadened out from that of vv. 16–19. In v. 20, Matthew profiles the woes against the backdrop that the rebuked cities have been privileged witnesses of Jesus’ deeds of power. For Capernaum, this can be illustrated by 8:5–17 and 9:1–34; for Chorazin and Bethsaida, both located near Capernaum, one can only refer to the summaries of 4:23, 9:35, and 11:1. The reference to Jesus’ deeds or demonstrations of power (cf. Luke/Q 10:13) takes up the sayings about the works of Christ or Wisdom (11:2, 19), which Matthew uses to integrate them into the context, i.e., with the theme of the knowledge of Jesus’ identity on the basis of his works, and the corresponding responses. The charge on which the woes are based, that the named cities did not repent in spite of Jesus’ acts of power in them, did not appear in the preceding narrative, but neither does it conflict with it, for repentance is even more than, and different from, the positive resonance to Jesus among the people recognizable in Matthew 8–9. Repentance in view of the impending kingdom of heaven was presented in 4:17

180

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

as the heart and core of Jesus’ message. In 11:20–24, cases are presented in which this demand, despite Jesus’ deeds of power in which the near approach of the kingdom of heaven is already manifest (12:28), has faded away without receiving an obedient response. Therefore, even if this failure is distinguished from the lack response among Jesus’ opponents previously dealt with in vv. 16–19, condemnation in the Last Judgment threatens. [21–24] The two woes in vv. 21–24 pointedly elaborate this critical perspective oriented to the coming judgment. The collective address to the cities is, as the contrast with Tyre and Sidon (e.g., Isa 23; Ezek 26–28; Joel 4:4–8), and with Sodom (see on Matt 10:15) shows, inspired by biblical models. The comparison with the Gentile cities, to which the imitation of a passage from the judgment oracle against Babylon in Isaiah 14:13–15 is added in the word against Capernaum in v. 23a, drastically emphasizes the severity of the failure. Even those cities in the biblical tradition famous for their sinfulness would have repented in response to Jesus’ deeds of power. The reader can perceive an intensification between the two woes. Chorazin and Bethsaida, not relevant elsewhere in the narrative, correspond to the stereotypical pair of established biblical tradition, Tyre and Sidon. Jesus’ own city, Capernaum, stands alongside these (9:1). Tyre and Sidon are followed by the proverbially sinful Sodom. The announcement that the Gentile cities will fare better in the judgment than the three Galilean cities is not said in view of the salvation of the former, but only underscores the severity of the punitive judgment that will befall the latter. It is important for understanding Matthew’s overall conception that we do not read into this passage a wholesale announcement of judgment on all Israel. Not only are the three places not identical with the arena of Jesus’ ministry envisioned in the summaries of 4:23, 9:35, and 11:1, the reference of 11:24 back to 10:14–15 is to be noted: the rejection of the missionary message of the disciples and the lack of repentance in view of Jesus’ acts of power likewise result in a judgment that will be even worse than what happened to Sodom. In the context of Matthew 10, however, rejection in one city does not lead to abandonment of God’s loving devotion expressed in the mission to Israel, but only in moving on to another city. The three places in 11:20–24 thus hardly stand as pars pro toto (the part for the whole). In any case, this sweeping address to all these places hardly refers to every individual in them (according to 8:14, Peter’s mother-in-law also lives in Capernaum). Finally, it is to be noticed that vv. 20–24 are not the concluding point of the composition in Matthew 11, but that in vv. 28–30 it opens into an invitational call directed to the crowds. In the line of thought in Matthew 11, vv. 20–24 have the function of impressing on the crowds the necessity of taking a clear stand. It is not just open opposition (vv. 16–19) but already the failure to repent (vv. 20–24) that leads to ruin.

III.2 The Call to Decision

181

III.2.4 Jesus’ Call as Invitation (11:25–30)

At that time Jesus proceeded to say, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and the understanding and have revealed them to children. 26 Yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all you that labor and are carrying heavy burdens! And I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon yourselves, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart. And you will find rest for your souls, 30 for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” 25

In vv. 25–27 Matthew continues to follow the thread of the Sayings Source (cf. Luke 10:21–22). Verses 28–30 are Matthew’s special material. The passage can be divided into three subunits: the praise in vv. 25–26, Jesus’ self-revelation in v. 27, and the invitational call in vv. 28–30, which as the conclusion of vv. 7–30 brings Jesus’ ethical instruction into the foreground. Verse 27 forms the christological basis for vv. 28–30. Conversely, the perspective of the concretization of v. 27 in vv. 28–30 shows the great importance Matthew attaches to Christian action. [25–26] For the background of this expression of praise, readers should especially note the motif of wisdom that is hidden from human beings but revealed to the elect (e.g., Job 28:12–28; 1 En. 42:1–2; Dan 2:19–23). In the line of thought developed in Matthew 11, the pronouns “these” and “them” in v. 25 take up the saying about the “works of Christ” in v. 2, to which Matthew already referred back in v. 19 (“works of wisdom”) and vv. 20, 21, 23 (“deeds of power”). While there the theme was rejection (11:16–19) and indifference (11:20–24), the focus is now the praise of God, praise that God reveals the works of Jesus as what they truly are, the works of the Messiah, to children, i.e., to the unknowing (Pss 19:8; 119:130). The disciples thereby come into view (cf. 13:11), just as in the Matthean context the “wise and understanding” whom God has passed by in his revelation, point to the religious authorities (cf. the critique of the “wise” in Isa 29:14 and 1 Cor 1:20). It is important to note that what is here said about the revelatory and concealing act of God is for Matthew at the same time regarded as the responsibility of human beings, as already illustrated in the preceding context: the crowds are to be led to a deeper understanding (11:7–15). God’s works are to be held together with human knowledge and action in a tensive dialectic. It belongs to the realm of human creatureliness that all their knowledge and action are fundamentally

182

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

dependent on the action of God. At the same time, God’s revelatory act reaches its goal where people do not shut themselves off from it. [27] With the self-revelation of Jesus as the Son, that is, as the Son of God to whom the Father has given “all things” (v. 27; cf. John 3:35; 13:3; 17:2), a thematic response to the question of Jesus’ identity raised by 11:2–3 reaches its first summit point. In view here is the union of Jesus with the Father in terms of their actions, expressed elsewhere under the aspect of Jesus’ authority—which derives from God (7:29; 9:6; 21:23–27; 28:18). That is, “all things” in v. 27a refers comprehensively to the authority and power of Jesus that comes from God and manifests in his deeds. Accordingly, the continuation of the self-presentation of Jesus by the motif of the exclusive, reciprocal knowledge of Father and Son (v. 27b,c) is not to be understood so that “all things” given to Jesus by the Father is here limited to his knowledge of God or the revelation. Rather, v. 27bc focuses the subject of the unity-in-action of the Son and the Father on the one aspect here presupposed: the unique knowledge of the Son by the Father and the Father by the Son (cf. John 10:15). This is then developed in conjunction with the statement about the role of the Son as revealer (v. 27d) in vv. 28–30, in view of the manifestation of the will of God through Jesus. [28–30] The invitational call in vv. 28–30 is the point aimed at in the speech begun in v. 7. The most plausible determination of the unit’s structure is to see the introductory invitational call in v. 28a and the promise in v. 28b as both taken up in what follows, where each is grounded in a rationale: “Come to me” is unfolded by “Take my yoke upon yourselves, and learn from me” (v 29ab), which is based on the fact that Jesus himself is gentle and humble in heart. The promise “and I will give you rest” (v. 28b) is varied in v. 29d and grounded in v. 30 by the fact that Jesus’ yoke is easy and his burden is light. The two grounding statements correspond to each other: in each case, the rationale consists of a christological statement. Alongside the “wise” and the “children,” that is to say, the religious authorities and the disciples, a third group appears in these verses, those who labor and carrying heavy burdens, who do not yet belong to the group of disciples, but are invited to come (cf. 4:19) and find rest with Jesus. If one draws 23:4 into the interpretation, which portrays the scribes and Pharisees as imposing heavy burdens on people by their interpretation of the law, it becomes clear that Jesus’ invitation—entirely in the sense of his hearers in 11:7—is directed to the crowds, and has an anti-Pharisaic point. The contrastive reference to 23:4 also makes it clear that Jesus’ challenge in v. 29 to take his yoke on them includes following the Torah as Jesus teaches it. In terms of the history of tradition, this can be attributed to the closeness of vv. 28–30 to Wisdom’s invitation in the early Jewish wisdom tradition, in which Lady Wisdom invites people to

III.2 The Call to Decision

183

come to her, or to seek her (Prov 8; Sir 6:18–37; 24:19–22; Wis 6:11–16). The convergence with Sirach 51:23–27 is particularly noticeable. In the wake of the admonition directed to the “uneducated” to draw near to Wisdom (v. 23), we find not only the invitation to place one’s neck under the yoke (v. 26), but also the promise to find rest (v. 27; cf. 6:28). In the broader context, one thing we find is the close connection between wisdom and Torah in early Judaism (Sir 24; Bar 3:9– 4:4; T. Levi 13); another is that, inspired by the wisdom tradition, the metaphor of the yoke is also used to refer to the Torah (2 En. 34:1; 2 Bar. 41:3; m. Abot 3.5; cf. also Jer 2:20; 5:5). Matthew 11:29, however, is not sufficiently understood when interpreted only in this context. In the first place, “yoke” is a metaphor for lordship (see, e.g., 2 Chr 10:4–14; Pss. Sol. 17:30; Josephus, Ant. 8.213) and should be so understood here as well—especially in the light of the royal coloration of Matthew’s Christology in general and the description of the yoke as “easy” in particular (v. 30; for mildness/leniency as a virtue for those in power, see, e.g., 1 Macc 6:11; Philo, Dreams 2.294). This is further reinforced by the fact that Jesus’ self-characterization as “gentle” (v. 29) in 21:5 is explicitly referring to Jesus as king. Jesus thus calls the people to accept his lordship, because as the meek Messianic King he rules with leniency. The following admonition of Jesus, to learn from him, concretizes the call to submit to his lordship by focusing on the ethical orientation which can be learned from Jesus. In addition to hearing and following Jesus’ instruction, this also implies adopting his life as a model. The following rationale refers in a double sense to the two preceding instructions. In the first, it is Jesus’ own gentleness and humility that gives the basis for why people should receive his yoke: In contrast to the scribes and Pharisees, who according to 23:5–7 are only concerned with their own social prestige, Jesus is distinguished by the way he relates to people with understanding, compassion, and as one who serves (20:28). In the second, gentleness and humility indicate why and in what respects one should imitate Jesus. Accordingly, 5:5, 18:4, and 23:12 exhibit the meaning of gentleness and humility as ethical guidelines for the disciples (cf. Zeph 3:12; Sir 3:17–18, 20; 10:14–15 LXX). The challenging invitation in vv. 28–29 is motivated by the repeated promise of rest. In the Old Testament and in early Jewish writings, the “rest”-motif is found in a variety of thematic contexts expressing the experience of salvation or salvific dimensions of one’s lived situation. Thus the taking of the land as attaining the goal of the exodus can be called “rest” (e.g., Deut 12:9–10; Josh 21:44; 1 Kgs 8:56). “Rest” is also a term for salvation in the prophetic promises (Isa 14:1–3; 32:18). In view of the significance Ezekiel 34 has elsewhere as a Matthean reference text (see above on 9:36), the occurrence of the “rest”-motif in Ezekiel 34:15 LXX should be noted, where God promises to feed his sheep

184

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

and give them rest. For Matthew, Jesus is the Davidic Shepherd announced in Ezekiel 34:23, the one through whom God makes good on his promise. Viewed against this background, the rest promised by Jesus is about the salvation to be found in him as the Messiah, to be fulfilled by participation in the kingdom of heaven (on this eschatological horizon, cf. 4 Ezra 7:36, 38; 8:52; LAE [Latin] 51:2). This is in step with the way Matthew has formulated the promise of rest in 11:29d with words from Jeremiah 6:16, where “rest” appears as the consequence of walking the old paths of the people of God with their God. For Matthew, this is now the way of discipleship to which Jesus here calls the people. In the concluding grounding for the promise of rest in v. 30, after the manner in which Jesus’ yoke is qualified as gentle and his burden as light (see above), the second clause refers to the designation of those who are called in v. 28 and thus—analogous to the two challenges in v. 29—focuses on the ethical dimension. In contrast to the burden that the authorities impose on the people (cf. 23:4), Jesus’ burden is “light.” In view of the ethical challenges presented in the Sermon on the Mount, which are not at all “easy,” v. 30b may at first glance appear strange. Yet, these commands must be heard as embedded in the Matthean emphasis on the mercy with which Jesus encounters sinners (9:9–13), and which accordingly should shape the community of believers (cf. 18:10–35). Moreover, Jesus’ yoke proves to be light inasmuch as it relieves people of the burdens of having to give so much attention to the rigorous ritual-cultic requirements of the Pharisaic interpretation of the Law in their everyday life. The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees that directly follows in 12:1–8, about a humane practice of the Sabbath—the day of rest (Exod 23:12; 31:15; 35:2; Lev 23:3)—determined by compassion, provides an exemplary illustration. III.3 The Intensification of the Conflict with the Pharisees, and the Community of Disciples as the Family of Jesus (12:1–50) While in 11:7–30 Jesus addressed the crowds with the invitational call of 11:28–30, in Matthew 12 the conflict with the Pharisees takes center stage. Two major blocks of material may be distinguished: the Sabbath controversies in 12:1–14, which prompt Jesus’ withdrawal from engagement with the Pharisees 12:15(–21), and a longer dispute in which they charge Jesus with operating by the power of Beelzebul (12:22– 45). This line of increasing conflict is concluded by the relativization of family ties, which is juxtaposed to the formation of the community of disciples as a new family. III.3.1 Sabbath Conflicts and the Healing Son of God (12:1–21)

In 12:1–21 Matthew returns to following the Markan thread (cf. Mark 2:23– 3:12). While Matthew has already edited Mark 2:1–22 into Matthew 9:1–17,

III.3 The Intensification of the Conflict with the Pharisees

185

he has kept the two Sabbath controversies of Mark 2:23–3:6 for his composition that begins with Matthew 11:2, in which the spotlight focuses on the responses to Jesus. These Sabbath controversies, which are the first and only Sabbath episodes in Matthew (since Matthew has omitted the Sabbath date in Mark 1:21[–34]), here serve to highlight the harshly hostile attitude of the Pharisees, which reaches a first high point in the death resolution of v. 14. Yet, they are unable to suppress Jesus’ work, as shown by 12:15–21, underscored by an extensive quotation from Scripture. III.3.1.1 Disputes with the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath (12:1–14)

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 But he said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 How he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and yet are guiltless? 6 But I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” 9 And when he had left that place, he entered their synagogue. 10 And behold (there was) a man who had a withered hand. And they asked him and said, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. 11 But he said to them, “Who among you will be a person who has only one sheep and, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13 Then he says to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored, as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and made the decision against him, to destroy him. 1

By the compositional placement of the invitational call in 11:28–30 just prior to the Sabbath conflicts in 12:1–14, these controversies appear in Matthew as the unfolding of Jesus’ promised “rest for your souls” (11:29) and his reference to his gentle yoke. Its contrast to the heavy burdens imposed by the Pharisees (23:4) is manifest in the intensification of the conflict in 12:1–14 ignited by Sabbath observance. [1] On the basis of Exodus 34:21, where the command to rest on the Sabbath is explicitly related to plowing and harvesting, plucking grain on

186

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

the Sabbath was regarded as prohibited (Jub. 50:12; CD 10.20–21; m. Šabb. 7.2). Neither does Matthew deny that this is breaking the Sabbath rule. But by adding the note that the disciples were hungry, he introduces a reason for their conduct that shows they were innocent (v. 7). They do not break the command to rest out of contempt for the Sabbath with malicious intent, but because they are in need. This addition also serves not only to facilitate the analogy with David’s conduct (vv. 3– 4), but above all prepares for the far more important line of argument in vv. 5–7 which Matthew has inserted into his Markan source. [2] Considering the reaction of the Pharisees in v. 2 in the overall structure of Matthew clearly shows the intensification of the conflict in comparison with 9:9–13. While there the Pharisees pose a question to the disciples, here for the first time they direct their protest directly to Jesus. This occurs differently from Mark 2:24, no longer in the form of a question about the possible reason for the conduct of the disciples; but Matthew has the Pharisees state the violation in an accusatory tone. The possibility that the violation might have a (convincing) basis is not even considered. [3–4] In Matthew, Jesus’ reply consists of two arguments based on Scripture, the introduction in each case revealing that the charge of the Pharisees only indicates their own incompetence in the knowledge of Scripture (cf. 19:4). Jesus first cites an analogous case from 1 Samuel 21:1–7: David, too, considered himself justified in transgressing a commandment to satisfy hunger, for David and his people ate the bread of the Presence which is prepared each Sabbath, and which was reserved for the priests (Lev 24:8–9). David, too, subordinated the realm of cultic observance to the satisfaction of hunger. However, merely presenting an analogous case cannot be an adequate basis for justifying the legitimacy of a transgression. [5–7] Matthew thus augments the appeal to David’s example with an argument taken from the Torah, which replaces Mark 2:27 (the verse is also missing in Luke 6:1–5, except for the renewed introductory words to the saying in v. 5), but whose establishment of mercy as the guiding criterion corresponds to Mark 2:27 in spirit. Matthew has Jesus refer to the fact that the priests regularly profane the Sabbath by the sacrifice offered according to Numbers 28:9–10. He thus points to a case in the Torah in which the commandments conflict with each other, showing that the Torah itself operates with a hierarchy of commands—the temple service trumps the Sabbath. In the present case, however, something even greater than the temple is present (v. 6), namely, as explicated in v. 7, mercy (the Greek word for mercy here [to eleos], like “something greater” in v. 6, is grammatically in the neuter gender). This means that if offering sacrifice in the temple already outranks Sabbath observance, in the light of Hosea 6:6, mercy must be of even higher rank. The line of argument of vv. 5–7 thus makes clear that Matthew

III.3 The Intensification of the Conflict with the Pharisees

187

understands the juxtaposition of mercy and sacrifice in a comparative sense, “I want mercy more than I want sacrifice.” The disciples thus have the will of God as expressed in Scripture on their side. To be sure, their plucking grain on the Sabbath is a transgression of the Sabbath commandment. But since God’s first priority is mercy, the disciples are guiltless, because they were hungry, and it is a commandment to be merciful that people who are hungry may get something to eat. Verse 7 also emphasizes the legitimacy of David’s conduct in 1 Samuel 21. To be sure, a cultic command, namely Leviticus 24:9, is violated, but here again the standard of mercy toward the hungry is compelling, and there is no reproach for violating the command. The introductory words in v. 7 to the quotation of Hosea 6:6, “if you had known what this means,” point back to 9:13. Thus 12:7 now confirms that the Pharisees have not complied with Jesus’ challenge to learn what this prophetic word means. The fact that Matthew justifies the disciples’ conduct by appealing to their hunger makes it clear that he does not intend for the text to be understood that the Sabbath command itself has been abrogated (see also 24:20). However, the basic distinction between small and “great” commandments, which is fundamental for Matthew’s hermeneutic of the Law, here comes into view (cf. on 5:17–20; 23:23). In cases of conflict, priority must be given to the more important commandment. Sabbath observance is thus to be shaped according to the standard of the central requirements of the Law and Prophets, namely, love and mercy. The criticism of the Pharisees in 12:1–8 thus reads like an illustration of the implied accusation in 5:20—they lag behind in their performance of the great commandments. In terms of the history of tradition, Matthew 12:1–8 belongs to the category of the controversial early Jewish discussion of Sabbath observance. In addition to the definition of the forbidden activities themselves (m. Šabb. 7.2), the regulation of exceptions is important. In the Maccabean period, the position developed that self-defense is permitted on the basis of the necessity of survival (cf. 1 Macc 2:29– 41), but this remained disputed, as seen for example in Josephus (Life 161). In continuity of the Maccabean decision, it was possible to develop the principle that life-threatening situations could overrule the Sabbath (t. Šabb. 15:11–16; b. Yoma 85a). A good example of the corresponding discussion is found in m. Yoma 8.6: “If a person has a sore throat, it is permitted to put drugs in his mouth, even on the Sabbath day, because here there is possibly a threat to life, and every possibility of danger to life displaces the Sabbath.” This is directly preceded by an exception to the strict fasting command on the Day of Atonement: “When someone is overcome by intense hunger, then give him something to eat, even impure food, until his eyes brighten up.” However, it is by no means necessary to assume that Matthew intends to suggest that the disciples are in mortal danger. With the preference for mercy as the overruling principle, he takes a position in which, as further illustrated in vv. 9–14, it is not

188

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

necessary for someone’s life to be in danger before the Sabbath command can be put in second place, even though the commandment itself remains in force. Thus, within the spectrum of early Judaism, Matthew advocates, in a particularly consistent way, a liberal counterposition to the strict forms of the Sabbath Halacha found in Jubilees (2:29–30; 50:6–13) or at Qumran (CD 10.14–11.8). Moreover, the establishment of mercy as the leading criterion ultimately makes any form of elaborately contrived Sabbath Halacha become inoperative (cf. Doering, Schabbat, 435–36, 462).

[8] Verse 8 adds a christological basis, which in the Matthean context points back to the authority of Jesus as elaborated in Matthew 5, to the scriptural argumentation in vv. 3–7. As the one who opens up the will of God expressed in the Torah and Prophets in a fully valid way, as it is, he is also Lord of the Sabbath. That is, he is the one who, with ultimate authority, interprets the meaning of the gift of the Sabbath, and, by shifting mercy to the center, interprets the Sabbath practice that corresponds to this meaning. [9–14] In vv. 9–14, the focus remains completely directed on the dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees. The instruction to the sick man in Mark 3:3 is omitted, just as is the reference to Jesus’ emotion in Mark 3:5a. Instead, the argument with the Pharisees has been extended in vv. 11–12a, which, as Luke 14:5 shows, is not a free composition of the evangelist, but is taken from tradition. [9–10] Through Matthew’s revised transition in v. 9, the second Sabbath episode is directly connected to the preceding dispute. The presence of a man with a withered hand, i.e., probably inflexible or paralyzed, gives the Pharisees an occasion to provoke Jesus to an action that in their view would be a clear violation of the Sabbath, for, since the man’s life is not in danger, the healing can obviously wait until the next day. Differently from the Markan account, the Pharisees do not wait to see if Jesus will heal the man, but confront him immediately with the question, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” The formulation of the question with “is it lawful” recalls the charge in v. 2. According to Jesus’ response in vv. 3–8, the Pharisees can confidently assume that Jesus, since he makes acting with mercy superior to all other considerations, will not only regard healings on the Sabbath as permitted, but will perform them. Verse 10 also makes it clear that the Pharisees have not been moved by Jesus’ arguments in vv. 3–8 to reconsider their own understanding, just as they have not responded to the challenge of 9:13. The two fronts have long been hardened, indeed from the very beginning. The knowledge of Jesus’ position on this issue only helps them to provoke him to act, in the hope that they will be able to get their hands on something they can use to accuse him (cf. Exod 31:14). Accordingly, in contrast to vv. 1–2, the issue now focuses no longer on the disciples, but on the conduct of Jesus himself.

III.3 The Intensification of the Conflict with the Pharisees

189

[11–12] The Pharisees calculation does not, of course, work out, for, before Jesus heals the man, he unmasks his adversaries with a brief halachic discourse. By referring to the obvious necessity of helping a sheep that has fallen into a pit on the Sabbath, in v. 11 Jesus catches the Pharisees in a trap of their own making, their own Sabbath practice. There is no documentation of this practice independent of Matthew 12:11. In any case, the Babylonian Talmud, Šabbat 128b, gives permission to put pillows and cushions under a cow that falls into a ditch. In contrast, the Essenes considered it prohibited to pull cattle out of a ditch or fountain into which they had fallen (CD 11:13–14). The case described in Matthew 12:11 gains its social explosiveness from the fact that it is the man’s only sheep; the loss would be felt, indeed existentially (cf. 2 Sam 12:3). But if in such a case, there is no question but that the sheep should be helped out, at least in the Pharisees’ understanding, how much more, then—this is the logic of v. 12b—should a human being be helped, who is much more valuable than a sheep (v. 12a; cf. 6:26; 10:31). The conclusion can only be that healing is not one of the works forbidden on the Sabbath. That the Pharisees do not draw this conclusion reveals the irrationality of their position, and at the same time their hostility to Jesus as well as their unmerciful attitude to human beings. The wording of Jesus’ conclusion in v. 12b is directly related to the Pharisees’ question in v. 10, except that “healing” is replaced by or interpreted as “doing good.” The Markan alternative question (Mark 3:4) becomes a programmatic principle that establishes mercy as the guideline of Sabbath practice prescribed in vv. 1–8. It is permitted to do good on the Sabbath. [13–14] The healing is only briefly confirmed in v. 13. The Pharisees make no response to Jesus’ argument, and Matthew undoubtedly assumes that they are not able to respond (cf. 22:46). Instead, they go out and make the decision to kill Jesus. Matthew has omitted Mark’s reference to the Herodians (Mark 3:6); his interest is limited to the Pharisees. The conflict with them has become deadly. The anticipation of the passion placed in v. 14 is augmented by the expression “made the decision,” which is used several times in the Jerusalem chapters (22:15; 27:1, 7; 28:12). III.3.1.2 The Healing Servant of God as Hope for the Gentiles (Matt 12:15–21)

When Jesus became aware of this, he withdrew from there; and large crowds followed (after) him, and he healed them all. 16 And he strictly ordered them not to make him known, 17 in order that what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled, who says: 18 “Behold, my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. 19 He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the 15

190

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

streets. 20 He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings justice to victory. 21 And in his name (the) Gentiles will hope.” In vv. 15–16, Matthew presents a strongly reduced version of Mark 3:7–12. He has already reworked the geographical data in Mark 3:7b–8 in Matthew 4:25. The text’s center of gravity now lies in the extensive quotation of the “servant song” of Isaiah 42:1– 4 in vv. 17–21, which Matthew uses to look beyond the immediate context and reflect on different facets of Jesus’ ministry in the light of Scripture and to identify them as scriptural. [15–16] When Jesus recognizes the Pharisees’ plan, he withdraws, since the time when he will take the way to the cross has not yet come (cf. 26:18). Matthew has already used the same verb—used here in reference to Mark 3:7—in Matthew 2 in connection with the flight from Herod (2:14) and later from his son Archelaus (2:22; cf. also 4:12; 14:13; 15:21). The Pharisees now walk in the footsteps of those who have sought to kill Jesus. The masses, on the other hand, are still with Jesus (cf. 4:25; 8:1; 14:13; 19:2), and again, Jesus heals them all (not, as in Mark 3:10, “many”; cf. Matt 8:16 / Mark 1:34). By omitting Mark 3:11, the command to silence taken over from Mark 3:12 is directed not to the unclean spirits who want to reveal Jesus’ identity as Son of God, but to the crowds whom he has healed. Accordingly, the command to silence does not refer to revealing Jesus’ identity, but is to be seen in the context of Jesus’ withdrawal from the Pharisees. He wants to stay away from them (for the time being). [17–21] The citation from Isaiah 42:1– 4 that follows in vv. 17–21 is the longest fulfillment-quotation in the entire Gospel. Its wording suggests that it is an independent translation of the Hebrew text influenced by the LXX (and possibly the targumic tradition). For the connection of the quotation to the narrative context, v. 19 is often mentioned as the sole or primary point of contact, which would correspond to the command to silence in v. 16. But precisely this bridge is not very strong, since v. 16 is about the silence of the crowds, not the silence of the servant. However, there are other closely related points of contact in the immediate context, which will be developed below. These findings suggest that it is the evangelist himself who is responsible for the final form of the quotation. [18] Speaking of the servant as “my beloved, with whom my soul is pleased,” like the reference to the Spirit, calls to mind 3:16–17 (the Greek word here translated “servant” [pais] can also mean “son” or “boy”; cf. on 8:6). The reception of Isaiah 42:1– 4 is thus integrated into the evangelist’s Son of God Christology. In the context of Matt 12, the reference to the servant’s possessing the Spirit also points to v. 28.

III.3 The Intensification of the Conflict with the Pharisees

191

[19] For v. 19 there is also a reference in the context to Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees and his withdrawal from them. Jesus does not overcome his opponents with power and violence, as one might expect a king to do on the basis of well-rehearsed role models (cf. 26:52–54). He does not “wrangle,” as Matthew translates, differently from both the MT and the LXX, but at first backs off from confrontation, and then presents himself in such a way that he takes upon himself the way of suffering. So also, loud or ostentatious conduct in the wide streets (cf. 6:5) is not the business of the meek king Jesus (11:29; 21:5). [20] The metaphors of the bruised reed and smoldering wick in v. 20a,b—which, taken by themselves, can be applied in a variety of ways—in this context are associated with the desolate circumstances of the masses (9:36; 10:6). They reflect Jesus’ gracious turning to them as the “abandoned, lost sheep” of whom v. 15 speaks, in the reference to Jesus’ healing ministry. In the temporal clause that concludes v. 20, Isaiah 42:3c (LXX: “in truth he will bring forth justice”) and v. 4b (LXX: “until he has established justice on the earth”) are combined, and “in/for truth” is replaced by “to victory.” The intervening statement that “He will blaze up and not be broken” (Isa 42:4a LXX) is omitted as incompatible with Jesus’ passion. In Matthew 12:20, the temporal clause includes the event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, for his death is not a matter of being subject to his adversaries. Rather, his exaltation as Lord of the world includes his “victory,” thus providing the basis that as exalted Lord he has brought victory for justice. The parousia of Jesus and the Last Judgment will complete this “victory.” In light of v. 20, it has to be noted with regard to Matthew’s placement of the quotation of Isaiah 42:1– 4 that he used the first reference to the death of Jesus in the context of the conflict with the Jewish authorities (v. 14) to insert a quotation that from his christological perspective he could read as referring to this conflict and its saving “victorious” outcome. [21] The resurrection and exaltation of Jesus is connected with the fulfillment of the hope of the Gentiles, which, in the Matthean version of the quotation based on the LXX, refers specifically to Jesus’ “name.” On the one hand, this means that, in the overall context of Matthew’s Gospel, the naming of Jesus in 1:21b finds its ultimate fulfillment in the passion, and the Immanuel motif is included in the promise of the Risen One in 28:20b. The promise in 12:21 thus confirms the reference in v. 20c to the death and resurrection of Jesus. On the other hand, there is also a connection of 12:21 to the baptismal command in 28:19: that the Gentiles’ hope in his name corresponds to the command that all people should be baptized “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” [18] In the configuration of the quotation, v. 21 links back to v. 18. In Matthew’s view, the proclamation of justice is understood in line with 28:19–20, that is, in the sense of instruction in the teaching of Jesus that opens

192

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

up the meaning of God’s Law (see also 24:14). This “bringing forth justice to victory” (v. 20c) provides the presupposition for its proclamation among the nations, in which the hope of the Gentiles begins to be fulfilled (v. 21). The two statements in v. 18d and v. 21 concerning the Gentiles frame the exposition of the work of the servant. Verses 18–21 thus function not only to anchor the universal dimension of the Christ-event in Scripture, which has already been done in the citation of Isaiah 8:23–9:1 in Matthew 4:15–16, but to take this anchoring a step further by the statement in v. 20c, in view of the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection for the universality of salvation. III.3.2 Jesus’ Reckoning with the Hostile Pharisees (12:22– 45)

While 12:1–14 is concerned with conflict about the Torah, a lengthy controversy emerges in 12:22– 45 ignited by Jesus’ healing ministry. Matthew continues to follow the Markan narrative thread and in 12:24–32 reworks Mark 3:22–30 (Mark 3:13–19 has already been incorporated in Matt 10:1– 4, and Matthew omits Mark 3:20–21 because of its negative portrayal of Jesus’ family). However, Matthew also supplements his narrative with material from the Q version of the Beelzebul controversy (cf. Luke 11:14–23*), redactionally combines both versions, and in vv. 33–35 again draws upon Q 6:43– 45 (cf. Matt 7:16–20), this time including Q 6:45. We cannot be entirely sure whether the judgment pronouncement in vv. 36–37 comes partly from Matthew’s special material or is entirely redactional, but the surprising reference to “useless” words suggests a pre-Matthean origin of at least part of v. 36. The demand for signs (Matt 12:38– 42) and the saying about the return of the unclean spirit (12:43– 45) are then taken from the Sayings Source (cf. Luke 11:16, 29–32 + 11:24–26). Matthew has not only reversed the order of the two texts, but at the same time has combined them into one sense-unit by adding the concluding clause in v. 45. III.3.2.1 The Beelzebul Controversy (12:22–37)

Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and (deaf-) mute; and he healed him, so that the one who had been (deaf-) mute spoke and saw. 23 All the crowds were amazed and said, “Can this one be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “This one is driving out demons in no other way than by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.” 25 But since he knew what they were thinking, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 And if Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. So how will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own sons drive them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, 22

III.3 The Intensification of the Conflict with the Pharisees

193

then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 Or how can one break into a strong man’s house and plunder his property, without first binding the strong man? Then indeed he will plunder his house. 30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 “Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy; but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the future world. 33 Accept either: the tree is good, so its fruit is good. Or accept: the tree is bad, so its fruit is bad. For the tree is known by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, since you are evil? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good person brings good things out of a good treasure, and the evil person brings evil things out of an evil treasure. 36 But I say to you: on the day of judgment every person will have to give an account for every useless word they utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” [22–24] As Matthew here incorporates Q 11:14–15 + Mark 3:22, he follows the same pattern as in 9:32–34, where he has already used this passage. The healing (cf. v. 15) of a man possessed by demons evokes a positive response from the crowds, to which the Pharisees respond with the accusation that Jesus operates by the power of Beelzebul. Differently from 9:32, in 12:22 the demoniac is not only mute, but also blind, and the crowds begin to speak of the exceptional character of Jesus’ deeds, which they noticed in 9:33, in messianic categories, although only in the form of a doubtful question. They thus exhibit a budding christological awareness, which can be seen in the course of the whole Matthean narrative, mediated or initiated through the instruction in 11:7–30. Since the Son of David title is also associated elsewhere in Matthew with the healing of blind people (9:27–31; 20:29–34; 21:14–15), a direct connection is to be seen between the expansion of the portrayal of sick people in v. 22 compared to 9:32 and the question pondered by the crowds in v. 23, in which the metaphorical meaning of blindness is also to be considered, namely, the spiritual blindness induced by the authorities (cf. on 9:27). Correlated with the progress of the crowds in discerning Jesus’ identity, the Pharisees’ actions in rejecting Jesus gain in intensity, for the charge in 9:34 is now made even more forceful by the formula “in no other way than by Beelzebul.” Matthew explicitly identifies v. 24 as their response to what the crowds are saying (“when the Pharisees heard it”). The inclusion of the demonstrative pronoun “this one” (v. 23), which can be heard with a disrespectful tone in v. 24, underscores the deprecating note in the Pharisees’ reference to the crowds’ deliberation. Verse 24 is thus the decisively

194

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

negative response to the crowd’s question. While the Pharisees presuppose Jesus’ ability to heal in v. 10 as something taken for granted, they now, in the face of the popular response to him, want to discredit Jesus by claiming that he is in league with Beelzebul and nip the crowd’s reflections in the bud, in order to bolster their own claims to authority. [25–37] Differently from 9:32–34, Jesus reacts to the Pharisees’ charge with an extensive rejoinder (vv. 25–37), which reflects the shifting of focus between 4:17–11:1 and 11:2–16:20. There is no tension between this speech and the statement in 12:19, insofar as the quarrel was not ignited by Jesus; he is only countering the charge of the Pharisees. Jesus’ reply can be roughly divided into two sections: vv. 25–30 deal with the reproach raised in v. 24, while vv. 31–37 point out the soteriological consequences of the malicious speech of the Pharisees. [25–27] Since the Pharisees expressed their charge openly, the note that Jesus “knew what they were thinking” can only mean that he knew what they were up to. In the immediate context, the reader is to think of vv. 14–15. The attempt to suppress the positive reception Jesus is receiving among the crowds is a first step in their plan to get rid of Jesus. In his response in vv. 25–26 (par. Luke/Q 11:17–18; Mark 3:23–26), Jesus first illustrates the absurdity of the charge, for a kingdom divided against itself—which must be the case for Satan’s kingdom if the Pharisees’ charge is true (v. 26)—cannot endure (v. 25a). No country ever emerges stronger after a civil war. The same applies mutatis mutandis for the social realities of cities and houses (= families) of which kingdoms consist, which Matthew adds in v. 25b. Verse 27 (par. Luke/Q 11:19) then reveals the malice of their allegation: the Pharisees have a different evaluation of the exorcisms in their own ranks. They obviously do not consider exorcisms per se as “work of the devil.” So v. 24 is not about the work itself, but that it has been done by Jesus. [28] In v. 28 (par. Luke/Q 11:20) Jesus then confronts the Pharisees’ allegation with the actual situation: it is not by Beelzebul, but by the Spirit of God, whose power has determined Jesus’ life and work from the very beginning (1:18, 20; 3:16), that Jesus drives out the demons. The Sayings Source Q (cf. Luke 11:20) spoke in this passage about the “finger of God” (cf. Exod 8:15). On the one hand, Matthew has changed this to “by the Spirit of God” in anticipation of vv. 31–32 and, on the other hand, as a reference back to v. 18. Jesus’ exorcisms differ from those of others by the fact that in his works, God’s kingdom, or rulership, is already manifesting itself in the present. This means that wherever the saving acts of the Messiah empowered by the Spirit emerge, the power of the devil begins to fade and in principle is already broken (cf. T. Dan 5:10; T. Mos. 10:1). [29] This latter is illustrated by the rhetorical question of v. 29 in the form of a metaphorical saying (on the imagery, cf. Isa

III.3 The Intensification of the Conflict with the Pharisees

195

49:24–25; Pss. Sol. 5:3): While, to be sure, the “house” of Satan is not divided against itself, the situation of Satan is already like that of a strong man who must first be bound before his house can be plundered. This means that people who suffer under the demonic hordes of Satan can now be liberated. Of course, the binding of Satan pictured here is not (yet) the whole story; it applies concretely in view of the whole saving event that is being manifested in driving out the demons. Elsewhere in the narrative, however, the devil is still active (cf. 13:19, 39). [30] In the Lukan parallel, the logion in v. 30 functions as a call to decision, and this was probably the case in Q as well. In the Matthean context, however, it is to be read as an element in the charges against the Pharisees. Their task—as the religious “elite”—should have been to work together with Jesus, to “gather” the shepherdless (9:36) and lost (10:6) sheep. But in their malice, they do exactly the opposite. [31-37] With “therefore I tell you” in v. 31, Jesus’ speech takes a new turn that develops the soteriological consequences of the Pharisees’ behavior. [31–32] These verses combine Mark 3:28–29 and a logion found in Q in a different context (Luke 12:10). In the Matthean context, the passage is to be read in the light of v. 28, so that the statement of the Pharisees is blasphemy against the Spirit of God working in Jesus, and such sin cannot be forgiven. It is difficult to understand the differentiation in v. 32, in which the one who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but not the one who speaks against the Holy Spirit, since it is in fact the Son of Man, Jesus, whose works are done through the Holy Spirit. Should we here draw a distinction between Jesus’ general ministry, in which the kingdom of God empowered by the Spirit is not directly present, as it is in his acts of healing and exorcism? For a more precise explanation, one could go back specifically to 11:19, where Jesus regards the censure that he is a glutton and drunkard as speaking against the Son of Man. Though such an insult can be forgiven, accusing Jesus of working by the power of Beelzebul takes the charge to another level. With this intensification, one can then see that speaking about “this kind of people” (11:16) has intensified in 12:39 to “an evil and adulterous kind of people.” One difficulty remains, however, because Jesus’ gracious turning to sinners, which was criticized in 11:19, also belongs to the very center of his actions and, moreover, cannot really be separated from his healing ministry (cf. 9:2–13). Perhaps v. 32 is then simply to be read as a rhetorically sharpened formulation, in which v. 32a serves mainly as a foil for v. 32b to reveal the seriousness of sin against the Holy Spirit, that is, the seriousness of the Pharisees’ words in v. 24. The emphatically repeated phrase “it will not be forgiven” (vv. 31, 32) receives additional weight from the phrase “neither in this world nor in the future world.” The Pharisees will receive their punishment in the Last Judgment.

196

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

[33–35] By again taking up the image of the tree and its fruit (cf. 7:16–20) in v. 33, and its application to the blasphemous words of the Pharisees (vv. 34–35), Matthew emphasizes that the Pharisees are so essentially evil that nothing can be expected from them except an evil tongue. The invective “brood of vipers” takes up the Baptist’s label for the Pharisees and Sadducees in 3:7 (cf. also 23:33), which fits in with the Matthean tendency to align the respective messages of John and Jesus to each other (cf. on 3:2; 4:17; and also on 3:7–10). The ensuing question “How . . . ?” in v. 34a is rhetorical and means nothing less than that it is completely impossible for the Pharisees, because of their essential evil, that good words could come from them. As in v. 29, the answer is “not at all!” For Matthew, the words of the Pharisees are the authentic expression of the orientation of their evil hearts (vv. 34b–35; on the heart as source of action, see 15:19). [36–37] In vv. 36–37, Matthew summarizes the preceding statements, by once again pointing to the ultimate consequences of the blasphemous and malicious speech of the Pharisees in the Last Judgment. To be sure, v. 36, taken by itself, does not seem to precisely fit the context, for the motif of the “useless word” also includes thoughtless chatter, or the problem that words are not translated into action. Verse 37, however, has a wider perspective by presenting the basic principle that in the judgment, words will be (co-)decisive. The Pharisees can thus expect nothing good in the Last Judgment; they are en route to their condemnation. III.3.2.2 The Demand for Signs by This Evil Kind of People (12:38– 45)

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him and said, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39 But he answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous kind of people asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to them except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. 41 The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this kind of people and condemn them, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here! 42 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this kind of people and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here! 43 When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but it finds none. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ When it comes, it finds it empty, swept, and put in order. 45 Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits even more evil 38

III.3 The Intensification of the Conflict with the Pharisees

197

than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So will it be also with this evil kind of people.” [38] Analogous to the Beelzebul charge in 9:34 and 12:24, so also the demand for signs in 12:38 reveals that Matthew replaces the indefinite subject in Q (cf. Luke 11:16) with the authorities, on the basis of the Markan parallel (Mark 8:11–12) he adopts in Matthew 16:1– 4. For the first time in Matthew, Pharisees (= Mark 8:11) and scribes emerge together. To be sure, the two groups have already appeared in 5:20, but at the level of Jesus’ speech (rather than as actors at the narrative plane). In the course of Matthew 12, the demand for a sign appears as their answer to Jesus’ response to the Beelzebul charge launched by the Pharisees. The harsh tone of their demand in v. 38 is striking, which only Matthew represents verbatim, in direct speech (cf. Luke 11:16; Mark 8:11). They confront Jesus as those who understand themselves to be authorities to whom Jesus must prove himself. In contrast to the sign demanded by them in 16:1 and the synoptic parallels (Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16), the sign here is not yet specifically a “sign from heaven” (= Q?). The demand is thus open to being understood as a spectacular demonstration that remains within the realm of the “earthly” world (cf. Exod 4:1–9, 30). In this context, it is precisely this openness of their demand that makes it clear that the authorities are not ready to acknowledge Jesus’ healings as a valid proof of the messianic identity of Jesus already being pondered by the crowds in v. 23. The question of the messianic character of the works of Jesus introduced in 11:2 still hovers in the background. [39–40] By assigning the demand for a sign to the scribes and Pharisees, the reference to “this evil and adulterous kind of people” at the beginning of Jesus’ reply clearly refers to them, and specifically to them alone. Matthew has here dissolved the defining sentence, “this kind of people is evil” (Luke/Q 11:29), and made “this evil kind of people”—supplemented with the epithet taken from Mark 8:38, “adulterous” (cf. Ezek 16:23; Hos 3; Jas 4:4)—the subject of the sentence, so that the phrase takes up the first-person plural of the words reported in direct speech in v. 38. This clear syntactic relation speaks decidedly against the thesis that the expression “this kind of people” looks beyond the authorities to the rest of the people or the whole present generation, especially since its close connection to the scribes and Pharisees has been underscored by the clear differentiation between the crowds and the authorities in the previous narrative (see the immediately preceding 12:23–24!). The postulate that the authorities represent the people—in the strict sense of the word—in no way accords with the Matthean narrative concept. Last but not least, the Pharisees have already been explicitly labeled as “evil” (v. 34); v. 39 builds on this.

198

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

Jesus rejects the authorities’ demand for a sign, albeit with one exception, the sign of Jonah. With the explication of the “sign of Jonah” (Jonah 2:1) in v. 40 as referring to the death and resurrection of Jesus, Matthew goes his own way. Viewed in the larger context, this interpretation of the sign of Jonah points back not only to the Pharisees’ decision in 12:14 to put Jesus to death, but also and above all points ahead to 27:62– 63. There, the high priests are strikingly collaborating with the Pharisees, i.e., Jesus’ opponents in 12:22– 45, who are not otherwise explicitly mentioned in the passion story. In the presence of Pilate, they refer to Jesus’ announcement that he would rise again after three days, in order to get him to post a watch at the tomb. This attempt, of course, ends with the authorities learning from the soldiers of Jesus’ actual resurrection (28:11). In fact, therefore, they in particular are given the sign of Jonah. [41–42] The two logia about the Ninevites and the Queen of the South confirm the final condemnation of the authorities already presented as the consequence of the conduct of the authorities in Matthew 12:31–37. The logia occur in Luke 11:31–32 in reverse order. Presumably, it is Matthew who has changed the Q order, since v. 41 would logically follow the explication of the sign of Jonah in 12:40: differently from the case of Jonah’s proclamation to the Ninevites, the “sign” of Jesus’ resurrection has not at all led them to rethink the meaning of his appearance among them. Matthew has already prepared the contextual anchoring of the reference to the Queen of the South in v. 42 by his redactional work in 11:19 and 12:23: as the Queen of the South, after her initial doubt, acknowledged the wisdom of David’s successor Solomon (1 Kgs 10:1–13; 2 Chr 9:1–12), so the Pharisees should have acknowledged the prevailing power of Jesus’ wisdom (Matt 11:19) in the works of the messianic Son of David (12:23). The Ninevites and the Queen of the South responded adequately to far less than what Jesus’ work manifests and signifies. The statement that on the day of judgment they will condemn “this kind of people” does not necessarily require an active judicial role. Rather, their reaction to Jonah or Solomon functions as a testimony against the authorities that illuminates their false response to Jesus and thus is also the basis of their condemnation. [43–45] With the saying about the return of the unclean spirit in vv. 43–45, Matthew has Jesus continue his response to the demand for a sign without indicating any new approach. Correspondingly, the final sentence in v. 45 forms an inclusio with v. 39 and makes vv. 43– 45 into an analogy of this generation. The exorcism pictured in the introductory v. 43 arcs back to v. 22, but now the story portrays an expelled demon that returns. The presupposition for a case in which a demon can take up a renewed residence in a human being is that the “house,” as Matthew adds to the Q version of the story (cf. Luke 11:25), has remained uninhabited. Said unmetaphorically: the healed person has not learned from

III.3 The Intensification of the Conflict with the Pharisees

199

his experience of salvation that he must now become a disciple. So, in this case, the demon returns with seven other spirits “more evil than itself, so that the last state of the person is worse than the first.” The concluding sentence, “So will it be also with this evil kind of people,” now hardly compares “this evil kind of people” with the man possessed by demons, but with the demon who took seven other demons “even more evil than itself.” The similitude thematizes the danger that the authorities will gain a renewed influence on people who have been helped by Jesus. Matthew does not shy away from a demonization of his opponents, which, of course, is neither unique in the New Testament (cf. John 8:44 and Jub. 15:33), nor does it erupt in the present context without any preparation, for the Pharisees have already been labeled a “brood of vipers” in v. 34. Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees thus here reaches its first climax. This will be continued in 15:12–14 and 23:1–36, though there Jesus no longer speaks to the Pharisees, but only about them—to the disciples and the crowds. As the transition to the following scene in v. 46 shows, the crowds have also witnessed Jesus reckoning with the Pharisees in vv. 25– 45. The “stage direction” in v. 46a fits in well with the interpretation of vv. 43– 45 given above, for it indicates that in the course of his response in vv. 39– 45 Jesus turned away from the authorities and addressed the crowds (cf. the analogy in 3:7–10, 11–12; or also with the speech in the parable of 25:27, 28). In vv. 43– 45 they are warned of imminent danger that threatens them: after Jesus’ gracious act for them, their “house” must not remain empty. They need to become disciples, thus entering the circle of Jesus’ “family” (12:46–50). Otherwise, they will again become victims of the authorities. Matthew 12:22– 45 thus manifests a sequence also found elsewhere in Matthew: the dispute with the authorities is followed by Jesus’ teaching the people about them (see Matt 15:1–9 + 15:10–11; and 21:23–22:46 + 23:1–36). III.3.3 Jesus’ True Family (12:46–50)

While he was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, and they want to speak to you.” 48 But he answered and said to the one who had told him this, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And he stretched out his hand over his disciples, he said, “See, here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” 46

In vv. 46–50, Matthew again picks up the Markan thread (cf. Mark 3:31–35). As 11:25–30 was the positive conclusion for 11:7–30, so 12:46–50 ends the

200

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

text complex in Matthew 12 on a positive note. [46–47] Since Matthew has omitted the note about the negative view of Jesus among his own people in Mark 3:21 (“He has gone out of his mind!”), when his family wants to speak with him there is no suggestion in Matthew of a negative motivation. At this point, one should bear in mind that James, a biological brother of Jesus (cf. 13:55), after Easter became one of the leading figures in the Jerusalem church (Gal 1:19; 2:9; Acts 12:17; 15:13–21; 21:18–26), and that the Jewish Christian Matthew saw himself as theologically connected with the form of emerging Christianity that originated in Jerusalem. Matthew thus probably ignored Mark 3:21 because it could be regarded as an affront to the Jerusalem church. For the interpretation of vv. 46–50, it follows from the omission of Mark 3:21 from the context that the element of critical distance between Jesus and his biological family has receded in Matthew. [48–50] Accordingly, in Jesus’ question in v. 48 the accent falls not so much on the element of rejection by his family members. Rather, his response in the form of a question to the announcement of v. 47 serves essentially as a “hook” for the definition of his new family that follows in vv. 49–50, in the sense of his new primary social reference group. In Mark 3:32–34, the saying of Jesus about his brothers and sisters referred to those who were seated around Jesus inside the house. By revising the introduction in v. 49, Matthew has referred this saying directly to his disciples (cf. 28:10). Doing the will of the Father as revealed and interpreted by Jesus (cf. 7:21) is for Matthew the central mark of discipleship (cf., e.g., 5:3–7:27; 28:19–20). The gesture in which Jesus extends his hand over his disciples (cf. 14:31) symbolizes what is expressed in 28:20 by the commitment of being-with his disciples. At the end of v. 50, the designation “father” is missing (from the family group of brother, sister, and mother), because this title is reserved for God, and because Jesus has previously spoken of his heavenly Father. With regard to the constellation of characters in the Matthean Jesusnarrative, 12:46–50 emphasizes that Matthew not only carefully differentiates between the crowds and the authorities (12:23–24), but also between the crowds and the disciples (compare also Matt 16:24 with Mark 8:34). The parable discourse in Matthew 13 will advance this latter distinction even further (see esp. 13:10–17). To be sure, in 12:46–50 the focus is not on the distinction between the disciples and the crowds per se, but the disciples are presented before the forum of the crowds as Jesus’ family, and thus as an example to be followed. The invitation to come to Jesus and take up his yoke has a lasting effect (11:28–30). Read in the context of 12:43– 45, it is here made clear to the crowds what must happen, in order that the “demon” does not return: they must fill their “house” by becoming Jesus’ disciples, which means doing the will of God as taught by Jesus.

III.4 The Parable Discourse

201

III.4 The Parable Discourse (13:1–52) Matthew has carefully considered the location of the parable discourse in the narrative structure, just as is the case with the other extended discourses in Matthew 5–7, 10, 18, and 24–25. In 11:2–12:50, examples of the different reactions to the “works of the Messiah” have been presented (11:2). Following this, on the one hand the parable discourse serves as a reflection on the fact that the messianic dimension and soteriological significance of Jesus’ ministry is not comprehended unanimously by everyone, but encounters incomprehension and even resolute rejection. On the other hand, the parable discourse itself drives a deeper wedge between the individual groups represented by the disciples and the crowds. For the first time in the Gospel, in chapter 13 the motif of understanding emerges as a central factor. While the disciples understand, or are led to understanding (13:23, 51; cf. 16:12; 17:13), for the masses, the way to understanding is blocked off (13:13–15, 19; but cf. also 15:10). The parable discourse is a special case, in that its function is reflected in the narrative structure of the speech itself. That is, differently from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) or the missions discourse, interjected notes divide it into narrative scenes. The main turning point is set by the change of location and addressees in v. 36. The first main part (vv. 3–35), except for the interlude in vv. 10–23, is a public speech to the crowds. The second part (vv. 36–52), applies only to the disciples, with the shift of addressees being prepared by the interlude on instruction for the disciples in vv. 10–23. The notes on the change of scenes thus structure the discourse in a way that through the individual sections of the discourse the narrative itself advances, so that the progression of the narrative portrays a central message of the parable discourse—the differentiation of disciples and crowds discussed above. The decision to place the main turning point between v. 35 and v. 36 is further supported by another noticeable structural aspect: only the public speech to the crowds is characterized by the phrase that Jesus spoke to them “in parables” (vv. 3, 10, 13, 34–35). This corresponds to the way in which the parables in vv. 24–30, 31–32, and 33 are each introduced by a terse narrative comment (“he put before them another parable” / “he told them another parable”), while the three parables in vv. 44, 45–46, 47–50 follow one another without any intervening comment by the narrator. Each block contains four parables. Moreover, the composition of the whole manifests a chiastic structure. The opening parable of the four kinds of soil (vv. 3–9) and the concluding brief parable of the master of the house (v. 52) are alike in that neither of them is introduced as a parable of the kingdom of heaven. This external framing fits in with the fact that v. 51 takes up the weighty motif

202

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

of understanding of vv. 10–23. In a related way, the parables of the weeds among the wheat (vv. 24–30 [+ vv. 36– 43]) and the dragnet (vv. 47– 48 [+ 49–50]) thematize the coexistence of good and evil; the connection of the two parables is also underscored by the fact that the interpretations with which they are each provided are in close agreement. Two pairs of parables stand at the center: the mustard seed and the yeast (vv. 31–32, 33) and the hidden treasure and the pearl (vv. 44, 45– 46). On the whole, the discourse thus presents itself as artfully composed. This fits in with the arrangement in which one of the three parable interpretations is placed after the first parable (vv. 18–23), one before the last parable (vv. 49–50), and one between the fourth and fifth parables, thus exactly in the middle (vv. 36– 43). The basis and point of departure for Matthew 13 is the parable discourse in Mark 4:1–34. Matthew found the parable of the mustard seed in both Mark 4:30–32 and in Q (cf. Luke 13:18–19), where it was already associated with the parable of the yeast (cf. Luke 13:20–21). A whole series of parables is found only in Matthew (vv. 24–30 + 36–43; vv. 44, 45–46, 47–50, 52). If one correlates the source analysis with the synchronous structure, it turns out that the material from the Markan parable speech is reworked in the first part of the discourse, addressed to the crowds, and Luke/Q 13:18–21 also finds its counterpart in this first part. The parable of the weeds (vv. 24–30), from Matthew’s special material, has something of a counterpart in Mark 4, inasmuch as it steps into the place of Mark’s parable of the self-growing seed (Mark 4:26–29). On the other hand, the second part of the speech, addressed exclusively to the disciples, consists exclusively of material found only in Matthew. III.4.1 Speaking in Parables to the Crowds (13:1–35) III.4.1.1 The Parable of the Four Types of Soil and the Meaning of Speaking in Parables (13:1–23)

That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. 2 And great crowds gathered around him, so that he got into a boat and sat there, while the whole crowd stood on the shore. 3 And he spoke much to them in parables, and said: “Listen! The sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some fell on the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Other fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up quickly, since it had no depth of soil. 6 But when the sun rose, it was scorched; and since it had no root, it withered away. 7 Other fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it. 8 But other fell on good soil and produced fruit, one a hundredfold, one sixty, one thirty. 9 Let anyone with ears listen!” 13:1

III.4 The Parable Discourse

203

And the disciples came up and said to him, “Why do you speak in parables to them?” 11 But he answered and said to them, “Because to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 13 That is why I speak in parables to them, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear nor understand. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled with them, that says: ‘You will indeed listen, but not understand, and you will indeed look, but not perceive. 15 For the heart of this people has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn—and I would heal them.’ 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 For amen, I say to you: many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it. 18 “Then, you hear the parable of the sower: 19 Always when anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand, the evil one comes and steals what is sown in the heart: This is the one who was sown on the path. 20 As for the one who was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet such a person has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away. 22 As for the one who was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and they bring forth no fruit. 23 But as for the one who was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.” 10

[1–3a] After the short transition between scenes in v. 1, which introduces the bank of the sea of Gennesaret as the new site of the action, v. 2 describes an unqualified positive response from the people. In the face of such a large crowd, Jesus gets into a boat for the speech that follows. In light of the large stream of people portrayed in vv. 1–2, the critical stance to them in vv. 3–23 may be surprising. To be sure, in 12:43–50 it has become clear that mere interest, which ultimately is without commitment, is not enough. The parable of the four kinds of soil—or, as Matthew himself writes in v. 18, of the sower (vv. 3–9)—the instruction to the disciples in vv. 10–17, and the interpretation of the parable pick up on this aspect. Differently from Mark 4:1–2, Matthew does not designate the parable discourse as “teaching,” for he uses the verb “teach” to refer

204

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

to Jesus’ ethical instruction. Parables and metaphorical comparisons are also found in Matthew prior to the speech in Matthew 13 (see, e.g., Matt 7:24–27; 9:15–17; 11:16–19), but Jesus’ proclamation in v. 3 is the first that is designated as speaking in parables (Matthew did not take over Mark 3:23 in 12:25). [3b–8] Attempts to separate the parable from its interpretation (Mark 4:13–20 parr.) and to understand it in a way that (significantly) diverges from its interpretation have not led to persuasive results. It is better to regard the parable, from the very beginning, as having thematized the varying responses to Jesus’ work, so that the interpretation of the parable only spells out in more detail the understanding originally intended by the parable. The parable pictures, in a series of brief scenes, the unremarkable fact that not all seed that is sown ends up bearing fruit. Verses 4–7 focus on three cases in which, for a variety of reasons, there is no fruitful harvest. In the process of sowing, some seed accidently fall along the road; sometimes the layer of fertile earth over the rocky subsoil is too thin; and in some places in the field, thorns sprout up which choke it. In v. 7 this could be an abbreviated manner of speaking: then, one would not sow in an unplowed field in which thorns still remained from the previous year (cf. Jer 4:3), but would sow in a plowed field, and after the seed is plowed under, the thorns emerge along with the growth of the seed that has been sown. Verse 8 counters the three cases of futile sowing with three differentiated positive cases in which the seed sown on the good soil yields three different amounts of grain. How the four cases in vv. 4– 8 relate to each other quantitatively is not determined. In particular, it is not said that only a relatively small proportion of seed actually sprouted and came up. It is also not about the fact that an abundant yield is produced by the good field, which outshines the failure of the other fields, for the numbers mentioned, while above average to very high, are not miraculous (cf. e.g., Gen 26:12; Sib. Or. 3.263–264; Strabo, Geog. 15.3.11). Rather, the sole issue is the nature of the soil as the decisive factor in the result of the sowing (other influences such as climate and weather are ignored). [9] The call to alertness in v. 9 is a reminder of 11:15, where the crowds are also addressed, and there, as here, it is a matter of perceiving the meaning of Jesus’ work and what is at stake in the way people respond to it. [10] Jesus’ speech is interrupted by a question from the disciples. While Mark 4:10 presents a new scene—Jesus is alone (with the disciples)—Matthew has them only “come up to” Jesus. Possibly Matthew presupposes that they are with Jesus in the boat, which, in the light of 8:23–27 metaphorically connotes the church (on “coming up to” Jesus, see 8:25). In any case, this would fit in with way the talk of getting into the boat in v. 2 is reminiscent of 8:23. Since Matthew does not have the disciples ask “about the parables” (Mark 4:10),

III.4 The Parable Discourse

205

but why Jesus speaks to them, i.e., the crowds, in parables, he avoids a possible understanding of Mark 4:10 in which the meaning of the parable discourse is hidden from the disciples themselves (cf. the omission of Mark 4:13). Above all, however, already in the question, the disciples put forward the following issue of the distinction between the crowds and the disciples. The question also has overtones of doubt, that the coded form of the parable—as long as no interpretation is provided for it—could contribute to moving the crowds toward becoming disciples. [11–17] But this is also exactly what speaking in parables, according to vv. 11–17, should not do. Matthew has thoroughly revised and expanded the parable theory the Markan Jesus provides in response to the disciples’ question (Mark 4:11–12). Jesus’ answer is given in two steps (13:11–12, 13–17); both are characterized by direct contrast between the disciples and the crowds. [11–12] The first line of argument proceeds from the perspective of the revelatory action of God. There is noticeable agreement between Matthew 13:11 and Luke 8:10 (“to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom . . .”) against Mark 4:11 (“to you the secret of the kingdom . . . has been given”). Unless one subscribes to the hypothesis of a deuteromarkan recension, this may point to the influence of a firm oral tradition, especially since Matthew 13:13 and Luke 8:10b have agreements in common against Mark 4:12 too. In any case, the focus here is already on the aspect of knowledge, which is continued in the following by the motif of understanding (vv. 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 51). Then, by the Matthean reworking of the final clause of v. 11, the differentiation between the disciples and the crowds of people regarding the secrets of the kingdom of heaven emerges in a pronounced manner: knowledge is given to you (cf. 11:25), but not to them—even though Matthew does not speak of “those outside” (Mark 4:11). If one draws in v. 12, it turns out that v. 11 does not yet present the complete rationale for the parable discourse, but merely indicates the situation in which Jesus responds with it. Verse 12 then makes clear that the parable discourse does not serve to change this constellation, but rather to drive it forward. Matthew here works in the last verse of Mark 4:21–25, which he has neither used nor offered a parallel in the preceding (cp. Mark 4:21 with Matt 5:15; Mark 4:22–23 with Matt 10:26 par. Luke/Q 12:2; Mark 4:24 with Matt 7:2 par. Luke/Q 6:38). In the light of v. 11, it must be that what the one (= the disciples) has, and the other (= the crowds) lacks, is the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven. That is, the disciples are able to understand Jesus’ works as the messianic event, the incursion of the kingdom of God (cf. 12:28). By the interpretation of the parable of the four kinds of soil about the preaching of the kingdom of heaven, and in the parables of the kingdom that then follow in 13:24–50, they are further instructed and thus grow in their knowledge.

206

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

The deficiency of the crowds, in contrast, comes to light, since they lack the basic prerequisite for understanding the parable discourse, are (so far) unaware of the incursion of the kingdom of heaven, and are thus unable to grasp its meaning and current relevance. That even what the crowds have is taken from them—unless this is to be read as a rhetorical intensification—reflects that they do not simply stand clueless in the presence of Jesus’ works. As this has been prepared for in 12:43–50, 13:12b now makes clear that lingering at a distance, by those who are merely interested in Jesus’ works and fascinated by them, cannot be a permanent state. Either interest will solidify into entrance into discipleship, or those who are merely interested will ultimately fall back into the status in which they found themselves before they heard the word of the kingdom (v. 19; cf. 4:23; 9:35). According to 13:11–12, the parable discourse stands in the service of this separation, in that it broadens the gap between those who understand and those who don’t. [13–17] With the verbatim repetition of the disciples’ question of v. 11 in v. 13a, Jesus moves to a second rationale. While v. 11 spoke of the revelatory acts of God, these are now thematized as the human side of hearing and seeing this revelation. [13–15] In place of the abbreviated, free rendition of Isaiah 6:9–10 in Mark 4:12, in Matthew 13:13 the evangelist presents his own short summary of the quotation, before he cites the full text of Isaiah 6:9–10 in vv. 14–15. With regard to the content, it is significant that the statement about the crowds’ lack of understanding in v. 13b is analogous to v. 11, in that the reason for (“because . . .”)—and not, as Mark 4:12 can be understood, the goal of (“so that they may not . . .”)—Jesus’ speaking in parables is given. Since, according to Matthew, Jesus’ messianic identity can be recognized on the basis of his works (11:2– 6), and the crowds have witnessed these works, their lack of understanding (but see 12:23) makes obvious their own guilt involved in their failure: they see and hear (cf. 11:4) without understanding. That the statement about the crowds’ lack of understanding in vv. 14–15 is supported by the citation of Isaiah 6:9–10 serves indirectly to assure the disciples: they should not be bothered by the incomprehension of others, because this constellation is in complete harmony with the witness of the Scriptures (see also Jer 5:21; Ezek 12:2). While the introduction to the citation in v. 14a associates it with the fulfillment-quotations, nevertheless, vv. 14–15 cannot simply be included among them, for they have a relatively fixed introductory formula not found here, and they are all commentary by the evangelist, not part of the speech of Jesus. While v. 14 essentially corroborates v. 13, v. 15 goes beyond this, attributing the situation to the failure of the “organs” involved: hearts, ears, and eyes. Matthew understands—on the basis of the LXX wording of Isaiah 6:10—the fattiness of the heart, deafness, and closed eyes not as

III.4 The Parable Discourse

207

a divinely imposed fate but as a culpable failure (in contrast to the MT, “make the heart of this people fat . . .” as the assignment given to the prophet). The following negated final clause (v. 15b), which takes up the three members of v. 15a in a chiastic formulation, correspondingly expresses the intentional rejection of perceptive understanding. Here, the root of the evil is that the heart, the steering organ and personal center, has become flabby and insensitive. In v. 15b, the motif of repentance appears as a new element that transcends the statements in verse 15a and is thus emphasized, recalling 4:17. Flabbiness of the heart, deafness, and closed eyes hinder the crowds not only from obtaining an adequate understanding of the works of Jesus, but with it also the necessary conversion, so that God’s intention to heal them—in the comprehensive sense—through Jesus’ works does not reach its intended goal. To be sure, vv. 13–15 do not say that, for the individual, this situation is irreversible. It is even less the case that the parable discourse is to be understood as punishment for their lack of understanding. Its function rather consists in the fact that the crowds ultimately stand clueless in the presence of what the parables are dealing with, their stance to Jesus’ works is revealed to be inadequate, and they are thus confronted by their actual distance from Jesus. If nothing changes in this regard, condemnation in the judgment will be the inevitable consequence (cf. 11:20–24), but the judgment is by no means already pronounced in 13:11–15. A change of mind is by no means excluded from the outset, and Jesus will continue to be concerned and involved with the crowds. The passage brings an interim balance in view of the crowds, but does not draw the bottom line. Moreover, Matthew 13:10–17 is not the whole picture that the evangelist draws of the crowds, but only one section. These negative reflections are found alongside the references to the interest of the crowds, which should encourage the church in its efforts to reach them. [16–17] The direct contrast of the crowds and the disciples in vv. 11–12 finds its counterpart in vv. 13–17, in that by the addition of the makarism from Q (cf. Luke 10:23–24) and its extension in v. 16b, the non-hearing and non-seeing of the crowds is juxtaposed to the disciples’ hearing and seeing. Verse 17 supports this—completely in line with 11:4–5—with a reference to the privileged situation of the disciples (and to the contemporaries of Jesus in general): what they see and hear is not just anything, but “the works of the Messiah” (11:2), whose witnesses the prophets and righteous ones of earlier days longed to see (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:44; 18:6; 1 Pet 1:10–12). [10–23] That in vv. 18–23 the disciples then receive a more detailed interpretation of the parable implies that to those who already “have” (i.e., understanding) even more will be given (v. 12). By taking up in vv. 19 and 23 the motif of understanding from vv. 13–15 and by defining the “sown” word more closely as the word of the kingdom (v. 19, cf. the “gospel of the kingdom” in

208

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

4:23 and 9:35), thereby echoing the saying about the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven in v. 11, Matthew has related the parable, its interpretation, and the instruction to the disciples more closely to each other (vv. 3–9, 10–17, 18–23). Verses 3–23 are clearly recognizable as a thematic unit. The parable and its interpretation deal with the different responses to the word of the kingdom of heaven by giving a more detailed characterization of those who hear the message, then the meaning of speaking in parables is explained in vv. 10–17 in a way that directly takes up the theme of the parable, since here the deeper cause for the various responses is named: one group is given the understanding of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, and the other group is not. Some have an understanding heart; others a flabby, insensitive heart. From the connection with vv. 10–17, it follows that, in the three cases that do not result in fruit bearing, the reaction of the crowds is thematized in different ways, while v. 23 speaks of the disciples who do understand (vv. 11a, 16–17). Although the factor of non-understanding does not explicitly recur in the second and third cases (vv. 20–22), since other factors are brought into play, the same applies here as well. In any case, the connections between vv. 10–17 and vv. 18–23 make clear that in Matthew’s understanding, the parable of the four kinds of soil does not have internal problems of the church in view, but comprehensively addresses the reception of the message of the kingdom of heaven. In the narrative context and in consideration of the Jewish identity of the crowds, this primarily concerns Israel’s response to the message. The parable of the weeds among the wheat and its interpretation (vv. 24–30, 36–43), along with the interpretation of the field as the world (13:38), then bring in the universal dimension of the working of the (exalted) Son of Man alongside this. Verses 3–23 do not speak of a complete failure of the “sowing” in Israel; it is not the failure of Israel and the emergence of the church that are juxtaposed. Rather, what we see is a process of differentiation in Israel, from which the “church” or the community of disciples emerges as a part of Israel (and later: as a part of Israel and the other nations). [18] Since the scolding of the disciples in Mark 4:13 is incompatible with the positive profiling of the disciples in Matthew 11a and 16–17, the evangelist has reformulated the introduction to the interpretation of the parable, thereby giving the parable the traditional name, the “Parable of the Sower.” Primarily, the sower is Jesus himself. But secondly, the disciples are to be thought of in conjunction with Jesus, for according to 9:36–11:1 they have to continue Jesus’ own ministry and, like him, proclaim the near advent of the kingdom of heaven (10:7). The disciples are thus related to the parable in a doubled manner. They are the hearers of the word of the kingdom who hear and understand (v. 23). As such, however, they are themselves called into the service of spreading the message of the kingdom, since for Matthew discipleship has a fundamental

III.4 The Parable Discourse

209

missionary dimension. Thus, at the level of the evangelist’s communication, vv. 3–23 by no means only address the various responses to the work of Jesus in the narrower sense, but at the same time also the success and failure of the mission of the disciples (cf. on 13:37–39). [19] The interpretation of the field with four kinds of soil begins with the case in which, from the very beginning, there was no positive response to the word of the kingdom. More ambiguously than Mark, Matthew speaks—instead of Satan (Mark 4:15)—of the Evil One (v. 19), who robs what has been sown in the heart. In the Matthean context, the formulation allows the reader to think not only of the devil, but of the authorities, whom Matthew represents as essentially evil (12:34–35; 22:18) and to whom the saying about the perpetrators of violence in 11:12 refers, those who seek to seize or rob the kingdom of heaven (the same Greek verb stands in 11:12 and 13:19). In short: in Matthew, the devil acts through the authorities. Accordingly, these also appear in the narrative as tempters/testers (16:1; 19:3; 22:18, 35), just like the devil (4:1, 3). If, for some, the preaching turns out to be in vain, this is because they are under the influence of the authorities/Pharisees. The final clause of v. 19, “this is the one who was sown on the path,” is not precisely formulated, for what is really meant can only be: the same happens in the case of the seed that fell on the path. However, such imprecision is also found elsewhere in Matthean parables (in 13:38 the comparison is not between wheat and weeds, but between good seed and weeds; in v. 44 the kingdom of heaven is compared to a treasure, in v. 45, it is compared not to the pearl, but to the merchant; cf. also above on 11:16). [20–21] There are others who first receive the word “with joy” but fall away when “trouble or persecution arise on account of the word” (cf. 5:10–12; 10:18). This, too, is to be thought of in terms of trouble that emanates from the authorities/Pharisees. Verse 21 thus reflects the experience of those who are initially spoken to by the message of the kingdom but withdraw because of social pressure and (threatening) harassment. [22] The panorama is finally completed by those who remain imprisoned in their worldly life and shy away from accepting the ethical consequences of discipleship. By Matthew’s omission of Mark’s words about “the lust for other things” (Mark 4:19), thus focusing entirely on worldly cares and “the deceitfulness of wealth,” i.e., fraudulent riches, the passage sounds like a brief summary of 6:19–34. Thus 13:22 underscores the central importance of turning away from the service of mammon in the Matthean ethic. [23] The tripartite internal differentiation within the group of those who produce no fruit likewise corresponds to a triadic internal differentiation among those who hear and understand, only this triad is analogous to the parable, in which it is simply about the good soil, without further specification. For

210

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

Matthew, bearing fruit is based on understanding, and conversely, understanding is manifest in the ethical sense of bearing fruit. Parable and interpretation both end with the encouraging case in which the message of the kingdom is accepted and determines the way of life. [10–17, 18–23] Since the parable is also to be read as referring to the mission of the disciples, and since in Matthew’s view this mission—also in regard to Israel—continues until the parousia (see on 10:23), in view of vv. 10–17 it is to be added that, even at the narrative level, the passage is not a concluding point, since Jesus continues to turn to the crowds. Rather, also at the level of the evangelist’s communication with his readers, this passage cannot be construed otherwise than as an intermediate summary. On the basis of vv. 10–17 (and the interpretation of the parable), the Christian community can look back to the development of their missionary endeavor and reflect on the status quo they have attained, as at the same time the situation envisaged is empowered by the fact that their mission is by no means already completed. Accordingly, the community can and should continue to hope that the word will fall on good soil. It follows from this, however, that the juxtaposition of the disciples and the crowds is not fixed in a static sense. Rather, it is about a dynamic process, in which the crowds can become disciples. III.4.1.2 The Parables of the Weeds among the Wheat, of the Mustard Seed, and the Leaven (13:24–35)

He put before them another parable, and said: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while people were asleep, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. 26 But when the plants came up and brought forth fruit, then the weeds appeared as well. 27 But yet, when the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he says, ‘No; for in gathering the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. 30 Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers: “Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ” 31 He put before them another parable, and said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; 32 it is indeed the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of garden vegetables and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches.” 33 He told them another parable: “The kingdom 24

III.4 The Parable Discourse

211

of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.” 34 Jesus told the crowds all these things in parables, and without a parable he told them nothing, 35 in order that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled: “I will open my mouth to speak in parables; I will proclaim what has been hidden from the foundation of the world.” At the latest, at v. 34 it becomes evident that Jesus is now turning again to the crowds to speak to them in parables (vv. 2–3a). The three parables that follow, in contrast to the parable of the four kinds of soil, are all introduced as parables of the kingdom of heaven. The difference in the exact wording of the introduction in v. 24 compared to vv. 31 and 33 corresponds to the content of the parable of the weeds among the wheat on the one side, and the brief parables of the mustard seed and the yeast on the other, illustrating different aspects of the present reality of the kingdom of heaven. [24–30] If he were following the Markan thread, Matthew would have to continue with the parable of the self-growing seed (Mark 4:26–29; on Mark 4:21–25, see on Matt 13:12), but he has replaced this parable with the parable of the weeds among the wheat, which is found only in his Gospel, and to which he adds an interpretation analogous to the parable of the four kinds of soil (vv. 36– 43). There is a noticeable density of contacts between vv. 24–30 and Mark 4:26–29: the narrative motifs of the sowing of the seed, of the men sleeping, the development from the sprouting of the stalks to the ripening of the fruit, and finally the harvest are all found in quite similar ways in Mark 4:26–29. In regard to the question of the parable’s origin and formation, this suggests that the points of contact did not originate secondarily in the editorial reworking of the parable of the weeds, but rather that the parable of the weeds originated as a critical variant of the Markan parable of the self-growing seed. While the farmer lies sleeping, it is not merely that the seed grows by itself, but an enemy came and sowed seed among the wheat. Instead of thematizing the sovereign self-emergence of the kingdom of God, the parable now includes the continuing reality of evil in the world (cf. on v. 36). If one proceeds on the plausible (in my opinion) assumption that the parable came into being in the evangelist’s own Christian community, the further thesis is then suggested that the interpretation that follows in vv. 36– 43 does not thrust the parable in a completely new direction, but has an organic attachment to the parable itself. Speculation about a possible pre-Matthean form of the parable would thus be obsolete. [24–26] The parable can easily be subdivided into two sections: the brief narrative of the incident in vv. 24–26 and the dialogue between the master of

212

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

the house and his slaves (vv. 27–30). In contrast to the seed in vv. 3–8, the seed in v. 24 is explicitly described as good. This anticipates the malicious intervention of the enemy who sows weeds among the wheat during the night (more precisely, the poisonous darnel). This story is not entirely unrealistic; such malicious actions seem to have occurred from time to time. When the stalks sprouted and the “mixed results” became visible, [27–30] this raises the question in the dialogue part of the parable of how to react. The man who did the sowing now becomes the master of the house who has slaves, and who at the end does not carry out the harvest himself, and does not command his slaves, but reapers, to complete the harvest. In view of how widespread darnel was in the Mediterranean, it is not really its occurrence in the field that is surprising, but only the massive amount. Perhaps one must read the slave’s question in this sense: “Where does so much darnel in the field come from?” Again, only Matthew could have written this. The master of the house proves to be informed about the action of the enemy (v. 28). The interpretation in terms of the Son of Man is already being anticipated here. This also fits in with Matthew’s not having the farmer himself sleep (as in Mark 4:27), but it is “the people” who sleep (v. 25). The option suggested by the slaves corresponds to the usual practice of weeding out the darnel but is rejected by the master of the house because of his concern for the wheat. The problem is not that wheat and darnel might be confused, but that through the possible intertwining of the roots, the wheat might be pulled up along with the darnel. The master of the house and his slaves have already been mentioned in 10:25 in regard to Jesus and his disciples. The slaves’ question in v. 27 would thus be transparent to the church’s question: Why has the Messiah not yet established the kingdom of heaven in its final, perfect form, and why does the church continue to experience troubles and rejection? The answer is that the focus is directed toward the harvest at the end. Harvest is a common metaphor for the Last Judgment (see on 9:37–38). The allusion in v. 30b to the preaching of the Baptist (3:12, the burning of the chaff/weeds, the gathering of the wheat into the barn) points further in this direction, and the interpretation of the parable that follows in vv. 36– 43 does not disappoint this expectation. The present, however, is still the historical period in which the respective “fruits” of both the Messiah and his adversary continue to coexist. [31–32] Analogous to the sequence in Mark 4:26–29, 30–32, so also in Matthew the next item is the parable of the mustard seed, which Matthew also found in the Sayings Source alongside the parable of the yeast (Luke 13:18–21). Matthew has combined the two versions of the parable of the mustard seed, with Mark 4:30–32 incorporated as the middle part (v. 32a), and Q providing

III.4 The Parable Discourse

213

the beginning and ending. As in the two preceding parables, the sowing motif is also found here; “in his field” is a deliberate alignment with v. 24 (differently Luke/Q 13:19, “in his garden”). Unlike the earlier version, the parable is now concerned with the vast difference in size between the tiny seed that becomes a tree. If the parable goes back to Jesus, which is the consensus, it may be read as Jesus’ response to the criticism of his claim that the kingdom of God is already present in his works of healing (Matt 12:28 par. Luke 11:20). In early Jewish expectation the establishing of the kingdom of God is thought of in world-changing dimensions. With this parable, Jesus takes up the discrepancy between the universal scope of the kingdom of heaven and his work in Galilee: the beginning of the kingdom of heaven may be modest indeed, but from this beginning develops the whole fullness of the kingdom of God with certainty. This thrust of the parable’s meaning also fits well in the Matthean context. Inasmuch as the conclusion of v. 32 is an allusion to Daniel 4:9 and 4:18, and thus to the world empire of Nebuchadnezzar (but cf. also Ezek 17:22–23; 31:5– 6; Ps 104:12), here the universality of the kingdom of God is emphasized—together with the aspect of God’s ultimate rulership over all human rule. At the present, however, what is important is to direct one’s gaze at the beginning that has already happened. Recognizing this, along with the development that has been set in motion, belongs to the mysteries of the kingdom. It is this knowledge that has been given to the disciples and sets them apart from the crowds (13:11). [33] The even shorter parable of the yeast, also taken from Q (cf. Luke 13:20–21), continues the thrust of vv. 31–32. Although the yeast is “hidden,” nonetheless its leavening power permeates the whole mass of dough, whose amount here (“three measures,” ca. forty liters) is unusually large. In regard to the kingdom of heaven, this means that it has become manifest through Jesus’ work in the world. Even though this beginning may be hardly perceptible, an irresistible process has been set in motion that will gradually (re-)shape the entire world. As in 6:26 and 6:28, activities that were in antiquity associated respectively with men (the sowing of seed) and women (the baking of bread) stand alongside each other (cf. also 8:5–13 + 15:21–28; 7:24–27 + 25:1–13; as well as 24:40–41) [34–35] Verse 34 is a streamlined rendition of Mark 4:33–34a. Matthew has passed over the statement that Jesus spoke to the people to the degree that they were able to hear (Mark 4:33b), because of the tension with 13:10–17. In addition, v. 34 does not function as the conclusion of the parable discourse as such, but only of the public part addressed to the crowds. Accordingly, Matthew has omitted the note about Jesus’ private instruction to the disciples in Mark 4:34b. The emphasis expressed by v. 34b, that Jesus spoke to the crowds exclusively in the parable form, is referred only to his speaking about “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (13:11). The disciples here receive the privilege that

214

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

Jesus explains his parabolic speech to them (vv. 18–23, 36– 43, 49–50). On the other hand, the introductions to the parables in vv. 24–30, 31–32, and 33 indicate to the crowds that they illustrate the kingdom of heaven, but true understanding remains closed to people as long as they do not recognize that the parables illustrate an event that has already begun in Jesus’ works. The quotation from Psalm 78:2 that follows shows that Jesus’ way of speaking to the people in parables is God’s intention. The saying from the psalm, as indicated by its placement in the series of fulfillment-quotations and the corresponding expression “through the prophets,” shows that Matthew understands it as a prophetic promise. The first line of the citation reproduces the LXX-text verbatim (Ps 77:2a LXX), while the second line is a free rendition. While the first line has only the mere process of parabolic speech in view, the second line interprets its content dealing with the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven as a revelation of what was already established from the beginning of the world but has been hidden until now. There is no tension here with vv. 11–17, for v. 35 only states that the parables disclose what has been hidden, but not that the masses of people are able to grasp it. The disciples are a different case (v. 11; cf. 11:25–27). The second part of the speech applies to them alone. III.4.2 The Continuation of the Speech to the Disciples (13:36–52) III.4.2.1 The Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat (13:36– 43)

Then he left the crowds and came into the house; and his disciples approached him and said: “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 So he answered and said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the world. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all who cause sin and all who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of blazing fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!” 36

[36] The continuation of the parable discourse with a second part intended only for the disciples is accompanied by a change of scene: Jesus returns from the lakeshore (cf. v. 1) to the private room of the house (v. 36). That the disciples ask him for an interpretation of “the parable of the weeds in the field” makes clear that their understanding of the “mysteries of the kingdom

III.4 The Parable Discourse

215

of heaven” (v. 11) does not necessarily include the understanding of all details of the parables about the kingdom of heaven, and in any case that Jesus must lead them into understanding. On the other hand, the parables of the mustard seed and yeast remain without an interpretation. As in v. 18, Matthew gives the parable a name in the introduction to its interpretation. In this case, the interpretation focuses only on the negative side, but this is thoroughly in accord with the parable itself: what calls for an explanation is the reality of the evil in the world, which continues to exist in spite of the inbreaking of the kingdom of God in the works of Jesus. [37–43] Jesus’ explanation in vv. 37– 43 is subdivided into a catalog of interpretations in which, with the exception of the slaves (v. 27), all the characters in the parable, as well as the field itself, are itemized (vv. 37–39) and a longer explication of the harvest (vv. 40– 43) is given, which clearly places the emphasis on it. [37–39] While in vv. 18–23 there is no explicit identification of the sower, he is now explicitly identified as the Son of Man, i.e., with Jesus himself. Since speaking of the Son of Man is bound up with the different phases of Jesus’ work, namely his appearance on earth and his death, resurrection, and exaltation, as well as his coming again (see on 8:20), it seems appropriate to read v. 37 in this comprehensive sense: the sowing has already begun in the earthly ministry of Jesus, and it is continued by him as the exalted Lord through the disciples he sends out, until he comes at the end of time for the Last Judgment. The expression “sons of the kingdom” has already been met in 8:12. “Sons” expresses belonging. In 8:12, as here, those described by this expression are those who accept and understand the message of the kingdom of heaven. In 13:38, however, the “sons of the kingdom” reach their goal, while the “sons of the kingdom” in 8:12 threaten to lose their acceptance into the kingdom of heaven (see on 8:12). As in 13:19, Jesus’ adversary is the devil. It accords with the connection with v. 19 that his “fruits” are called “sons of the Evil One,” corresponding to the description of the devil in v. 19 as “the evil one.” It should be noted that the sons of the kingdom, like the sons of the Evil One, are here described as the “fruits” of the work of the Son of Man or the devil respectively, but they can also be the “medium” through which either of them acts. The disciples are thus sent out to continue Jesus’ own ministry, and, analogously to v. 19, the reference to the devil means here that in Matthew’s worldview, the devil uses the authorities who oppose Jesus as human stooges. When read in this way, analogously to vv. 3–23, the close connection of the parable of the weeds among the wheat to the narrative context is revealed: it provides an interpretative framework for the hostile reaction to Jesus’ work, as it has already come to light in such texts as 12:24.

216

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

The field in which Jesus’ “sowing” effectively applies is universal— corresponding to 28:18 and to the range implied in the Son of Man title (cf. 5:14). The popular interpretation of the parable of the weeds among the wheat, already found in the ancient church, supposed that the parable addressed problems within the church. This interpretation is clearly opposed by the identification of the field with the world found in the text. Accordingly, the text does not support the view that Matthew regards the church as a corpus mixtum. Moreover, 18:17 also speaks against this interpretation, providing for excommunication in extreme cases. Rather, the parable seeks to interpret the situation of the disciples in the world, referring it back to the antagonism between God/ Jesus and the devil, making clear that the results of the work of Jesus (and his disciples) on the one hand, and the works of the devil (and his henchmen) on the other, will exist in the world until the Last Judgment, to which the parable’s image of the harvest points, as one would expect. Until then, the church must come to terms with a hostile environment, for the binding of Satan, which was spoken of in the context of Jesus’ healings (12:29), is only one facet of the whole picture. In the end, however, evil will be entirely overcome and eliminated. [40–43] Verses 40– 43 unfold this eschatological hope in detail. [41] Just as the master of the house sends out his reapers, so the Son of Man sends out his (!) angels. The field identified as the world is now equated with the dominion of the Son of Man (nothing is said here about the church as the realm of the Son of Man!). The basis of this statement is the exaltation of Jesus to be Lord of the world, as expressed in 28:18. This connection with 28:18 underscores the fact that this sowing involves the mission of the disciples to all nations after Easter (28:19–20), without necessarily bracketing out Jesus’ earthly ministry as the beginning of the sowing. It should be added that Jesus does not “reign” over the world in the sense that everything is subjugated to him, but in that people do what he has commanded (28:20), and that the kingdom of God is symbolically manifest in his healings. The “sons of the Evil One” now emerge as those who cause others to stumble, i.e., seek to cause others to sin or lead them into apostasy, whose actions are characterized by lawlessness (cf. 23:28, in regard to the scribes and Pharisees); the phrase “who practice lawlessness” may be inspired by Ps 140:9 LXX. [42] If the phrase that the sons of the Evil One will be thrown into the furnace of blazing fire alludes specifically to Daniel 3:6 (but see also 1 En. 98:3; 4 Ezra 7:36), one can see this as a confirmation that evil will not prevail, but will be finally overcome by God. According to Daniel 3, the righteous were miraculously preserved in the furnace of blazing fire, but for the lawless, it becomes the ultimate place of punishment. “Weeping and gnashing of teeth” is a favorite judgment motif for Matthew (see on 8:12).

III.4 The Parable Discourse

217

[43] Verse 43 contrasts this with the coming salvation for the righteous. The (present) kingdom of the Son of Man then becomes the kingdom of the Father (cf. 1 Cor 15:24–28). The light metaphor—more precisely, the shining like the sun (cf. 17:2)—is a characteristic feature in portrayals of heavenly glory (1 En. 104:2; 2 En. 66:7; 4 Ezra 7:97; 2 Bar. 51:3, 10). In addition, this may be compared with the resurrection imagery in Daniel 12:3. The renewed call to alertness reflecting v. 9 impresses upon the disciples that they themselves must be aware of the coming judgment. Thus, secondarily, the parable also is a warning to the disciples: if they also turn out to be those who “practice lawlessness” (v. 41), even they, who call Jesus “Lord,” will not share in the kingdom of the Father (cf. 7:22–23). III.4.2.2 The Parables of the Treasure in the Field, of the Pearl, and the Dragnet (13:44–50)

“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. 45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; 46 on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it. 47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was thrown into the sea and brought together (fish) of every kind; 48 when it was full, they drew it ashore, sat down, and put the good into baskets but threw out the bad. 49 So it will be at the end of the world. The angels will go out and separate the evil from the midst of the righteous 50 and throw them into the furnace of blazing fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 44

The instruction directed especially to the disciples is supplemented by three additional parables of the kingdom of heaven, which Matthew introduces stereotypically with the expression already familiar from vv. 31 and 33, “The kingdom of heaven is like . . .” [44–46] Whereas the parable pair vv. 31–33 at the end of the speech given in the presence of the crowds thematizes the present hiddenness of the kingdom of heaven or its inconspicuous beginning, the disciples will be charged with the parable pair in 44, 45– 46, which emphasize its incomparable importance, demanding appropriate action (on the chiastic composition, see in the introduction to 13:1–52). The lucky finder of the treasure hidden (cf. v. 35!) in the field in v. 44 and the merchant in vv. 45– 46 sell everything else in order to have the one thing that matters. So also, participation in the kingdom of heaven is such a precious possession that everything else becomes at best only of marginal importance, indeed can only finally be judged as irrelevant (cf. 6:33). The common feature of the two parables, that everything is sold in

218

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

order to obtain the one thing that matters, in particular calls to mind Jesus’ demand of the rich man to sell his possessions for the benefit of the poor and to follow him as a disciple (19:21; cf. 6:19–24). At the same time, the disciples to whom the two parables are addressed are confirmed in their decision to leave everything behind and follow Jesus (19:27; cf. 4:18–22). [47–50] The parable of the dragnet points again to the coexistence of good and evil in the world, which was already the theme of vv. 24–30, 36–43; so also, the description of the fish as “good” and “bad” is reminiscent of the saying about the tree and its fruit in 7:17–19 and 12:33. The parable briefly describes an everyday event. A dragnet brings in fish which may be inedible or ritually unclean (cf. Lev 11:9–12), which are sorted out when the net is drawn to shore. The brief interpretation appended to the parable in vv. 49–50 is closely dependent on vv. 40– 43 and refers the sorting out of fish to the Last Judgment. Verse 49a corresponds verbatim to 40b; v. 49b is a variation of v. 41; v. 50 again repeats v. 42 verbatim. Verse 43, on the other hand, resonates with the following only in that v. 49 again speaks of the righteous, but their participation in salvation is not detailed as in v. 43. Thus the emphasis, as in vv. 36– 43, falls on the final separation at the end (cf. 25:32–33), only now the negative side of what happens to “the bad” emerges in the center even more strongly (v. 49; cf. “the sons of the Evil One” in v. 38). III.4.2.3 The Parable of the Householder (13:51–52)

“Have you understood all this?” They say to him, “Yes.” 52 And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” 51

[51] The second part of the discourse ends with a short dialogue in which Jesus’ introductory question takes up the disciples’ request in v. 36 that begins the continuation of the parable discourse addressed only to them. There is also a connection to the challenge that applies to the disciples in v. 18, to hear the parable of the sower. Now Jesus asks, in reference to all the parables, whether they have understood everything. When they respond positively, the disciples step forward once again as those who, in contrast to the crowds, hear and understand (v. 23). [52] Jesus accepts and confirms the disciples’ positive response to his question with a brief concluding parable, which the evangelist has composed on the basis of an aphoristic description of the vocation or task of scribes who bring out of their treasure both new and old. Like vv. 3–9, but in contrast to the six parables in vv. 24–50, this is not a parable of the kingdom of heaven. In the case

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

219

of those scribes who have become “kingdom-of-heaven disciples,” a group of Jesus’ followers—hardly more closely defined—comes into view, among whom the evangelist himself is to be counted. Their central characteristic is their intimate knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, the “old;” the “new” are—corresponding to their more specific description as “disciples of the kingdom of heaven”—the “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” that have now been revealed and given to the disciples (v. 11). Pointing to those followers of Jesus who are particularly adept in interpreting the Scripture, v. 52 thus draws the consequences from the statement of v. 51, that the disciples have understood what has been said in the preceding parables of the kingdom of heaven. For Matthew, what is important is the continuity and connection between the old and the new, which the disciples of Jesus who are learned in the Scripture should impart to other people: that which has been hidden from the foundation of the world (v. 35), but is now revealed as new, the disciples are able to present as what has been predicted in the old, and the old is now opened up by the new, revealing its true significance. When Jesus’ works are not understood, this is accompanied by the fact that the meaning of Scripture is also hidden, and remains so. III.5 The Authority of the Son of God and the Further Profiling of the Reactions to His Ministry (13:53–16:12) Differently from 11:2–16:20, a subdividing of 13:53–16:20 is difficult, because Matthew did not set clear turning points, and larger blocks of material are not recognizable either thematically or in terms of constellation of characters. On the basis of the Markan thread, pericopes in which the conflict with Jesus’ adversaries (cf. 12:1–45) is continued (15:1–20; 16:1– 4; cf. also 14:1–12) alternate in an unfixed manner with pericopes that continue Jesus’ devoted care for the people (14:13–21, 34–36; 15:29–39), or the disciples stand at the center of attention (14:22–33; 16:5–12, 13–20; cf. also 15:12–20). Individual motifs are repeated, such as the withdrawal motif (14:13; 15:21; cf. also 16:4) or confession of Jesus as Son of God (14:33; 16:16). From these observations, however, it is just as difficult to discern a clear outline structure for the whole as it is from the noticeable repetition of the feeding stories (14:13–21; 15:29–39). The structuring of 13:53–16:20 must therefore be confined to conflating thematically related pericopes into smaller blocks of text, where this is possible (13:53–14:12; 14:13–36; 15:1–20; 15:21–39; 16:1–12). I here bracket out 16:13–20, because this passage occupies a special position as the goal of the whole section 11:2–16:20. In terms of content, the already familiar profiling of opponents, crowds, and disciples continues and is updated. The conflict with opponents becomes sharper, as seen in the fact that now Pharisees and scribes even come from

220

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

Jerusalem (15:1), and the Pharisees even seek an alliance with the Sadducees (16:1), as was seen already with the Baptist (3:7). The crowds remain well disposed toward Jesus, who continues to treat them with mercy, but the relative distance between them and the disciples increases, as the disciples progress in their understanding. III.5.1 Rejection and Danger (13:53–14:12) III.5.1.1 Jesus’ Rejection in Nazareth (13:53–58)

And it happened that, when Jesus had finished these parables, he left that place. 54 And he came to his hometown and taught the people in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in their own country and in their own house.” 58 And he did not do many deeds of power there, because of their unbelief. 53

[53] In v. 53, Matthew leads into the following pericope with his usual transitional formula (cf. 7:28; 11:1; 19:1; 26:1). Since he has already reworked Mark 4:35–5:20 (8:18, 23–9:1; 9:18–26), Jesus’ appearance in his hometown is the next text in the Markan order (Mark 6:1– 6a). Matthew here takes up this pericope, because this story, as we shall see, is useful in the continuation of his own presentation. [54–56] As Jesus’ biological family came to him just before the parable discourse, so afterward his way now leads to his hometown, which, in line with 2:23, can be identified as Nazareth. His teaching in the local synagogue offers the only narrative concretion of the summary notes in 4:23 and 9:35. As at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount (7:28), so here, too, people are astounded at his teaching, but this does not mean that the people of Nazareth are open to the work of Jesus. Rather, in their particular case, their thinking about the (supposed) origin of Jesus from the family of a simple carpenter generates irritation, expressed in their question about the source of his abilities (v. 54). Matthew has clearly structured the direct speech of the people of Nazareth in vv. 54–56. The question of where Jesus got his wisdom and his deeds of power (v. 54), answered for the reader by 11:27, is repeated in v. 56 in a shorter form (cf. Mark 6:2), so that v. 54b and v. 56b frame the references to Jesus’ background in vv. 55, 56a, which are formulated as rhetorical questions. As the question of the origin of his wisdom (cf. 11:19) is related to his teaching, so the talk of his deeds

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

221

of power brings in his work of healing (cf. 7:22; 11:20, 21, 23; 14:2). Verse 58 shows that the people of Nazareth have not only heard about these, but that Jesus has also performed miraculous healings there, although “not many.” Thus, in the broadest sense, the pericope is about the issue of assessing the “works of the Messiah” introduced in 11:2–6 as the major theme of the text block 11:2–16:20. For the people of Nazareth, pondering Jesus’ origin from ordinary circumstances made the option that he could be the expected Davidic Messiah to be outside of the realm of the thinkable. Matthew has changed the Markan question from “Is not this the carpenter . . . ?” (Mark 6:3) to “Is not this the son of the carpenter . . . ?” (cf. Luke 4:22; John 6:42). Not only does he emphasize the origin of Jesus more clearly than Mark 6:3 as the factor that caused the people of Nazareth to take offense at him (v. 57), but at the same time makes an intentional reference back to 1:18–25. The “informed” reader of Matthew knows, from 1:18–25, that the people of Nazareth are operating on an unreliable presupposition. Joseph accepted Jesus as his son but according to 1:18–25 is not his biological father, for Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit. The mystery of Jesus’ person is thus hidden from the people of Nazareth. They are unable to adequately judge Jesus’ works, because they are not able to detach themselves from their perspective, which is determined by their (supposed) knowledge of his origin. The reference to Jesus’ mother, brothers, and sisters further substantiates the question of v. 55a. [57] In the wider context, the comment “and they took offense at him,” with which Matthew sums up the pronouncement of the people of Nazareth by his own interpretation and resumes the narrative, allows the reader to think back to 11:6. The people of Nazareth hear (the teaching) and see (the deeds of power), but they do not understand (cf. 13:13–15). Rather, they take offense, because Jesus’ works do not fit into their image of him that emerged for them from his ordinary circumstances. Jesus’ response in v. 57b about the prophet who is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and his own house picks up on this factor (cf. John 4:44; Gos. Thom. 31, and the related statement about philosophers in Dio Chrysostom, Cont. 47.6). [58] Matthew has reformulated the conclusion. That Jesus did not do many deeds of power in Nazareth is not for Matthew because he could not have done this—that would not fit into his high Christology—but because of “their unbelief,” which in Mark 6:6 “merely” appears as the object of Jesus’ amazement. According to Matthew, Jesus heals wherever he meets with faith (cf. on 9:2). Since v. 58 implies that Jesus did at least a few deeds of power (see above on v. 54), strictly speaking this means that not everyone in Nazareth disbelieved. Matthew does, however, place the accent on the overall (negative) picture. That this is not to be generalized and applied to the Jewish people as a whole is evident in the overall flow of the Matthean narrative. To be sure, the people

222

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

of Nazareth do not represent an isolated special case. Although the reason for the incomprehension of the people of Nazareth arises specifically out of their familiarity with Jesus’ family origins, they still stand prototypically for those who reject Jesus because of his (supposedly) lowly origin (cf. John 6:41–42; 7:41). III.5.1.2 Herod Antipas’ Judgment about Jesus and the Death of John the Baptist (14:1–12)

At that time Herod the tetrarch heard reports about Jesus; 2 and he said to his servants, “This is John the Baptist. He has been raised from the dead, and that is why these powers are at work in him.” 3 For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and thrown him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, 4 for John had said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5 And though he wanted to put him to death, he feared the crowd, because they regarded him as a prophet. 6 But when Herod’s birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced in (their) midst, and she pleased Herod. 7 Therefore he promised on oath to grant her whatever she might ask. 8 But she, prompted by her mother, said, “Give me here the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” 9 And the king became sad, yet out of regard for his oaths and for the guests, he commanded (it) to be given. 10 And he sent and had John beheaded in the prison. 11 And the head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, who brought (it) to her mother. 12 And his disciples came and took the body and buried it. And they came and reported it to Jesus. 1

Since the evangelist has already placed the sending of the disciples (cf. Mark 6:7–13) in Matthew 10, he now continues with a reference to a judgment about the identity of Jesus made by the ruler of the country, Herod Antipas (cf. Mark 6:14–16), which is followed by a flashback of the death of the Baptist (Mark 6:17–29). This is an explanation of v. 2, probably based on a folkloristic narrative with legendary features. According to Josephus (Ant. 18.116–119), the increasing popularity of John aroused the suspicion of Antipas, who had him arrested and executed for fear of a rebellion. Antipas had married Herodias, who had previously been the wife of his otherwise unknown half-brother also named Herod (not the well-known tetrarch Philip, as said in Mark 6:17 and Matthew 14:3; cf. Ant. 18.136). The Baptist criticized Antipas’ marriage, which was forbidden by the Torah (Lev 18:16; 20:21). Josephus says nothing about this motivation for John’s arrest and execution, but this does not rule out that the story contains a historically reliable reminiscence. [1–2] In vv. 1–2, Matthew continues his thematic treatment of responses to the works of Jesus (11:2), reporting the reaction of Herod Antipas, ruler of

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

223

Galilee and Perea 4 BCE–39 CE, who has become aware of Jesus’ activity in his realm. While Mark 6:14–16 begins by citing various opinions about Jesus before finally stating the judgment of Herod Antipas, Matthew focuses the scene entirely on Herod’s judgment: he attempts to find an explanation for the powers at work in Jesus by regarding him as John the Baptist, now risen from the dead. After the brief note about the arrest of the Baptist in 4:12, he last appeared in the narrative in 11:2– 6, when he sent his disciples to inquire about Jesus’ identity. In Matthew’s chronology, John’s murder must have taken place in the period of the events depicted in 11:7–13:58. [3–12] In the following, the reference to John will provide the occasion to elaborate the circumstances of his death. Matthew not only clearly streamlines his Markan source, but also sets new accents within its content. [3–5] In line with Mark 6:17–18, v. 3 briefly accounts for the arrest of the Baptist (see above), but in v. 5 Matthew gives a different explanation of the situation compared to Mark 6:18–20, which significantly changes its direction. Mark contrasted Herod Antipas, who fears John (in the positive sense) because he regards him as a righteous and holy man (Mark 6:20), with his wife Herodias, who has a grudge against John and wants to kill him. Matthew shifts the direction, so that the contrast becomes between the ruler and the crowds. Herod himself wants to kill John, but he fears the people, who value John as a prophet (cf. 11:9; 21:26). Through this change in the constellation of the characters in the narrative, Matthew creates a clear analogy to the proceedings against Jesus in 21:45– 46: The high priests and the Pharisees seek to arrest Jesus, but they fear the people because they respect Jesus as a prophet. Matthew thereby emphasizes the connection between John and Jesus not only in the message they proclaim (3:2; 4:17), but also in the fate they suffer. In 17:12–13, this aspect will again be highlighted. [6–11] The change in the constellation in vv. 3–5 implies that the following scene of the birthday party in vv. 6–11 does not lead to Herod’s having to order the execution of the Baptist against his own better judgment. In Matthew, he only has to overcome his caution with regard to a possible reaction among the people. Nonetheless, vv. 8a and 11b still let it be seen that in the background, it is Herodias who has spun the threads. In order to reach her goal of getting rid of the critic of her marriage (illegitimate according to Jewish law), she cold-bloodedly uses her daughter (according to Josephus, Ant. 18.136, named Salome). The dark Matthean picture of the ruler’s household is made even more grim by the fact that Herod’s oath was itself already a violation of the divine will (5:33–37). All this is not even to mention that the appearance of the ruler’s own stepdaughter as a dancer at a banquet was a blatant violation of good morals, not only for Jewish but also for Greek customs. She here plays

224

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

a role usually assumed by prostitutes. Matthew thus tells how one violation of the will of God leads to another, and how this finally leads to the capital offense of the cruel execution of the Baptist. In the Matthean narrative line, Antipas’ sadness mentioned in v. 9 (par. Mark 6:26) comes as a surprise, for according to v. 5 it cannot refer to grief at the death of the Baptist. If this is not to be understood merely as an inconsistency of the evangelist in his recasting the story of Mark 6:17–29—alongside the disturbance of the festivities (?)—one may think of the way in which this was done: Despite Herod’s fear of the people, John has now been executed even without a trial, and the guests at the birthday party have witnessed this way of handling his problem. [12] The disciples of John appear once again (cf. 9:14; 11:2–3). Differently from Mark 6:29, they not only retrieve and bury the corpse of the Baptist, but they also inform Jesus, just as, conversely, in 11:4 they are told to report back to the Baptist. In v. 12b Matthew here not only prepares for Jesus’ withdrawal in v. 13, but also reemphasizes that John and Jesus belong together as God’s envoys. III.5.2 Jesus Demonstrates His Divine Authority (14:13–36)

In the center of this text block, the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water constitute two extraordinary demonstrations of the authority of Jesus. It is striking that the two pericopes not only stand together in Mark 6:30–44, 45–52, but also in John 6:1–15, 16–21. In Matthew, the two pericopes are framed by two summary presentations of Jesus’ acts of healing (vv. 13–14, 34–36), which embed the special nature of the miraculous feeding and walking on the water in Jesus’ daily ministry (cf. 4:23, 9:35). III. 5.2.1 Feeding the Five Thousand (14:13–21)

Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat to a deserted place by himself. But when the crowds heard it, they followed him on foot from the towns. 14 And as he got out of the boat, he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion for them and cured their sick. 15 When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a deserted place, and the hour is now late. Send the crowds away so that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves.” 16 But Jesus said to them, “They need not go away; you give them something to eat.” 17 But they said to him, “We have nothing here but five loaves of bread and two fish.” 18 But he said, “Bring them here to me.” 19 And he ordered the crowds to recline on the grass, took the five loaves and the two fish, looked up to heaven, pronounced the blessing, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. 20 And all ate and were filled. And they took up what was left over of the broken pieces, twelve 13

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

225

baskets full. 21 Now those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children. Matthew continues to follow the Markan thread (cf. Mark 6:32– 44) but has created a new narrative context through the note in v. 12b, since the execution of the Baptist no longer functions as a flashback, but is now integrated into the mainline of the narrative. [13–14] Verse 13a takes up this perspective: Herod Antipas’ action against John signals a danger for Jesus as well, especially since Herod regards Jesus as the Baptist risen from the dead (v. 2). Thus, just as he did after the report of John’s arrest (4:12), Jesus now withdraws again (cf. further 12:15; 15:21), this time on a boat to a deserted spot. With this identification of the place, and the note that the crowds follow by land, the stage is set for the feeding miracle that follows (cf. v. 15, “This is a deserted place.”). The compassionate mercy of Jesus for the people has already been mentioned in 9:36. Matthew here again takes up this important motif on the basis of Mark 6:34, without reference to the comparison of the crowds to sheep without a shepherd, since he already incorporated this motif in 9:36, and replaces Jesus’ teaching (Mark 6:34) with his acts of healing (cf. 19:2 par. Mark 10:1), since for Matthew the compassionate care of Jesus for his people is manifest primarily in his healing ministry. It is striking that in vv. 13–21 Matthew repeatedly speaks explicitly of the crowds (vv. 13, 14, 15, 19 [2x]), while this word is found only once in Mark 6:32– 44 (6:34). This observation, also characteristic of the second feeding story in 15:29–39, clearly indicates that the parable discourse, despite 13:10–17, does not represent a turning point in the narrative. Jesus’ compassionate devotion to the crowds is still present, and it continues to be said of them, ambiguously, that they “followed” Jesus (v. 13; cf. on 4:25). [15–21] The following narrative of the feeding of the multitude in vv. 15–21, to which Matthew has given his own contour by tightening up and reformulating the story, is organically attached to v. 14, since it too is concerned with physical well-being (cf. the analogous sequence in 15:29–31, 32–39), which is at the same time transparent for God’s saving action as such. [15–18] The disciples’ intervention, suggesting that the crowds be dismissed in view of the lateness of the hour, is done with a caring intent. At the same time, in conjunction with v. 17, it is a manifestation of their characteristic little-faith (see on 8:26), especially in the retrospective view of the feeding stories in 16:7–10, and then explicitly in the address of the disciples as little-faith people. The disciples’ attitude is contrasted with the sovereignty of Jesus, which Matthew emphasizes at the outset, since in v. 16 he has prefaced Jesus’ command, “You give them something to eat,” with the statement that there is no need for the crowds to go away. Emphasis on the

226

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

sovereignty of Jesus is further seen in the omission of the exchange of words in Mark 6:37b–38a: the Matthean Jesus does not need to be informed how many loaves the disciples already have. Instead, in Matthew, the reference to only five loaves and two fish is the disciples’ objection to Jesus’ command, in which they express their judgment that fulfilling Jesus’ unwelcome demand is impossible. At the same time, through the omission of Mark 6:37b, the Markan negative portrait of the disciples is moderated in that Matthew does not foist upon them the proposal to buy two hundred denarii worth of bread, which sounds mocking in view of their actual cash situation. The Matthean disciples respond to Jesus’ command with a sober reference to the facts, for Matthew an expression of their little-faith, but they do not respond in a disrespectful tone. In Matthew, Jesus then continues with the command—inserted by the evangelist—that the loaves and fish be brought to him (v. 18), sovereignly ignoring the objection of his disciples. In the following, Jesus lets his actions speak for themselves. At the same time, v. 18 fills in a blank spot in the Markan version: before Jesus can distribute the loaves and fish, he must have received them. [19] Mark 6:39– 40 gives detailed and explicit instruction about the seating arrangements in small groups divided into hundreds and fifties, “table-by-table,” which probably alludes to the division of the people of God in Exodus 18:25 and Numbers 31:14 (cf. 1QS 2.21–22; CD 13.1–2; and elsewhere). Matthew has succinctly combined these into Jesus’ terse command to the crowds to recline on the grass (v. 19a). The focus is thus completely on Jesus. The successive actions of taking the bread, pronouncing the blessing, breaking the loaves, and passing them on to the disciples suggests Jesus’ actions at the distribution of bread at the Last Supper (26:26). This means that the narrative here becomes transparent to the readers for their reception of the saving gifts of Jesus at the Eucharist. However, the echoes of the Lord’s Supper, which Matthew has reinforced by the temporal note “when it had become evening” (v. 15; cf. 26:20), are not to be made into the guiding category for the story’s interpretation, for its primary orientation is concrete, physical care for the needs of the crowds. The disciples function as mediators of the salvific acts of Jesus, as established in the narrative of 9:36–11:1. This becomes even more clear in 14:19, compared with Mark 6:41, when Matthew joins the action of the disciples directly to that of Jesus himself, without inserting a new verb: Jesus gives the bread to the disciples, the disciples to the crowds. At the same time, their action fulfills the command of Jesus in v. 16, but it is evident from vv. 17–19 that the actions of the disciples are based on Jesus’ initiatory act. Matthew has suppressed the reference to the fish, both here and in v. 20 (cf. Mark 6:43). [20–21] Verses 20–21 state the miracle: all eat, all are filled. The size of the crowd more precisely specified in v. 21 allows the narrative to appear

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

227

as surpassing even the wonderful feeding told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4:42– 44 (cf. also 1 Kgs 17:7–16), especially since in 2 Kings 4, as in Matthew 14, the command to give the people something to eat is encountered with a reference to the small amount of bread. Elisha feeds a hundred men with twenty loaves, with an unspecified amount left over. With only five loaves and two fish, Jesus fed approximately five thousand men in addition to women and children, which Matthew explicitly wanted to include in the masses of people about Jesus, and there was more left over than what was available at the beginning. The implicit message, therefore, is that Jesus is much more than Elisha (cf. 12:41– 42). No reaction is described from either the disciples or the crowds. For the crowds, in any case, it is an open question to what extent they are thought of as witnesses to the wonderful event in the story. The disciples, on the other hand, know how little food is available, and in regard to the twelve baskets, Matthew will have thought of only the disciples as those who gathered the fragments (v. 20b). These, again, in a special way receive an insight into Jesus’ authority (cf. already 8:23–27). The following narrative in 14:22–33 continues precisely this aspect and then in v. 33 offers an answer of the disciples to the miraculous event. If one asks about the reality content of the narrative, it must be soberly stated that the miraculous event of the feeding of the five thousand, like that of the raising of the dead in 9:18–26, stands beyond the boundaries of human thought. The modern-day reader can hardly understand Matthew 14:13–21 otherwise than as a mythical narrative, which was formed as an effort to surpass 2 Kings 4:42– 44. The story was attached to the experiences of Jesus’ table fellowship, with a side-glance at the eschatological banquet (Isa 25:6–8; 1 En. 62:14; 2 En. 42:5), or possibly even at the vision of eschatological abundance of food (2 Bar. 29:3–8), which does away with all human neediness. If one does not want to simply let it be as a beautiful story, there is the option to understand it as a symbolic story. With v. 19 as the point of departure, one can see it as an illustration of the saving event communicated in the Eucharist, or one can understand it—in line with the saying from Deuteronomy cited in Matthew 4:4—as Jesus’ satisfying the hunger for life. On the other hand, one must honestly state that Matthew himself saw more than this in it, and that the second option is considerably removed from Matthew’s own view, because the concrete dimension of satisfying hunger was important to him, analogous to the healings Jesus performed. In this sense, even if the element of miraculous multiplication of bread remains inaccessible, one can take from the narrative—especially in conjunction with the supplication for bread in the Lord’s Prayer—that God’s salvific will also includes the nourishment of fundamental bodily needs. If this latter is true, then in today’s global context of those who follow Jesus, the miracle of multiplication of bread would have to be followed by the “miracle” of the interpersonal sharing of life: all eat, all have enough, and there is more than enough left.

228

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

III.5.2.2 Jesus Walks on the Water (14:22–36)

And immediately he compelled the disciples to get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, while he sent the crowds away. 23 And after he had sent the crowds away, he went up the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone. 24 But the boat was already many stadia from the land, battered by the waves, for the wind was against (them). 25 But in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. 26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, and said, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out in fear. 27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, “Be of good courage! It is I. Do not be afraid.” 28 Peter answered him and said, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29 And he said, “Come.” And Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” 31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand, grasped him, and said to him, “Littlefaith, why did you doubt?” 32 When they had gotten into the boat, the wind ceased. 33 And those in the boat worshiped him, and said, “Truly you are the Son of God.” 34 When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret. 35 And as the men of that place recognized him, they sent word throughout the region and brought all who were sick to him. 36 And they begged him that they (might) touch even the fringe of his cloak. And all who touched it were healed/saved. 22

Matthew has significantly transformed the pericope about Jesus walking on the water from Mark 6:45–52, especially by the insertion of the episode about Peter in vv. 28–31 and the reformulation of the conclusion in v. 33 (par. Mark 6:51b–52). Regarded in its larger context, the pericope is seen to be closely related to the story about calming the storm in 8:18, 23–27. [22–23] Verses 22–23 not only set the stage for the new scene, but at the same time also manifest close connections with the preceding narrative, so that the verses are best classified as a transition. In vv. 13–14, Jesus withdrew to a lonely place by himself but was interrupted by the crowds that were streaming to him. He thus first calls the disciples to go on ahead of him in the boat (cf. v. 13), then sends away the crowds, who have now eaten their full (cf. v. 15), so that he could finally climb up the mountain (cf. 5:1; 15:29) to be by himself and pray (v. 13). The reference to the time, “when evening came,” repeats v. 15a—which doesn’t fit, in view of the events that happened in between.

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

229

[24] With v. 24, the narrative turns to the disciples on the lake. As in 8:24, they are endangered by the powerful waves. Differently from Mark 6:48a, Matthew does not picture the situation as what Jesus sees from the land. The danger is first something that concerns the disciples themselves. Unlike Matthew 8:24, Jesus is not with them asleep, but not with them at all. [25] Not until the end of the night—the fourth watch of the night means the time between 3 and 6 a.m. —does Jesus come to them. Matthew has omitted the epiphany motif from Mark 6:48, that Jesus was intending to go by them (cf. Exod 33:19–23; 34:6; 1 Kgs 19:11), in order to concentrate on the coming of Jesus to his disciples. The motif of human beings able to walk on water occurs occasionally in Hellenistic literature (e.g., Dio Chrysostom, 3 Regn. 3.30; Lucian, Lover of Lies 13) but was generally regarded, especially in Old Testament and Jewish contexts, as divine privilege, and was accordingly understood as a divine ability or an ability conferred by (a) God. The polemic against Antiochus IV in 2 Maccabees 5:21 is instructive, for he is supposed to have believed that he could “sail on the land and walk on the sea.” For Matthew 14:25, the intertextual relation to Job 9:8 LXX is especially important, where it is said of God that he walks around on the sea as on dry land. Here a power is ascribed to Jesus that for Jewish readers could be ascribed only to God. [26–27] The reaction of the disciples in v. 26 is thus only all too understandable. Jesus’ words to the disciples in v. 27 continue the christological perspective to which his walking on the water points. The phrase “It is I” echoes the formula of self-revelation found several times in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut 32:39; Isa 43:10; 45:18–19; cf. also Ex 3:14). Jesus’ words “Be of good courage! It is I” are thus not only reassuring encouragement to the disciples, with which he identifies himself to them in their fear that they are seeing a ghost, but also an expression of his divine status. This fits in with the common occurrence of the saying “fear not,” widespread in the Old Testament in contexts of the self-revelation of God (e.g., Gen 15:1; 26:24; 28:13 LXX; Judg 6:23; Isa 41:13; 43:1). [28–31] On the basis of Jesus’ self-revelation and encouragement, Peter musters up the courage to walk to Jesus on the water. To be sure, Peter knows that he cannot do this under his own power. Rather, he makes his walk on the water dependent on a specific command from Jesus; it is Jesus who must give him this ability. The introductory phrase “If it is you . . .” directly takes up Jesus’ majestic “It is I.” Peter’s words thus underscore that walking on the water is a divine privilege that can come only to those who are given this ability by God. Jesus therefore acts with divine authority when he calls Peter to come to him. In fact, Peter can also now do what is impossible in itself—just as believers are promised in 17:20 and 21:21 that they can move mountains. Peter begins to sink only when he no longer looks at Jesus, but at the strong wind, which

230

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

is here a symbol for the troubles experienced by Jesus’ followers, and his faith slips back into fear (v. 30; cf. v. 26). His cry (again, cf. v. 26) “Lord, save me” makes the reader think back to 8:25, and the reader familiar with the Psalter will overhear the echo of Psalm 69:2–3, 15–16. Conversely, this means that when the church prays this psalm, the congregation should remember that Jesus saved Peter and thereby gain confidence in the midst of their own troubles. As in 8:23–27, Jesus shows himself to be sovereign Lord of the situation. The reaching out of the hand (cf. 12:49) is again stamped with biblical coloring (cf., e.g., Exod 3:20; 14:16, 21; Ps 144:7) and is here a sign of the power at Jesus’ disposal: Jesus’ divine status is revealed not only in his ability to walk on water, but no less in his power to save others. His word to Peter in v. 31 again recalls the stilling of the storm. As there Jesus decoded the disciples’ fear as expressing their little-faith (8:26), so he now addresses Peter as a “little-faith,” whose looking at the stormy circumstances robbed him of the capacity that has been given him as a believer (on “little-faith,” see commentary at 8:26). New in 14:31 is that little-faith is explicitly interpreted as doubt. In 28:17, Matthew will come back to the motif of doubt. The characterization of Peter here includes motifs from the earlier scene depicting the disciples in v. 26 (fear, crying out), and the cross-references to 8:23–27 and 28:17 show that Peter should not be considered a special case but is to be understood as a representative sample of discipleship. [32] Peter’s getting out of the boat in v. 29 is paired with v. 32, in which both Jesus and Peter get into the boat. As in 8:26, the wind now calms down. The description of the emergency situation in v. 24 corresponds now to the elimination of the problem, so that structurally, verses 24 and 32 turn out to be the framework of the two episodes in vv. 25–27 and 28–31. [33] The story concludes with v. 33, which illuminates the christological ramifications the disciples draw from the event. Differently from 8:27, the story concludes not with stunned amazement, but a confession of faith. The question in 8:27, “Who is this who commands even the wind and the waves?,” here receives its full answer and at the same time, regarded in its narrower context, the correction of the declaration of the people of Nazareth in 13:55 that Jesus is the son of the carpenter. Whoever has authority over the elements, who can walk on the water, and can save others, can be none other than the Son of God. As the authority of Jesus manifested here surpasses the authority evident in his healings, so the christological understanding expressed in the disciples’ confession that Jesus is the divine Son of God surpasses the identification of Jesus pondered by the crowds in 12:23 that he is the Davidic Messiah. If one compares the end of this pericope with Mark 6:51b–52, then the disciples’ worship (proskyneō) of Jesus, and their confession of him as Son of God, is probably the most obvious example of the correction that Matthew

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

231

makes of Mark’s picture of the disciples, for the Markan pericope ends with the disciples in stunned amazement, acknowledged by the narrator with the words that they have not understood the meaning of the loaves, but their hearts were hardened. And while, in the Markan conception, no human being confesses Jesus as Son of God prior to the centurion at the cross (Mark 15:39), in Matthew the circle of disciples who see with an “understanding heart” (cf. 13:10–17) already makes this confession in 14:33. The Matthean version of Peter’s confession in 16:16 continues this aspect. In summary, we may conclude that two aspects are to be affirmed that determine the content of the disciples’ confession. First, by his walking on the turbulent water and calming the wind (cf. 8:23–27), Jesus demonstrated a power that brings him close to God. Secondly, Jesus proved to be the savior to the sinking Peter (cf., along with Ps 144:7, e.g., Ps 18:17; 107:23–32). In Jesus the Immanuel (1:23), the saving power of God is manifest (cf. 1:21). In the wider context of Matthew, this means that the confession of Jesus as Son of God is still in 14:33 one-sidedly oriented to Jesus’ divine power. The integration of the passion in the understanding of Jesus as Son of God is yet to be faced by the disciples (see on 16:21–23). [34–36] Just as the feeding of the five thousand was preceded by healings (v. 14), so another summary of the healing work of Jesus follows in vv. 34–36. When Jesus and his disciples go ashore in Gennesaret, again the sick are immediately brought to Jesus (cf. 4:24; 8:16; 9:2, 32; 12:22). Matthew has considerably shortened his source (Mark 6:53–56). In particular, the deletion of Mark 6:56a allows him to concentrate the event on Gennesaret as its location. In contrast to the summaries in 4:23 and 9:35, Jesus’ healings in vv. 34–36—analogous to v. 14—are about Jesus’ healing activity in a certain place (cf. 8:16). The way the healings are described in v. 36, derived from Mark 6:56, stands out from Matthew’s typical summaries. In the broader context, it recalls the motif of touching the tassels of Jesus’ cloak (cf. 9:20) and the words “the woman was healed/saved” associated with the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage in 9:20–22 and, conversely formulated, lines up 9:20–22 as itself one example from a larger context. III.5.3 Dispute with the Pharisees and Scribes about Purity (15:1–20)

Then Pharisees and scribes come to Jesus from Jerusalem and say, 2 “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” 3 He answered and said to them, “And why do you also transgress, (namely) the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God has said: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had 1

232

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

from me is given to God,” 6 then that person need not honor the father.’ So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. 7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’” 10 And he called the crowd to him and said to them, “Listen and understand! 11 It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.” 12 Then the disciples come up and say to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard that word?” 13 But he answered and said, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Leave them be! They are blind leaders. But when one blind person leads another, both will fall into a pit.” 15 But Peter answered and said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” 16 But he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the latrine? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimonies, slanders. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a person.” The block 14:13–36, which continues the portrayal of the powerful deeds of Jesus’ ministry, is followed in 15:1–20 with a renewed dispute with the scribes and Pharisees. Compared to his Markan source (Mark 7:1–23), Matthew has not only significantly altered the structure of the text by omitting Mark 7:3– 4, reversing the order of 7:6–7 and 7:8–13, and inserting a new passage in vv. 12–14. It is rather the case that in Matthew 15 a fundamentally different position on the validity of the Torah emerges, for, unlike Mark, Matthew did not derive an abrogation of the distinction between pure and impure food from the particular case of handwashing before meals (cf. Mark 7:19). The omission of Mark 7:3– 4 is not only due to the fact that Mark’s explanation of Jewish customs seemed superfluous to the first evangelist in view of his Jewish addressees; on the contrary, he would have considered it incorrect and inappropriate, since for him, washing one’s hands before the meal is not, as Mark postulates from his outsider perspective, a ritual practiced by all Jews (Mark 7:3), but a particular doctrine of the Pharisees (hand washing and impurity of the hands are extensively discussed in m. Yad. 1.1–3.5). Matthew himself—as probably most of the church members in his context—would hardly sign a statement that he was not a Jew.

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

233

[1–2] In the overall context of 11:2–16:20, the dispute about hand washing before meals reads like a kind of aside or complement to the Sabbath controversy in 12:1–8. In both cases, the issue concerns an aspect which for the Pharisees is of central importance for Jewish identity, and as in 12:2 Jesus is confronted with a charge that concerns the conduct of his disciples. At the same time, 15:1–9 also documents the intensification of the conflict that began with disputes about the Sabbath. In Matthew 9:2–13 and 12:1–14, it was still a matter of conflicts with local Pharisees and scribes. Now, however, Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem emerge on the scene—in Matthew for the first time (cf. the earlier appearance in Mark 3:22). One may also note that, differently from 12:1–2, and also unlike Mark 7:2, no current occasion for the Pharisees’ and scribes’ accusation is described. This gives the impression that the religious establishment in Jerusalem has become aware (has been made aware) of Jesus, and now, alarmed by reports about him and his disciples, come specifically from the metropolis to engage him in debate. Central to the understanding of the text is that washing the hands before eating is not a command of the Torah. According to Exodus 30:17–21, before the priests enter the tabernacle or go to the altar, they are to wash their hands in a copper basin specially set out for them (cf. Josephus, Ant. 8.86–87). From Leviticus 15:11 it also becomes clear that washing the hands guards from the transmission of impurity. However, there is no law that the laity should wash their hands before eating. This is rather a part of the Pharisees’ program for the sanctification of everyday life by extending the concepts of purity that applied to priests or the temple. Matthew, as a Jew who confesses the Christian faith, knows this. He therefore focuses his attention in vv. 1–9 on the clear distinction between God’s commandments in the Torah and the statutes of human beings, and counts the “traditions of the elders,” by which the Pharisees’ expositions of the law—handed on orally—were respectfully designated, as human doctrines (cf. v. 9). He thus lets the accusation of transgressing the “tradition of the elders” evaporate as irrelevant. In categorical distinction from the Torah, these traditions have no authoritative substance, but are merely human work. [3] It is only consistent with this background that Jesus does not at all respond to the question of v. 2. Instead, Jesus goes directly on the offensive. Thus in vv. 3–9 Matthew has not only placed Mark 7:8–13 before Mark 7:6– 7, but at the same time has also so reshaped Mark 7:8–9 in that the charge of the scribes and Pharisees (v. 2) in v. 3 is succinctly repeated in a parallel countercharge: “Why do you also transgress . . . ?” Matthew’s rhetorical composition carries with it the danger of a misunderstanding, to the extent that one can see in the “you also” the implication that the disciples also violate God’s commandment. Matthew, however, is concerned with juxtaposing, on

234

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

the one hand, transgression of the traditions of the fathers, and, on the other hand, transgressing the command of God for the sake of the tradition of the fathers. The “also” is thus to be referred only to the fact that the scribes and Pharisees are also “transgressors” but—in contrast to the disciples—of the commandment of God. Thus, as a matter of fact, in v. 3 a caesura is to be understood after “why do you also transgress,” indicated in the above translation by “(namely).” Just as the tone of voice of the question in v. 2 is even more sharp than in Mark, since Matthew has replaced Mark’s “not live according to” (Mark 7:5) with “transgress,” this change is not completely understood apart from v. 3. Matthew wants to make his description of the authorities short and sweet: they are transgressors of the command of God. Moreover, v. 3 already implies the devaluation of the tradition of the Pharisees as a human construct, as Jesus does not accept the venerable title “tradition of the elders,” and instead speaks of “your tradition,” as in v. 6. As v. 3 pointedly emphasizes the charge of a substantial disagreement between God’s command and the Pharisee’s tradition, [4–6] this is illustrated in vv. 4– 6 with the example of the conflict between the Decalogue’s command to honor one’s parents and the Pharisees’ practice relating to vows. In the introduction to the command to honor one’s parents from Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16, Matthew has replaced “Moses said” (Mark 7:10) with “God said” (v. 4)—thoroughly in line with his juxtaposition of the commandment of God and the statutes of human beings—in order to pointedly juxtapose what “God said” with “but you say” in v. 5. In v. 4b yet a second citation from Scripture concerning one’s parents is placed alongside the Decalogue command (Exod 21:17 [21:16 LXX]; see also Lev 20:9), in order to emphasize the great significance of respect for one’s parents in the Torah, which prescribes the death penalty for those who violate this command. Nevertheless, the Pharisees, according to the charge made in v. 5, have developed a practice relating to vows that can result in releasing one from the obligation to care for one’s parents, and then violates the command to honor one’s parents. Property set aside for the care of parents who are no longer able to take care of themselves can be dedicated to the temple by means of a vow, which thereby deprives the needy parents of its use. Matthew even puts into the mouth of the Pharisees a regulation that is formulated as a direct abrogation of the command in the Decalogue (v. 6a). Historically, this charge is certainly incorrect, for the Pharisees by no means ever deliberately sought to undermine the Fifth Commandment. However, the historical basis for this accusation could be the high value the Pharisees placed on vows, which, in accordance with the Torah itself, call for unconditional observance once they have been made (Num 30:3; Deut 23:24). They may not have been decisive enough in putting a stop to the abuse of such vows.

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

235

Matthew 15:4– 6 taints the Pharisees—with polemical exaggeration—with the problem thus posed. On the basis of a false prioritizing of Torah commands, according to which keeping a vow is even more important than the command of the Decalogue to honor one’s parents, they, in their “tradition,” have interpreted the vow issue in a way that leads to open disregard for caring for one’s parents. According to Matthew’s understanding of the Law, in case of conflict between two commandments—as here between keeping one’s vow and honoring one’s parents—precedence should be given to social obligation (cf. 12:5–7). For Matthew, an ethically questionable vow would be a priori ungodly and thus without substance. [7–9] On the basis of a transgression of a central command of God legitimized by their tradition in vv. 4– 6, in vv. 7–9 Jesus gives a general characterization of his opponents by calling them hypocrites—that is, people who want to give the appearance of being something other than they are (cf. 22:18; 23:13–29)—and refers to them what Isaiah said about the people of his time. The quotation from Isaiah 29:13 fits very well into this context. The first line takes up the verb from the command to honor one’s parents; the last line points out the disqualification of their tradition as “human precepts.” By cultivating the “tradition of the elders” they seek to give the impression that they are pious, yet the appearance is deceptive. For if God is honored by keeping a vow that undermines honoring one’s parents, this form of honoring God can only be a matter of lip service in which one’s heart is far from God, and the halachic rules that permit such a form of supposed worship of God can only be human commandments that are incompatible with the will of God. The Pharisees and scribes cannot respond and have nothing more to say. For Jesus, the dispute with them is over when he shows that their disregard for the will of God and their hypocrisy makes it unthinkable that they could be legitimate critics of his disciples. To try to persuade them has long since proven to be pointless; in any case, they are unwilling to listen to Jesus, as 12:7, in the context of 9:13, has shown. [10–11] Instead, Jesus turns to the crowds. Only now does he engage the charge of v. 2. It is important to clear up the charge for the crowds, for they need to be prevented from being led astray and being ultimately ruined by the authorities (cf. v. 14). The introductory call to “hear and understand” makes clear that 13:13–15 does not pronounce a final verdict on the crowds. In regard to the content, it should be noted that in v. 11 Matthew moderates the wholesale, categorical formulation of Mark 7:15, “There is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile,” to the simple statement, “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person.” If one takes into consideration the changes the evangelist has made to Mark 7:18–19 in Matthew 15:17, the deletion of Mark’s comment in Mark 7:19 (“Thus

236

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

he declared all foods clean”), as well as the recourse added in v. 20b to the original question in v. 2, this suggests that the evangelist also intends to refer v. 11a exclusively to the particular case raised in v. 2. Verse 11b relates this to ethical misconduct; this is what defiles a person. Analogous to the formulation in v. 11a, Matthew thereby speaks of what comes out of the mouth and thus suggests sins of the tongue in particular. Matthew probably also has in mind at least a reference back to the dispute with the Pharisees in 12:34–37: malicious words, like those spoken by the Pharisees against Jesus, are what makes (them) unclean. The instruction of the disciples in vv. 18–20 will then bring into view other offenses besides sins of the tongue. [12–14] The brief instruction of the crowds is followed in vv. 12–20 by a bipartite dialogue with the disciples, in which the explanation of v. 11 in vv. 15–20 is preceded by a short conversation vv. 12–14 in which Matthew emphasizes the Pharisees’ lack of qualifications. It can hardly be decided whether the disciples’ cue that the Pharisees (there is no further reference to the scribes, which Matt 15:1 has taken from Mark 7:1) have taken offense at Jesus’ words should be taken to refer to vv. 3–9 or to v. 11—in which case the Jerusalem authorities would still have been present for Jesus’ instruction of the people. Either way, in the light of 11:6 (cf. also 13:57) their reaction exposes them as those who remain outside salvation. Jesus’ reply substantiates this. The saying about planting in v. 13 takes up a common term from the theology of election (e.g., Isa 61:3; Jer 32:41; 1 En. 62:8; 93:2, 5, 10; Jub. 7:34; CD 1.7; 1QS 8.5). Jesus thus challenges the Pharisees’ claim to belong to God’s elect with a solemn pronouncement of judgment, then in v. 14 (cf. Luke/Q 6:39) discredits them specifically as teachers of the Torah. They are blind guides (cf. 23:16, 24; the variant reading “blind leaders of the blind” in 15:14 is probably secondary). That with the words “Leave them be!” the disciples are here explicitly urged to pay no more attention to the Pharisees could be an indication that for some church members they represent an appealing alternative. This is exactly why Matthew’s polemic is so consistent and so sharp. [15–16] After the disciples in unison have pointed out the reaction of the Pharisees in v. 12 (as in Mark 7:17), in v. 15 (the actual parallel to Mark 7:17) Matthew has Peter function as spokesperson for the disciples (cf. previously 14:28–31; on this sequence, see also 18:1, 21; and 19:25, 27). The request for an explanation of the parable/aphorism, as compellingly indicated by Jesus’ reply, refers back to v. 11. While the crowds in vv. 10–11 are to be led to understand, the disciples themselves turn out to be still in lacking in comprehension (v. 16) and need help in order to understand. The clear contrast between the crowds and the disciples in 13:10–23 is also moderated here on the disciples’ side. [17–18] The explanation of v. 11a in v. 17 is

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

237

significantly abbreviated in comparison with Mark 7:18b–19. Again, Matthew has mitigated the fundamental character of the Markan pronouncement (Mark 7:18: “. . . cannot defile”). The statement that it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles is now explained by the fact that it merely goes into the stomach and is finally excreted. Verse 18 then turns to unfolding the meaning of v. 11b: what comes out of the mouth defiles the person, because it comes from the heart. To be sure, Matthew does not follow Mark by claiming that a fundamental abrogation of the food laws can be derived from the particular case of handwashing before meals (Mark 7:19)—for Matthew, this would pose a contradiction to 5:18—but he establishes purity of heart (cf. 5:8) as the decisive factor that determines purity or impurity. Purity thus becomes a primarily ethical category (cf., e.g., T. Ash. 2.8–9; Ps.-Phoc. 228; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.257–260, 3.208–209; in early Christianity, e.g., Jas 1:27; 4:8). The saying about the heart, which in the context allows the reader to think back to the quotation of Isaiah 29:13 (v. 8 par. Mark 7:6), is missing in the direct Markan parallel to v. 18 (Mark 7:20) but is inspired by Mark 7:19, 21. In the flow of the Matthean text, the transition to the vice-catalog in v. 19 is created by the explicit reference back to the defilement generated by what comes out of the mouth from the heart. [19] Verse 11a at first suggests a concentration on sins of the tongue as what contaminates a person with impurity. However, by pointing out that such sins originate in the heart, this now becomes merely an example to which further examples are added in v. 19. The clear reference to the Decalogue in v. 19—analogous to the introductions to the antitheses in 5:21–30 and 19:18–19—shows the great importance Matthew attaches to the Ten Commandments, especially to its second table. As in 19:18–19 he deletes the non-Decalogue “You shall not defraud,” so here he omits seven of the thirteen items of Mark’s catalog (Mark 7:21–22) that are not directly related to the Decalogue. He has also expanded the references to the Decalogue with the command about false witnesses. In addition, he has also adjusted the order of the commands to that of the Decalogue, to create a consistent reference to the sixth to the ninth commandments (Exod 20:13–16; Deut 5:17–20). “Sexual sins” reinforces (and generalizes) “adulteries.” “Slanders” (“blasphemies”), which in this context does not refer to blasphemy against God, but to slandering other people (see Did. 3.6), supplements “false testimonies.” If one includes the citation of the command to honor one’s parents in v. 4, then Matthew 15 has exactly the same commandments which Jesus emphasizes in 19:18–19. The initial reference to “evil thoughts” (following Mark 7:21) serves as a general introduction to the following specific references to the Decalogue and, as such, by beginning with the level of one’s thoughts, at the same time

238

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

signals the broad range of behavior incriminated by the Decalogue, as this is explicated in 5:21–30 with reference to murder and adultery. [20] Verse 20a brings the catalog to a concluding summary. Matthew has added a recourse to the original question. The instruction to the disciples in v. 14 to ignore the reaction of the Pharisees is here made explicit: they are to regard the ritual practice of the Pharisees as irrelevant and meaningless. At the same time, it is to be noted that v. 20 takes up the antithetical structure of v. 11 and vv. 17–18. Verse 20b functionally replaces vv. 11a and 17, and at the same time seeks to safeguard the instruction from being misunderstood as a wholesale abrogation of the dietary commandments, as Mark has interpreted it, but to refer it exclusively to the rejection of the Pharisaic demand for washing the hands before eating. For Matthew, the whole discussion about impurity centers on immoral social conduct, while the aspect of ritual purity, without having become essentially obsolete, noticeably recedes. Rules about ritual purity, in Matthew’s view, belong to the category of the “small commandments” (cf. 5:19; 23:23); they are still valid in principle but are not particularly important. In the rhetorical flow of Matthew 15:1–20, the focusing of the discussion of impurity on issues of interpersonal conduct found in the second table of the Decalogue continues seamlessly the categorical superiority of socioethical commands over the cultic realm that have already become clear in vv. 4– 6. III.5.4 The Mission of Jesus to Israel and the Universality of Salvation (15:21–39)

The conflict scene in 15:1–20 is again followed in 15:21–39 by a block that continues the portrayal of Jesus’ acting with authority. Thematically, however, the section deals with much more than adding some additional examples of Jesus’ authority. Of primary significance here is Matthew’s central theme of connecting the specific mission of Jesus to Israel with the universality of the salvation brought by Jesus. III.5.4.1 Healing the Daughter of the Canaanite Woman (15:21–28)

Jesus left that place and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out, was crying out and saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer one word. And his disciples came and urged him and said, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out as she follows behind us.” 24 But he answered and said, “I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came, kept falling down before him, and saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 But he answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 But 21 22

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

239

she said, “Yes, Lord! And yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let what you want be done for you.” And her daughter was healed in that very hour. In the Matthean macrotext, the narrative in vv. 21–28 (par. Mark 7:24–30) forms a parallel to 8:5–13 (for details, see the following). As in the preceding pericope, Matthew has given it his own characteristic stamp. [21] In view of the renewed conflict with the Pharisees described above, Jesus withdraws for the last time. The three occasions when Jesus withdraws (12:15; 14:13; 15:21) manifest a climactic development. In 12:15, it is only briefly noted that Jesus withdraws, but the crowds who have made a positive response to Jesus are still found following him. In 14:13, however, Jesus withdraws by boat to a deserted area; the crowds now have to recommit themselves; when they hear that he has departed by boat, they follow him overland. In 15:21, Jesus’ withdrawal goes even to the region outside Galilee: Jesus seeks refuge in the extensive neighboring territory of the Syrian coastal cities of Tyre and Sidon. Even though the population there includes some Jewish elements, from Matthew’s “theological” perspective this is Gentile territory (cf. on 4:25). Matthew considered Mark’s note that Jesus entered a house as inappropriate and has deleted it (cf. Mark 7:24), just as he gives no indication that this side trip is motivated by Jesus’ intention to extend his ministry into Gentile territory or anything else except his desire to withdraw from confrontation with the religious authorities. [22] On the contrary, when a woman (from her village?) comes out to Jesus as he proceeds along his way (cf. v. 23, “she keeps crying out as she follows behind us”), crying out for help—in the narrative logic, the encounter with someone in Syrian territory seeking his help has been prepared for by 4:24 (see also 9:31)—she experiences a severe rejection from Jesus. Matthew’s designation of the woman as a Canaanite, replacing Mark’s description of her as a Greek of Syrophoenician descent (Mark 7:26), is in line with his introduction of biblical coloration into the story by adding “Sidon” to Mark’s “Tyre” in v. 21 (Mark 7:24; cf. Matt 11:21). What follows, especially vv. 24 and 26, is contoured against the background of the classical antagonism between Israel and the Canaanites (e.g., Gen 9:25–27; 24:3, 37; 28:1–8; Lev 18:3). Matthew 15:21–28 is characteristic of the evangelist in that notes referring to the scenic framework are kept extremely concise, and that the event itself, in contrast to the Markan limitation of direct speech to 7:27–29, is developed in a dialogical passage with four parts, in which Jesus consistently takes the stance of the “responder” (vv. 23a, 24, 26, 28a; cf. in contrast Mark 7:28, where the woman answers). The effect of this Matthean configuration is that Jesus finally

240

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

responds to the Canaanite woman with a powerful act of mercy only after a threefold rejection. In the first interchange, she makes her request. In both the “she was crying out” in v. 22 and then also the “she kept falling down” in v. 25, Matthew uses the Greek imperfect tense, which gives the action a durative or iterative aspect: the woman calls continuously and persistently or repeatedly. Like the two blind men in 9:27, she asks for mercy—in the language of the Psalter (e.g., Pss 6:3; 9:14)—and addresses Jesus as “Son of David”; like the centurion in 8:5–13, she asks nothing for herself. Elsewhere in the context of healings, speaking of Jesus as Son of David is always associated with healing the blind. Here this aspect is different, for in Matthew blindness always functions as a motif associated with Israel and directed against the authorities (see on 9:27 and on 15:14). In 15:22, however, the reference to Jesus as Son of David is to be seen in the context of Matthew’s important theme of the relationship of God’s devotion to Israel and the universality of salvation: Matthew makes it clear that the Canaanite is addressing Jesus as the Messiah of Israel and that it is precisely from this one that she now expects healing/salvation. [23] To be sure, Jesus at first ignores her (v. 23a); what she requests is not part of his mission (cf. 8:7). The second exchange is opened by the disciples’ plea for Jesus to send the woman away because of her nerve-wracking crying. [24] Jesus responds to the disciples’ interjection by explaining his lack of response with a programmatic explanation of his mission. Just as in 10:5–6 he sent out the disciples to Israel, his mission as the Shepherd of Israel (2:6) is likewise limited to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (v. 24; for a more complete understanding of the term, see the interpretation of 10:6). [25] It is not clear whether the woman heard the words of the disciples and Jesus’ response in v. 24. It is only in v. 25 that she seems to have reached Jesus. She now throws herself down before Jesus and renews her plea for help. Her call for help again has a biblical coloration (Pss 70:6 [69:6 LXX]; 109:26 [108:26 LXX]). [26] In the discourse of v. 26, it is noticeable that, in contrast to Mark 7:27, Matthew does not explicitly say that Jesus answers the woman. He still does not turn to her, but appears to be talking to himself. Mark’s statement that the children must be fed first is omitted, in accord with the exclusive way the statement of v. 24 is made. In the imagery of v. 26, the children stand for Israel (cf. e.g., Deut 14:1; Isa 43:6; Jub. 1:24–25; Pss. Sol. 17:27) and the dogs for the Gentiles; bread is the metaphor for the salvation Jesus brings. In v. 26 Jesus repeats his explanation for his lack of response already given in v. 24 with different words. He is sent as the “Lord (of the house)” to the “house of Israel” to provide bread for the “children,” but not to throw the bread intended for the “children” to the “dogs.” [27] The turning point does not come until v. 27. With the Canaanite woman’s “Yes, Lord!” Matthew has her first explicitly confirm that it is not

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

241

good to take away Israel’s salvation and give it to the Gentiles. From here on, the previous address to Jesus as “Son of David” continues to gain in importance. Just as the centurion in 8:8–9 accepted that Jesus’ mission is directed to Israel, so in v. 27 the argument of the woman functions within the framework of the salvation-historical difference between Israel and the Gentiles. Nevertheless, like the centurion, she proceeds on the basis that she too can receive healing/ salvation from Jesus. For, in addition to the explicit confirmation of Jesus’ position in v. 26, it now emerges that she broadens Jesus’ imagery with a decisive addition. Her development of the image in v. 27 is clearly not about unloved stray dogs, but about house pets (considered by itself, v. 26, despite the use of the diminutive form for dog, remains ambiguous). Domestic dogs, however, were given leftovers (e.g., Apuleius, Met. 7.14.2; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.19). The Canaanite woman cautiously adopts this image, referring to the crumbs or chunks that fall from the table during the meal. The point of her expansion of the image is that caring for the children does not mean that nothing is given to the dogs. Instead of the “children’s food” (Mark 7:28), Matthew speaks of the “crumbs that fall from the table of their masters.” Matthew thereby shifts the accent from bread as possession of the children to the Lord, who presides over the meal and gives bread. The plural “masters’” is the result of the generalized formulation of the image. Dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their respective masters’ tables. The Lord here is Jesus. At the table fellowship he grants, the Israelites appear in the image as the children. Bread is served because of them, and the Gentiles benefit from it. The shift of accent portrayed in v. 27 functions in a way that salvation is not described statically—as though it were a possession—but relationally, coming into view as the gift given to the “lost sheep” and at the same time the Gentiles are not sharing in something that “belongs” to Israel (the “children’s food”), but something that Jesus gives. [28] Matthew himself has reformulated v. 28 as a whole, in close dependence on 8:13. For the first time, Jesus now addresses the woman directly. Analogous to his conversation with the centurion (cf. 8:10, 13), he finally grants her request because he has found her to be a person of great faith. To reduce this depth of faith only to her persistence in appealing to Jesus fails to grasp the heart of the matter, for in v. 26 she was still rejected despite her already persistent and ceaseless pleas. The decisive factor is rather—again analogously to the case of the centurion—that she recognizes in Jesus not only the Messiah of Israel, but as the one who as Israel’s Messiah is also the one who brings salvation to the Gentiles. She thus anticipates the universality of the gift of salvation which Jesus himself will announce after his resurrection and exaltation as Lord of the world, and conveys this in her argument along with the understanding of the

242

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

salvation-historical status quo in which the absolute difference between Israel and the Gentiles is still valid. The healings granted in 8:13 and 15:28 appear within the framework of the earthly mission of Jesus (15:24) as (justified) exceptions, which happen “before the time” (8:29!), and as such anticipate the time after Easter. If one looks at the overall structure of Matthew’s Jesus-story, then 8:5–13 and 15:21–28 are the first and last narratives in which the faith of those who seek help is mentioned, for Matthew has not retained the faith motif found in his Markan source in either 17:14–20 (cf. Mark 9:23–24) or 20:29–34 (cf. Mark 10:52). These two pericopes, each of which speaks of the great faith found among Gentiles, thus form a frame. In view of the careful compositional work that can be seen elsewhere in Matthew, this structural feature can hardly be accidental. Only these “framework pericopes” speak of great faith and indeed, as stated above, for the same reason: the faith of the centurion and the Canaanite woman anticipate the final goal of Jesus’ mission. This compositional feature indicates that for Matthew, too, faith in Jesus is a central factor in the coming of people from the Gentiles, and for overcoming the boundary that has separated Israel from the nations of the world. However, this is not the only factor, as the prominent role of teaching in Jesus’ commandments in 28:19–20 makes clear. III.5.4.2 Feeding the Four Thousand (15:29–39)

And after Jesus had left that place, he came to the Sea of Galilee. And after he had gone up the mountain, he sat down there. 30 And great crowds came to him, who had among them the lame, the maimed, the blind, the (deaf-)mute, and many others, and they placed them at his feet. And he healed them, 31 so that the crowd was amazed when they saw the (deaf-) mute speaking, the maimed (having become) whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel. 32 Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion for the crowd, because they have continued with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. And I do not want to send them away hungry, for they might collapse on the way.” 33 And the disciples say to him, “Where are we to get enough bread in the desert to feed so great a crowd?” 34 And Jesus said to them, “How many loaves do you have?” They said, “Seven, and a few small fish.” 35 And he ordered the crowd to sit down on the ground, 36 took the seven loaves and the fish and gave thanks and he broke (them) and gave (them) to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. 37 And all of them ate and were filled; and they took up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full. 38 Those who had eaten were four thousand men, besides 29

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

243

women and children. 39 And after he had sent the crowds away, he got into the boat and went to the region of Magadan. In Mark’s chronology, the healing of a deaf mute follows immediately (Mark 7:31–37), but Matthew did not want to include it because it gives the appearance of a magical healing practice (cf. the omission of Mark 8:22–26 between Matt 16:12 and 16:13). By replacing it with another summary of Jesus’ healings (vv. 29–31), he achieves a compositional scheme that repeats 14:13–21. The miraculous feeding of a large crowd of people is proceeded in each case by Jesus’ healing in a grand style the sick among the masses that are streaming to him. [29] In v. 29, Matthew has made a correction of the geographical data in Mark 7:31 that has important consequences for the understanding of Matthew 15 as a whole. While Mark has Jesus travel via Sidon and continue to work in the Decapolis, Matthew, after narrating the brief excursion into Gentile territory, brings Jesus back “to the Sea of Galilee,” by which he means the Galilean side of the lake (as in 4:18; cf. also 13:1). In the nearer context, the ascent of the mountain (cf. John 6:3) allows the reader to think back on 14:23 (cf. also 5:1). [30–31] The significant consequence of the change in the geographic constellation is that mention of those who come to Jesus bringing their sick now refers to Jewish crowds (cf. 8:16; 12:15; 14:13–14; 19:2). The omission in v. 32 of the note in Mark 8:3, that some had come from a great distance, is also to be understood in this light: Matthew wanted to exclude the idea that non-Jewish crowds are present. In terms of form, it is noticeable that, as in 14:13–21, so also in 15:29–39 explicit reference to the crowds is clearly increased in comparison with Mark (vv. 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, compared to Mark 8:1, 2, 6 [2x]). Of the four groups of sick people named in vv. 30–31, the lame, blind, and mute already appear together in 11:5 (except for 18:8, Matthew speaks only here of “the maimed”). That Matthew specifically intends a reference back to 11:2– 6 is reinforced by v. 31, since the listing of (deaf-)mutes who speak, etc., is modeled on 11:5 (that the healing of leprous people and raising of the dead mentioned in 11:5 do not find a place in the present scene is easily understandable). Matthew is thus picturing here the continuation of the “works of the (Davidic) Messiah” (11:2) and calls for a renewed remembering of Isaiah’s promises of salvation that stand behind 11:5. Matthew 15:30–31 manifests a noticeable closeness especially to Isaiah 35:5– 6 (presumably Matthew has noticed the contact between Mark 7:32 and Isaiah 35:5, and was inspired to develop it). It is in line with this reference to the promises of salvation that validly apply to Israel that Matthew has the praise of the crowds explicitly refer to the “God of Israel,” which takes up an expression widespread in the Old Testament as well as in extracanonical early Jewish literature, and which was especially

244

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

firmly anchored in Jewish worship (e.g., Pss 41:14; 72:18; 106:48; 1QM 13.2). In 15:29–31 as a whole, then, God is portrayed as the one who in Jesus turns to his people in acts of salvation. [32] The feeding story that follows in vv. 32–38 continues this element of the narrative. The way the story is set forth in vv. 32–34 has been changed from that of 14:15–17. It is not the disciples who approach Jesus in order to draw his attention to the plight of the people, but Jesus calls the disciples to himself. In line with Mark 8:2, and analogous to 14:14, the motif of merciful compassion is taken up. While, however, in 14:14 this refers to Jesus’ works of healing, in 15:32 the motif functions—complementary to 14:14—to initiate the feeding. The basis of this reordering is that the people have already been continuing with Jesus for three days. They are already so plagued by hunger that the option proposed by the disciples in 14:15, to send the crowds away, is out of the question, for they might collapse on the way. After the healings, Jesus thus takes the initiative, and in his compassion provides for their hunger as well. [33–34] In v. 33, the disciples again have the role of pointing out the impossibility of providing for the large mass of people on the spot. Of course, after 14:15–21 they could have known better. In v. 34, when Matthew—contrary to his change from Mark 6:37–38 in 14:16–17—has Jesus inquire about the number of available loaves, this is hardly to be understood as a purely informational question. It is rather the case that a chiding overtone is to be heard here, referring to their objection in 14:17: on the basis of their previous experience with Jesus, they should know that Jesus’ intention expressed in 15:32 is not impossible. The disciples, however, persist unswervingly in their “little-faith.” Matthew subtly makes this clear in Jesus’ reply to the disciples in v. 34. By bringing forward the narrator’s noticeably disconnected mention of a “a few little fish” in Mark 8:7 and including it in the disciples’ answer, thus having them use the diminutive form, while he himself in v. 36, as in 14:17, 19 speaks of “fish,” the evangelist underscores that the disciples regard the available provisions as far too inadequate. [35–38] Verses 35–38 run largely parallel to 14:19–21 (for echoes of the Last Supper, see on 14:19), but v. 36 now speaks of thanksgiving instead of looking up to heaven saying the blessing (14:19; cf. Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24; also Did. 9.3 and the words about the cup in Matt 26:27 par. Mark 14:23). Above all, however, the breaking and distribution of the bread, since it is again given to the Jewish crowds, as in 14:15–21, now attains a deeper meaning in light of 15:26. Jesus continues his mission with which he has been charged, to go to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24), and gives children the “bread.” As in 14:19, the disciples appear as mediators of the salvation brought by Jesus. Again, an abundance is left over. In his figures about the size of the

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

245

crowd, Matthew again points out that the four thousand men do not include women and children (cf. 14:21). The number of people who ate all they wanted was thus even larger than four thousand. [39] The interplay of repetition and variation that characterizes the relation of this story to 14:13–21 continues, in that in v. 39 and in 14:22, each story of the feeding is followed by dismissing the people, albeit in different but related ways. In 14:22, the disciples get in the boat, while Jesus dismisses the crowds. In 15:39, Jesus dismisses the crowds, then gets in the boat himself. The location of Magadan, the destination, is unknown. In surveying Matthew 15:1–39 as a whole, we may summarize by saying that Matthew’s reworking of the Markan composition 7:1–8:9 has given it a clearly changed direction. After the food laws, a central instrument for Israel’s demarcation from the Gentiles, are declared obsolete, in Mark’s composition the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7:24–30) marks the beginning of the incorporation of the Gentiles into the saving work of Jesus. This is illustrated by Jesus’ ministry in the Decapolis (a region predominately settled by non-Jews) as he heals a deaf mute, and especially by the feeding of the four thousand (7:31–8:9). In Mark 7:1–8:10 there is a radical change, compactly expressed by the juxtaposition of the two feeding stories (6:30– 44; 8:1–9). First the children are fed (cf. 7:27), and afterward salvation is also granted to the Gentiles. Matthew, in contrast, has not advocated any abrogation of the food laws in 15:1–20. He also has Jesus return immediately to Galilee (v. 29) after the healing (vv. 21–28), and he is again immediately thronged by Jewish crowds (v. 30). Thus the feeding of the four thousand in vv. 32–39 is for Matthew also a feeding of the “children” (v. 26). Verses 21–28 thereby continue to be primarily a detached episode, but one that still points in advance to the universality of salvation that dawns with the death and resurrection of Jesus. In Matthew 15:1–39 par. Mark 7:1–8:10, the difference between Mark and Matthew is paradigmatically displayed. In Mark, the incorporation of the Gentiles into the God’s salvation already happens during the earthly ministry of Jesus. In Matthew, on the other hand, this phase is marked by the concentration on the mission to Israel, while the universality of salvation does not break through until Easter. III.5.5 The Second Demand for a Sign and the Warning of the Disciples against the Teaching of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (16:1–12)

And the Pharisees and Sadducees came up. And to test/tempt Jesus they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 But he answered and said to 1

246

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

them,* 4 “An evil and adulterous kind of people asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” And he left them and went away. 5 And when his disciples had reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 But Jesus said to them, “Watch out, and beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 But they wondered about this, and said to one another, “We have brought no bread.” 8 And when Jesus became aware of it, he said, “You little-faith people, why are you wondering about having no bread? 9 Do you still not perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11 How could you fail to perceive that I was not speaking about bread? Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!” 12 Then they understood that he had not told them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. *Verses 2b–3 (“When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3 And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.”) are a later addition found in only a part of the manuscript tradition; the verses do not belong to the original text. In 16:1–4, for the last time in the section 11:2–16:20, Matthew has interspersed a conflict scene. As he has already done in the Beelzebul controversy (9:34; 12:24), Matthew has intentionally created a doublet, by adopting the Q version in 12:38–39, and here the corresponding Mark pericope (8:11–13). In this way he stresses the persistent hostility and resistance of the authorities, here the Pharisees and Sadducees, against Jesus. The striking constellation of “Pharisees and Sadducees” returns in Matthew’s version of the following warning of the disciples against their “yeast” (16:5–12 par. Mark 8:14–21), so it seems best to consider the two scenes as one unit: The short scene in vv. 1– 4 functions as the occasion for the warning issued in vv. 5–12. [1–4] The appearance of Pharisees and Sadducees in concert calls to mind 3:7: Jesus now must deal with the same constellation of opponents as his precursor John. The absence of the definite article before “Sadducees” in 16:1 (likewise missing in 3:7, as well as 16:6, 11, 12) indicates that “the Pharisees and Sadducees” should here be understood as a unit. Now Matthew can hardly be accused of being unaware of the differences between these two groups. Nor does the addition of “Sadducees” to the Pharisees mentioned in Mark 8:11 indicate that the evangelist has an independent interest in them. Rather, Matthew uses the Sadducees with polemical intent, in order to discredit the Pharisees, with whom

III.5 The Authority of the Son of God

247

the Matthean church sees itself confronted. After they were not successful with their first demand for a sign in 12:38, and also the appearance of likeminded scribes from Jerusalem (15:1–9) was not crowned with success, they did not shy away from even entering into an alliance with the Sadducees, as they have already done in the case of the Baptist. Differently from the first demand for a sign in 12:38, the text now says explicitly that they made their demand as a way of testing/tempting Jesus, repeated several times in the following narrative (cf. 19:3; 22:18, 35). If one reflects on the fact that in 4:3 “the Tempter/Tester” is used as a name for the devil, one can see here in line with 12:33– 45 another building block in Matthew’s strategy to defame the opponents as agents of the devil. That the demanded sign is more precise than in 12:38, “a sign from heaven,” may have been the point of contact for the secondary insertion of the proverbial rule for weather prediction (vv. 2b–3; cf. Luke 12:54–56). Jesus’ answer in v. 4, except for the explicit identification of Jonah as a prophet, agrees verbatim with the beginning of his reply to the demand for a sign in 12:39. While there the sign of Jonah was explained, here Jesus leaves his opponents simply standing there after his renewed reference to the sign of Jonah. Further speaking with them has proved to be pointless. Now the only concern is to warn others about them. [5–12] Accordingly, the scene continues in line with Mark 8:14–21 with a warning for the disciples (cf. Matt 23!). [5–7] The comment that the disciples arrived on the other side makes it clear in retrospect that in 15:39 Jesus had in fact boarded the boat alone (in contrast cf. 9:1 in the light of 9:10), and accordingly the disciples were not present in the scene of 16:1– 4. The warning against the “yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (v. 6; differently in Mark 8:15: the yeast of the Pharisees + the yeast of Herod) comes to them abruptly, which may explain their misunderstanding. They understand the word “yeast” as referring to bread because, as the narrator has already noted in v. 5, they forgot to bring bread with them (v. 7). Concern for everyday matters prevents them from understanding the words of Jesus. [8–11] The rebuke of the disciples in vv. 8–9a has been radically abbreviated in contrast to Mark 8:17–18 and thus weakened. After the introductory question in v. 8, which makes contact with the disciples’ discussion among themselves, only the accusatory “Do you still not perceive?” in v. 9a remained. Matthew has passed over Mark’s strengthening of the reproach of not understanding, just as he has omitted Mark’s reinforcing words about hardened hearts cited from Jeremiah 5:21 (Mark 8:18), which do not fit in with his picture of the disciples (cf. Matt 13:10–17 and the correction of Mark 6:52 in Matt 14:33!). Matthew has replaced these in v. 8 with his characteristic concept of “little-faith,” which in vv. 9b–10 is sketched by the references back to the experiences the disciples could recall from the two feeding

248

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

stories (14:15–21; 15:32–38): their little-faith is that their trust in God’s care is still undeveloped, despite such experiences. On the positive side, the feeding stories serve as visible examples from which the disciples are to learn that they may place their existential hardships before God. The “little-faith” reference in 16:8–10 forms a bracket with the very first passage in which the disciples were addressed this way (6:30). Whereas the recourse to the miraculous feedings emphasizes how inconceivable it is that the disciples still misunderstand, in v. 11 on this basis Jesus again takes up a variation of the reproving question of v. 9a, but it does not break off his speech with this reproach, as it did in Mark 8:21. Rather, the Matthean Jesus seeks to help his disciples understand by making it clear that he was not talking about bread, as the disciples assumed, and by repeating the warning after dealing with this misunderstanding. [12] Verse 12 is also a Matthean addition. In addition to the changed picture of the disciples by deleting Mark 8:17b–18, Matthew concludes by explicitly stating that the disciples did understand (cf. 13:51). By referring the “yeast” to the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (differently Luke 12:1, where yeast = hypocrisy), and thus despite the doctrinal differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees (of which Matthew was aware! On the differences cf. Josephus, War 2.162–165; Ant. 13.171–173; Acts 23:6– 8) which he brings under one roof, with this step he consistently continues his polemical delegitimization of the Pharisees—historically regarded, a bold step indeed. Matthew insinuates that the views of the Pharisees are in no way better than the convictions of the Sadducees (who were politically influential before 70 CE but unpopular with the people; cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.298, 18.17). He considers the differences between them inconsequential in the light of their common rejection of Jesus as the Messiah and his true interpretation of the Torah, and their ignorance of Jesus’ authority expressed in his actions. Inasmuch as the Pharisees and Sadducees agree on this decisive point, one can speak of their teaching as something they hold in common. The metaphorical description of their teaching as “yeast” brings its danger vividly before the eyes, since a little yeast is able to leaven the whole lump (cf. 1 Cor 5:6; Gal 5:9). For Matthew and his congregation(s), this warning against the teaching of the Pharisees was probably of great current relevance. Church members who attended the synagogue in addition to the meetings of their Christian congregation were there exposed to the influence of the Pharisees. There may also have been experiences (painful for Matthew) in which some church members who had participated in the Christ-believing communities for a while finally decided that the synagogue dominated by the Pharisees represented the more attractive alternative. In this context, 16:5–12 (like Matt 23) urges the Christ-believers to keep their distance.

III.6 Peter’s Confession of Jesus as Son of God and the Promise to Him

249

III.6 Peter’s Confession of Jesus as Son of God and the Promise to Him (16:13–20) Now when Jesus had come into the regions of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples and said, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some (say) John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But as for you, who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon, Bar-Jonah! For it was not flesh and blood that has revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I say to you, you are Peter (rock), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overwhelm it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he commanded the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. 13

The text block that began in 11:2–3 with the question from the Baptist reaches its culminating point with Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah. While Matthew 16:13–16, 20 follows Mark 8:27–30, Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession in vv. 17–19 is a Matthean insertion that not only renews the prominent role of Peter as seen in 14:28–31, but in conjunction with v. 16 also makes clear the connection between Christology and ecclesiology characteristic of Matthew throughout. [13] With the “regions of Caesarea Philippi” the Matthean Jesus-story reaches its northernmost point. A look at the areas in which the twelve tribes settled (see on 4:25) reveals that Jesus and his disciples are now in the territory of the tribe of Dan, and thus in the northernmost region of the “land of Israel” (2:20–21). From v. 21 on, one can see Jesus on the way south to Jerusalem. In Jesus’ question about what the people think about his identity, Matthew has changed Mark’s first-person singular into a statement about the Son of Man (cf. the excursus at 8:20; differently Matt 16:21 par. Mark 8:31), so that not only is there a little playing with words (“people” = anthrōpoi; “Son of Man” = huios tou anthrōpou)—it is about what “men” say about “the Son of Man”—but there is also a correspondence to Peter’s confession in v. 16: the Son of Man is the Christ, the Son of God. To be sure, Matthew has more in mind here than linguistic esthetics. In the presence of his disciples, Jesus has previously spoken of himself as Son of Man not only in regard to his present works (cf. e.g., 8:20; 9:6; 11:19), but in 10:23; 13:37, 41 also about his exaltation and return, or his role in the Last Judgment. In this regard, the use of “Son of Man” in Jesus’

250

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

question also has overtones of his sovereign authority. In 26:63– 64, the triad “Son of Man,” “Christ,” and “Son of God” will reappear. [14] The disciples’ response implies that they know that in speaking of the Son of Man, Jesus is referring to himself. The identification of Jesus with the Baptist recalls the fear of Herod in 14:2 but here is presented as a more widespread assessment of Jesus’ identity. The other options also seek to grasp Jesus’ identity by relating him to (prophetic) figures of the past, except that now it is about figures in the Scriptures of Israel, namely Elijah, who according to 2 Kings 2:11 was taken up to heaven, or Jeremiah, who in 2 Maccabees 15:14 appears as heavenly intercessor “for the people and the holy city,” or “one of the (other) prophets” (“one of the prophets” does not here mean that Jesus is merely “a prophet” in the sense of 21:46). Even if it is a question of positive opinions in principle, for Matthew none of them expresses an adequate position of the question of Jesus’ identity. According to Matthew, “Elijah redivivus” has in fact come, but this is John the Baptist’s identity (11:14; 17:12). The negative pronouncements of the Pharisees (9:34; 12:24) are ignored, just as are the positive reflections of the crowds in 12:23 (cf. 21:9), which at least revealed that they were on the way to grasping an aspect of the messianic identity of Jesus that is important for Matthew. To be sure, these omissions are already compelling, since Jesus himself was witness to these statements. Apart from that, v. 14 simply follows Mark 8:28; the only distinctive element of Matthew 16:14 is the insertion of “Jeremiah,” prompted by Mark’s “one of the prophets.” The Gospel of Matthew is the only New Testament document that explicitly mentions Jeremiah (see also 2:17; 27:9). For its insertion in 16:14, a whole cluster of related motifs can be noted, some of which extend beyond the status of the narrative reached in 16:14: Jeremiah, too, had critical disputes with the evil “shepherds” of the people (e.g., Jer 2:8; 10:21; 12:10–11; 23:1– 4). Speaking of “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6; 15:24) is a reminiscence of Jeremiah (27:6 LXX = 50:6 MT). Moreover, it is precisely Jeremiah who is the prototypical suffering prophet (e.g., Jer 20:1–2, 7–8; 37:15–38:28; Sir 49:7; Liv. Pro. 2:1). Last but not least is to be noted that Matthew relates the destruction of Jerusalem to the motif of shedding innocent blood (23:30, 35–36; 27:4, 24–25), and that this motif is not only especially dense in the book of Jeremiah, but is also found directly in connection with the rationale for the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 7:6; 19:4; 22:3, 17; 33:15 LXX; see also Lam 4:13), as Jeremiah is, after all, the prophet in the Old Testament–Jewish tradition who is most closely associated with the destruction of the temple (in addition to Jeremiah, see, e.g., 2 Chr 36:19–21; Sir 49:6–7). It is therefore not surprising that in the context of the post-70 debate about the destruction of the second temple, the book and person of Jeremiah experienced widespread reception (e.g., 2 Bar.; 4 Bar.; Josephus, Ant. 10.79–80, 89–96, 112–130, 156–158, 176–180). The popularity of Jeremiah becoming visible in Matthew (cf. 2:17–18; 21:13; 23:35; 27:9–10) is to be seen in this context.

III.6 Peter’s Confession of Jesus as Son of God and the Promise to Him

251

[15–16] As the progression of the story shows, Jesus’ question in v. 13 merely functions as preparation for the question that for him is the real issue, the understanding of the disciples. The prefixed “But as for you, . . .” clearly bears the emphasis. The disciples should now be able to give a more adequate response than the rest of the people. As already in 15:15, Peter steps up as speaker for the disciples. The use of the double name “Simon Peter,” only here in Matthew (v. 16), instead of his usual nickname Peter (e.g., 14:28–29; 15:15; 16:22–23; 17:1), also found here in Matthew’s source (Mark 8:29), occurs here in anticipation of v. 18: in order to embed the pronouncement “You are Peter” meaningfully in this context, it was easy for Matthew to designate the one being named at the narrative level with his real name. To call him just “Simon” would not have been unambiguous, since there are four others in the Gospel of Matthew who bear this name, including “Simon the Cananaean,” who was also one of the twelve disciples (10:4; see also 13:55; 26:6; 27:32); likewise the form found in 4:18; 10:2, “Simon, who is called Peter,” would have been awkward in the immediate context of 16:18. In terms of content, it is important that the confession taken over from Mark 8:29 has been extended by the words “the Son of the living God.” The reference backward in the Matthean narrative flow to the disciples’ insight in 14:33 underscores the fact that Peter here functions as their spokesperson. What is new in 16:16 is the explicit bond with the Christ title. The significance of this addition is to be spelled out against the background in which Matthew develops Jesus’ messianic identity through the connection of Davidic and divine sonship, as the foundation for this was laid in 1:18–25 and will be seized upon in 22:41– 46. On 11:2 it was noted that the Christ predication there has a Davidic coloring (see also 1:1 [Jesus Christ, son of David]; 2:2– 4). In 12:23 it begins to dawn upon the people among the crowds that Jesus could be the Son of David (cf. 21:9, 15), and Jesus is appealed to as Son of David by those seeking his help (9:27; 15:22; cf. also 20:30–31). These passages show that Matthew presupposes that the Davidic Messiahship of Jesus is recognizable in the saving action of God to Israel manifest in Jesus’ healings. However, a deeper perception of Jesus’ Messiahship, namely his identity as Son of God, is reserved for the disciples, to whom Jesus authority was revealed in a special way, in the form of stilling the storm (8:23–27), as well as his walking on the water and his saving Peter from death (14:22–33). If one considers 16:16 in this context, it becomes clear that the confession “You are the Christ” taken by itself is not adequate to distinguish the special knowledge of Jesus’ identity the disciples have from that of those who seek his help, as well as from the (rudimentary) insight of the crowds. The addition of the Son of God title in 16:16 thus serves to express the deeper knowledge of Jesus’ Messiahship reserved for the disciples. The

252

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

Son of God title in this context does not thereby add an additional title to the Christ title, but qualifies and interprets it (cf. 22:42!): as the Messiah, Jesus is not only the Son of David, but Son of God. While in v. 16 Matthew has Peter, so to speak, expressing a full christological understanding, in the immediately following context (vv. 21–23) it is already clear that this is a full recognition just in terms of the wording, but not in view of Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ Messiahship and divine sonship. The concept of suffering is still missing, which will be integrated in the next large section (16:21–20:34). By way of contrast, in 11:2–16:20 attention is focused primarily on the fact that the disciples have become aware of Jesus’ identity as Son of God (on Jesus’ divine sonship see the introduction under 2.1; and the comments on 1:18, 20; 3:13–17; and 4:1–11). [17–19] The confession of Jesus as Son of God functions as the basis for Jesus’ response to Peter which Matthew inserts in vv. 17–19. While the Baptist’s question in 11:2–3 has found its adequate answer in Matthew 16:16, this christologically determined line of thought is complemented by the profiling of the community of disciples developed in 11:2–16:20 (e.g., 12:46–50; 13:10–23, 36–52), which reaches its destination in the one saying that explicitly has in view the formation of the church. [17] The introductory makarism in v. 17 may well have been composed by the evangelist himself. Since a makarism is also found in the opening of the compositional block 11:2–16:20 (11:6), one can see 16:17 as underscoring the correspondence between 11:2– 6 and 16:13–20 as the framing of this literary unit. Addressing Peter with “Simon” has a counterpart in 17:25, while the nickname “Peter” is always found only at the narrative level. The addition “Bar-Jonah” is a semitizing form of “John” (John 1:42; 21:15–17). That the blessing pronounced on Peter is grounded in an event of divine revelation makes explicit that the christological confession that includes divine sonship is the result of a special revelatory act of God, which is to be distinguished from the disclosure of Jesus as Davidic Messiah manifest in his healing works (cf. 11:2). “Flesh and blood” here stands for the purely human sphere (cf. Sir 14:18; 17:31; 1 Cor 15:50; Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14). Human beings cannot fully comprehend Jesus’ identity by means of their own powers of perception. In context, the reference to the revelatory act of the heavenly Father evokes the declaration in 11:25–27, which again indicates that Peter here stands for disciples in general. But God’s revelatory act only attains its goal when it is received with understanding. That is to say that God “opens” the eyes and ears and gives an “understanding heart” belongs to the revelatory act itself. Thus 13:16–17 is also to be taken into consideration as context. Finally, if one notices that 16:16 has been prepared for by 14:33, it seems appropriate to regard the experience of the disciples in 14:22–33 as a concrete example of what Jesus means by speaking of revelation from the

III.6 Peter’s Confession of Jesus as Son of God and the Promise to Him

253

Father in 16:17. This is supported by the observation that the form of the makarism in 16:17, alongside 11:6, lets the reader think back to 13:16 and lets what the disciples “see” in 14:22–33 be subsumed under the category of what the disciples have been granted to see. [18] Solemnly introduced by “And I say to you . . . ,” the promise follows in v. 18. The introductory words “You are Peter” are modeled on “You are the Christ” (v. 16). The nickname “Peter” thus, in analogy to “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” becomes a sort of title, functioning as a compressed bearer of meaning. As Jesus is “the Christ,” so Simon is “Peter”—only “Peter” is different from “Christ” in that it is not an established title. This is why the pronouncement is then further explained. The main point is conveyed in a serious pun: Petros (Latinized = Petrus) is the petra = the rock. This in turn is the Aramaic nickname Kepha, Grecianized “Cephas” (cf., e.g., John 1:42; 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5; Gal 1:18). In Isaiah 51:1, Abraham is “the rock from which you were hewn,” but a closer relation to this text—Peter would then be ascribed a function comparable to Abraham—is not obvious, since the elaboration of this metaphor in v. 18 with the image of house building goes a different direction than in Isaiah 51:1–2. The rock on which Jesus will build his church is Peter. In the context, this applies to Peter only insofar as his response in v. 16 expresses that he has adequately understood what he has seen and heard of Jesus (11:4), thanks to the revelatory act of God. The building metaphor brings 7:24 to mind: a house founded on a rock stands firm and cannot be shaken by the storms. It is entirely in this sense that a stock phrase for promising protection and endurance is added in v. 18. “Gates of Hades” is a widely used phrase (cf. Homer, Il. 5.646; Od. 14.156; Diogenes Laertius 8.34; 2 En. 42.1). To stand at the gates of Hades is an expression for immediate mortal danger (Isa 38:10; 3 Macc 5.51; Wis 16:13). The gates of Hades, however, will never endanger the “vitality” of the church, i.e., the church will never get near the gates of Hades and be “dragged in,” but will endure. There is nothing to suggest that Matthew’s image of the church as a house (cf. 1 Cor 3:10–15; Eph 2:20) is intended to suggest the temple metaphor (cf. 1 Cor 3:16–17; Eph 2:21; 1 Pet 2:5), nor may it plausibly be supported by the reference in 26:61, since an allusion to the church in 26:61 is very unlikely. The future form “will build” in v. 18 points to the time after Easter (cf. 21:43, in the light of 21:42). During the earthly ministry of Jesus a circle of disciples emerged as he called people to follow him, but one can speak of the building of the church only on the basis of the completion of Jesus’ earthly mission and his resurrection and ascension. This is in line with the fact that v. 18, in the sense interpreted above, is based on the confession of Jesus’ divine sonship in v. 16 which only becomes the subject of public proclamation after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The church exists where Jesus is confessed as Son

254

III. Between Hostility and Confession as Messiah

of God, and believers are accordingly baptized “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (28:19). The building of the church is thus for Matthew the work of the Risen One. At the same time, in the light of 28:18–20 this means for Matthew that the church is fundamentally determined by the universal dimension expressed there. Nowhere does Matthew indicate that he understands this universal church as the new people of God that takes the place of Israel (cf. on 21:43 and the introduction above under 2.2). “Israel” and “church” in Matthew—contrary to common usage today that has developed as a result of the Jewish-Christian process of separation—do not refer to entities of the same category that could be described as two religions, Judaism and Christianity. Given its essentially universal nature, however, neither can the church be described as merely a separate community within Israel. Rather, for Matthew the church of Jesus is the community of salvation that is coming into being in Israel and the rest of the world of nations. More precisely: its nucleus is the circle of disciples formed by Jesus within the framework of his ministry in Israel, which, after Easter, is open to people from all nations. [19] Verse 19 takes a closer look at the function of Peter as the rock foundation of the church. Again, the future form “will give” points to the time after Easter. As the one to whom the keys of the kingdom are handed over (on the metaphor, see Isa 22:22 MT), Peter assumes the role of opening up to human beings access to the kingdom of heaven. As made clear in 5:20– 48, entrance into the kingdom of heaven requires a righteous life oriented to Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah. Speaking of handing over the keys to the kingdom of heaven thus has in view that Peter is here being entrusted with authentic transmission of Jesus’ interpretation of the Law and his ethical instruction, in order to open to people the possibility of entering the kingdom of heaven. In the overall context of Matthew, v. 19 is to be read and nuanced in relation to 23:13: Jesus pronounces woes on the scribes and Pharisees because of their false teaching, in which God’s will is obscured by human doctrines, and which closes people off from entering the kingdom of heaven (15:3–9). The statement in 16:19 forms the positive counterpart to 23:13 and by this contrast formulates the claim of the church to be the true guardian of the theological traditions of Israel. This stands alongside the directly preceding context, in which the disciples were warned about the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:5–12). Regarded diachronically, it is probably to be assumed that 16:19a was formed by the evangelist himself, as a counterpart to 23:13 (cf. Luke/Q 11:52). The metaphor of the keys of the kingdom of heaven is developed by the pair of terms “bind” and “loose,” which, in the light of rabbinic usage, are to be understood in the sense of “forbid” and “permit” (e.g., m. Ter. 5.4; m. Pesa ḥ. 4.5; 6.2), and in fact refer to interpretation of the Torah. The declaration in

III.6 Peter’s Confession of Jesus as Son of God and the Promise to Him

255

18:18 will show that this includes the authority to exercise church discipline or to forgive transgressions (cf. John 20:23; as well as Josephus, War 1.111, in reference to the judicial responsibility of imprisonment or acquittal). In 16:19, however, the emphasis is placed primarily on teaching, as suggested by the metaphor of the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Peter’s authority to bind and loose thus refers to the task of ensuring that the Torah developed in the teaching of Jesus (cf. esp. 5:17– 48) is faithfully handed down as the basic standard and made fruitful as the church’s point of orientation in the concrete ethical challenges it faces. An interpretation of the Law or instruction on ethical action based on Jesus’ teaching (see 28:20a) has the assurance that what is decided on earth is also validated by God. The task with which Jesus entrusts Peter in v. 19 does not establish an exclusive office for Peter as leader of the whole church. Such a “Petrine office” would be incompatible with the structure of the church set forth in 23:8–12, which emphasizes the basic structure of the church as a community of brothers and sisters. This fits in with the authority of binding and loosing given to the whole church in 18:18. Accordingly, in 16:19 Peter is assigned his task as primus inter pares (“first among equals”) and representative of the circle of the Twelve. Through Peter, who symbolically represents the Twelve, the church has the keys to the kingdom of heaven by virtue of its tradition of Jesus’ teaching. In the significance Matthew attributes to Peter in v. 18, by no means does he have in mind a continuing “office” that could be transferred to his successors. Rather, Peter’s significance is bound to a specific role during the earthly ministry of Jesus: as the foundation of the church, Peter symbolizes its bond to the Jesus-story, what Peter has “seen and heard” while following Jesus (11:4; 13:16–17), what was revealed to him by God in the framework of his eye-and-ear witness, consolidated and confessed in his declaration of faith in 16:16. With reference to the group of the Twelve in 28:16–20 (now reduced by the absence of Judas), this means that they have been equipped and qualified for their task of becoming the nucleus of the church by their post-Easter commission, in that they have accompanied Jesus during his ministry in word and deed. That, in the flow of the Matthean narrative, in 16:16 Peter “only” repeats what the disciples in 14:33 have already confessed, underscores that also in his significance as foundation of the church he appears as representing the Twelve as first among equals. But, conversely formulated, for Matthew Peter is indeed the central figure in the circle of the Twelve and as such has foundational significance for the church.

[20] With the command to silence in v. 20, Matthew returns to reworking his Markan source but formulates the injunction more precisely in relation to the content than Mark in 8:30 did. That they should not tell anyone that he is “the Messiah” refers concretely to his Messiahship determined by his divine sonship, as Peter formulated it in 16:16. An important reason for taking over Mark’s command to silence in v. 20 becomes clear in vv. 21–23: the disciples themselves must first learn what the identity of Jesus as messianic Son of God

256

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

really means. So then how could they talk about him publicly? Moreover, it is important to note that Matthew reserves the public disclosure (beyond the circle of disciples) of Jesus’ divine sonship for the passion story. IV. T P   C P   W   M—S  S  S  D  C (:–:) By using the phrase “from that time Jesus began” in analogy to 4:17 and building on the state of the narrative reached at 16:13–20, Matthew introduces a new element into the story that henceforth will determine the focus of the narrative. Attention will be directed primarily concentrated on the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus, whose threefold announcement—each time with variations in wording (16:21; 17:22–23; 20:17–19)—forms the outline of the narrative in 16:21–20:34. Jesus’ previous words and deeds led the disciples to confess his divine sonship (14:33; 16:16). From now on, it is a matter of showing the disciples that the path determined for the Son of God involves his suffering and violent death. The tendency already introduced in 11:2–16:20 for Jesus to instruct his disciples privately (13:10–23, 36–52; 15:12–20; see also 16:5–12) now becomes a decisive factor in 16:21–20:34 (16:24–28; 17:9–13, 19–20, 22–23; 18:1–35; 19:10–12; 19:23–20:28). At the same time, the content of instruction to the disciples shifts away from what it was in 11:2–16:20, for now the demands of discipleship and the character of the community of disciples come thematically into the foreground. On the other hand, the conflict stories continue to be present indirectly through the passion predictions, but, except for 19:3–9 there are no more hostile encounters. So also, in 16:21–20:34 the crowds play only a marginal role (17:14; 19:2; 20:29, 31), which once again underscores the centrality of the ecclesiological theme in this section. Matthew has not only taken over from Mark the threefold predictions of the passion and resurrection, but in the whole of 16:21–20:34 closely follows the sequence of pericopes in Mark 8:31–10:52. However, Matthew has considerably expanded the block between the second and third passion predictions (17:24–20:16) by the insertion of texts from his special material at the beginning and end (17:24–27; 20:1–16), and especially by extending the discourse on congregational life from Mark 9:33– 47 in 18:1–35. The thematization of the traits of discipleship and self-understanding of the community related to the passion thus clearly receives more space. If one asks about the overarching structure of 16:21–20:34, the three passion predictions can serve as a starting point. In 16:21–28 and 20:17–28, analogous structures can be discerned. In each case Jesus’ announcement is

IV.1 The First Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection

257

followed by a discipleship scene: the Peter scene in 16:22–23 corresponds to the intervention of (the mother of) the sons of Zebedee in 20:20–23; each concludes with a brief instruction to all the disciples (16:24–28; 20:24–28). In contrast, the second passion prediction (17:22–23) stands alone. Between 16:21–28 and 17:22–23 as between 17:22–23 and 20:17–28 stand both a shorter block and a longer block expanded by Matthew (see above), which make different emphases. In 17:1–20, the transfiguration scene gives an anticipation of the future glory, in 17:14–20 appropriately thematizing the inability of the disciples in the absence of Jesus. The section 17:24–20:16 sheds light on the activities of the disciples in their status as children of the King who shape their lives with the kingdom of heaven as their orientation point, so that they can ultimately enter the kingdom (see details in the introduction to 17:24–20:16). The healing of the two blind men on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem (20:29–34) leads into the Jerusalem chapters. IV.1 The First Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection, Peter’s Rebuke, and Discipleship as Cross-Bearing (16:21–28) From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and high priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him harshly, and said, “(God be) gracious (to you), Lord! There is no way this should happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.” 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone wants to become my follower, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a person if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life? 27 For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay everyone for what they have done. 28 Amen, I say to you, among those standing here are some who will certainly not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” 21

[21] It fits in with the caesura that Matthew marked by the insertion of “from that time on” (see above) in that he both explicitly names Jesus as subject and after 16:20 speaks explicitly of the disciples, instead of using pronouns as in Mark 8:31. Differently from Mark, Matthew does not speak of Jesus “teaching” (so also Matt 17:22 vs. Mark 9:31), which corresponds to his tendency to use

258

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

“teaching” for Jesus’ ethical instruction related to the Torah (cf., e.g., 5:19; 7:29; 28:20; see also on 13:1–3a). In 16:21, however, Jesus is concerned to show his disciples God’s saving plan and the Messiah’s path of suffering foreseen in it. Differently from 17:22–23 and 20:18–19, 16:21 is not narrated as direct speech, so that it is possible to read Jesus’ way to Jerusalem, his suffering and violent death, and his resurrection as summarizing in key words the main points of Jesus’ instruction, with which Jesus will repeatedly confront the disciples from now on. One may ponder whether the “pointing out” of relevant Scripture testimonies also belongs here. In any case, it would be fitting that the divine “must” (cf. Dan 2:28 LXX/Theod.), by which Jesus has emphasized the necessity of his passion in v. 21, is resumed once again redactionally in 26:54 and related to the fulfillment of Scripture. This “must” is given a soteriological interpretation, which Matthew (also) assigns to the death of Jesus (20:28; 26:28). Neither the full responsibility of the authorities for the crucifixion of Jesus nor their guilt for it is changed in the least by this divine “must.” For Matthew, human responsibility and divine act do not pose alternatives. From the fact that Matthew, differently from Mark, does not reserve the reference to Jerusalem for the third passion prediction, but already names the city in the first, it follows not only that the reader can see Jesus on his way to Jerusalem from 16:21 on, but, above all, that the place of the passion is explicitly placed in the category of what has been foreseen. The announcement in 16:21 is thus another piece of the mosaic in the evangelist’s theological topography (cf. 2:3; 21:10–11; 23:37–39). In each of the three passion and resurrection predictions Matthew has taken over from Mark, Matthew has changed Mark’s “after three days” to “on the third day,” which may manifest the influence of a kerygmatic formula, which is already tangible in 1 Corinthians 15:4 as early traditional material. [22] Peter’s response shows that he cannot combine a violent death with the identity he has just ascribed to Jesus in v. 16. Matthew is not satisfied with merely naming the defensive way Peter rejects Jesus’ announcement, as in Mark 8:32, but places direct speech in Peter’s mouth. The terse exclamation, influenced by the Greek of the LXX, “(God be) gracious (to you), Lord!” in which “God” is to be supplied as the subject, is probably to be understood as a prayerful wish (cf. e.g., 1 Chr 11:19 LXX; 1 Macc 2:21; Jos. Asen. 6:7; Liv. Pro. 4:18). Despite the quantitative weight of the evidence for the adjective, which is concerned with God’s leniency in regard to past sins (Exod 32:12; 1 Kgs 8:34, 36, 50; 2 Chr 6:39; Jer 27[50]:20 LXX; Jos. Asen. 6:7, and often), v. 22 hardly means that Peter understands Jesus’ prediction in this sense and therefore wishes God’s grace to rest on Jesus in view of what he has just announced.

IV.1 The First Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection

259

Rather, the formulaic phrase is to be understood in the light of what follows, a prayer that God would deliver Jesus from the path of suffering. [23] With his sharp repudiation of Peter, Jesus proves himself to be the obedient Son of God as he strides forth on his path of suffering. In the broader Matthean context, the introductory words, “Get behind me, Satan!” recall Jesus’ repudiation of the devil in 4:10, “Get away from me, Satan!” The insertion of “You are a stumbling block (skandalon) to me” underscores this connection, for the offenses (skandala) spoken of in 13:39 refer to people who seek to mislead others into falling away from the faith, and in that context, such offenses go back to sowing by the devil (13:39). In 16:22–23, Peter thus appears in the role of Satan inasmuch as—like Satan in 4:1–10—he seeks to get Jesus to deviate from his God-given path, even though this is by no means the intention of his action. As v. 23b makes clear, his theological failure consists in his judging the suffering and death of Jesus entirely by human criteria, with no awareness that the “must” of v. 21 refers to God’s saving plan. The concept of a fundamental difference between divine and human thinking (cf. Isa 55:8–9) stands pointedly in the foreground in the way the death of the Son of God is understood. In 1 Corinthians 1:18–25, Paul clarifies precisely the problem that appears in the dispute between Peter and Jesus on the issue of understanding the cross as the place of salvation: according to the criteria of human wisdom, the word of the cross is foolishness. Contextually, Jesus’ reproach to Peter stands in sharp contrast to the pronouncement of blessing in v. 17. Christologically, it is clear from vv. 22–23 that Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah is based on divine revelation but that he fills in the content from his own experience with Jesus so far, especially his participation in the events of Jesus’ power over the elements such as the stilling of the storm (8:23–27) and walking on the water (14:22–23). Jesus’ announcement of suffering and death erupts in sharp contrast, for in it—at least in outward appearances—Jesus appears to be handed over to earthly powers of other people, weak and powerless (but see on 26:2 and 26:53). Peter’s reaction illustrates the shock that Jesus’ announcement of suffering meant for the disciples. From 16:21, the narrative is about the integration of suffering and death as an essential element in the disciples’ understanding of Messiahship and divine sonship. The way of the Messiah and Son of God has not been already completed in the disciples’ previous experience of Jesus’ compassionate devotion to his people in teaching and healing, but will only find its fulfillment in his suffering and death. In comparison with Jesus’ word to Satan in 4:10, there are two additional words in 16:23 (“behind me”), which draw in the scene of Peter’s call with the words “Up, fall in behind me!” in 4:19. Here, instead

260

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

of wanting to stand in the way as a roadblock to Jesus’ path of suffering, Peter receives a renewed call to take his place as a follower of Jesus. [24] This following includes not only being sent out as a fisher for people (4:19; cf. 10:5–8), by which the disciples carry on the ministry of Jesus, but, in view of the path of suffering determined for Jesus himself, also the readiness to carry the cross. Indeed, the instruction in vv. 24–28 explicates this in the renewed call to “get behind Jesus,” and thus draws from v. 21 the consequence for understanding what discipleship means. While in the scene as portrayed in Mark Jesus calls the disciples together with the people (Mark 8:34), in Matthew it is only the disciples who are addressed by Jesus’ instruction. The concern here is not the hardships involved in discipleship in general, but to concretely impress this on the disciples. In the broader context, vv. 24–25 repeat and reinforce what Jesus already taught the disciples at the end of the mission discourse in 10:38–39. The emphatic bond between Jesus’ own path of life that emerges in the context of 16:21 has its counterpart in 10:24–25 of the mission discourse. In comparison with 10:38, what is new in the present discourse is the saying about self-denial taken from Mark 8:34. The unusual Greek expression “to deny oneself ” is probably a contrasting formation to “deny Christ” (26:34–35, 75; cf. also 10:33). This does not have in view a rigorously ascetic way of life, but the readiness to renounce one’s own aspirations in one’s commitment to Jesus and in cases of conflict to hold on to one’s confession even at the risk of one’s very life. This means no longer prioritizing the fundamental interest of every human being, namely, preserving one’s own life. [25–26] Verse 25 grounds such a decision in an eschatological framework: whoever, when charged or threatened because of their Christian faith, wants to avoid trouble by denying their Christian identity will be condemned in the Last Judgment. But whoever loses their life for Jesus’ sake will find it, that is, will be raised to eternal life. Verse 26 fills out the meaning of v. 25: all worldly profit, be it wealth or power (cf. 4:8–9) evaporates into nothing in view of the loss of eternal life. No accumulation of property can serve as a means of exchange or ransom for life itself (cf. Ps 49:7–9; see also 2 Bar. 51:15). The pointed critique of striving after possessions in 6:19–24 here finds an echo. [27] The perspective of eschatological judgment of vv. 25–26 is made explicit in v. 27. The one whom the disciple is to follow at the risk of suffering martyrdom (cf. 23:34) is the Son of Man, who will face them in the Last Judgment (cf. 25:31–32). Then each one will be judged according to their deeds, as Matthew formulates the issue in Old Testament phraseology (cf., e.g., Ps 62:13; Prov 24:12). Self-denial and cross-bearing as discipleship to Jesus are provided with an eschatological “rationalization.”

IV.2 Jesus’ Coming Glory and the Little-Faith Disciples

261

[28] In v. 28, Matthew does not base the pronouncement on what has preceded as in the preceding verses, but begins afresh with the solemn “Amen, I say to you.” In contrast to his source in Mark 9:1, he has given the brief instruction to the disciples a change of direction. He no longer mentions that some of those present will not taste death “until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power,” but continues the speech of the coming Son of Man from v. 27. However, he does not come for the judgment “in the glory of his Father,” but “in his (!) kingdom.” The kingdom of the Son of Man has already been mentioned in 13:41, indeed in the sense that the world is already the realm of the Son of Man’s rule, which is illustrated by 26:64; 28:18–20 (cf. on 13:41). Against this background, it seems likely that in 16:28 Matthew has taken up a logion affirming the near-expectation of the parousia, which has become problematic since in his day none of the Twelve were still alive, and transformed it into an announcement of the Christophany in 28:18–20. By redactionally inserting explicit reference to the Son of Man not only in 16:13, but also in v. 28 (and replacing the occurrence in Mark 8:31 with the personal pronoun in 16:21), Matthew has formed a bracket around the diptych 16:13–20, 21–28. The question of the identity of the Son of Man finds its answer in the fact that, as Peter rightly confesses, he is the Son of God, who, however, must suffer—which the Twelve still have to learn—but who will be raised from the dead by God and will ultimately appear as the judge at the Last Judgment. After Easter, the disciples will be granted to “see” that Jesus has entered into his universal royal rule. In 17:1–9, three disciples will already be granted a proleptic vision of his coming resurrection glory. IV.2 Jesus’ Coming Glory and the Little-Faith Disciples’ Inability in View of the Absence of Jesus (17:1–20) Jesus’ transfiguration and the healing of the epileptic boy form a single coherent narrative complex. While three disciples witness the transfiguration of Jesus on a high mountain, in the valley below the others experience failure in their efforts to fulfill a father’s petition to heal his son. This event on the way to the passion anticipates the situation of the disciples as seen in the coming situation of Jesus’ absence. They will only succeed in their mission if they overcome their little-faith. IV.2.1 The Transfiguration of the Son of God and the Suffering of God’s Messengers (17:1–13)

And after six days, Jesus takes Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as 1

262

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

the light. 3 And behold, then Moses and Elijah appeared to them, and were talking with him. 4 Then Peter spoke up and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 5 While he was still speaking, behold, a cloud filled with light overshadowed them. And behold, a voice (came) out of the cloud, and said: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased. Listen to him!” 6 When the disciples heard (it), they fell on their faces and were very afraid. 7 And Jesus came up, touched them, and said, “Stand up and do not be afraid.” 8 And when they looked up, they saw no one except him, Jesus, alone. 9 And when they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them and said: “Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” 10 And the disciples asked him and said, “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 11 And he answered and said, “Elijah is indeed coming and will ‘restore’ all things, 12 but I say to you: Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him what they wanted. So also the Son of Man will suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist. Just as Jesus attributed Peter’s confession to God’s revelation (16:16–17), so now Peter and the two sons of Zebedee are granted a vision (v. 9) in which they see Jesus in his post-Easter glory as the exalted Lord and Jesus is revealed to them as Son of God by the heavenly voice. [1] The temporal note “after six days” (taken from Mark) is striking, since otherwise precise times are not common in the Gospel, but the datum does not readily disclose its meaning. There could be an intertextual reference here to Exodus 24:16, since other echoes of the Sinai pericope are found here (see below). Perhaps, however, the note serves only to point out the close link between the transfiguration and 16:28: within the course of the same week (the language of “six days” is firmly anchored in the scriptural context of the Sabbath command, i.e., in the weekly structure of the calendar) Jesus’ announcement is proleptically fulfilled for the three disciples. On the one hand, the “high mountain” is reminiscent of 4:8, where the devil offers Jesus rulership over the whole world, while on the other hand it anticipates the mountain where the risen Jesus will rejoin his disciples (28:16), announce his universal sovereignty, and send the disciples forth in mission. Within this framework, the proleptic vision of the coming glory of the Risen One as the enthroned Son of God fits seamlessly into this comprehensive theme (on the concept of enthronement, see on v. 5). [2] In Matthew’s description of the transfiguration, his insertion of the note that Jesus’ face “shown like the sun” (cf. 13:43 and 2 En. 66:7; 4 Ezra 7:97;

IV.2 Jesus’ Coming Glory and the Little-Faith Disciples

263

Rev 1:16) and the point of the comparison “white as the light” in his adaptation of Mark 9:3 underscores that Jesus belongs to the heavenly world (on “light” as characteristic of transcendence, one need note only 1 En. 14:15–22; 2 En. 25:1–5). It fits in with this that Matthew then speaks in v. 5 of the cloud “filled with light.” [3–5] The meaning of Jesus’ transfiguration is unfolded in vv. 3–5 in a tripartite event, whose three components—the appearance of Moses and Elijah, the coming of the light-filled cloud, and the sounding forth of the heavenly voice—are each introduced by Matthew in the biblical narrative style, “(and) behold . . .” In the context of v. 2, the primary significance of Moses and Elijah is probably that they function as representatives of the heavenly world. Accordingly, that they converse with Jesus confirms that he belongs to that world, as already revealed in his transfiguration. This does not exclude additional layers of meaning, such as Moses and Elijah representing the Law and the Prophets. In any case, Matthew’s change from the Markan order (“Elijah with Moses,” Mark 9:4) fits well with the biblical duo “Torah and Prophets.” Peter’s proposal to construct three booths (or tents) aims to hold on to the event they have experienced. Matthew’s introducing this proposal with “If you wish” emphasizes Peter’s respectful attitude to Jesus. Peter’s words, however, receive no response; the three disciples are only in the role of spectators. While Peter is still speaking, a cloud overshadows “them.” The cloud is here a sign of the presence of God (cf., e.g., Exod 13:21–22; 40:34–38; 1 Kgs 8:10–11). The question of whether the personal pronoun “them” refers only to Jesus, Moses, and Elijah or also includes the disciples (as in Luke 9:34) cannot be answered with certainty, but the first option would fit well with the portrayal of the disciples as being only spectators who are not themselves participants in the event. The climax of the scene is the divine voice that booms from the cloud, which proclaims Jesus anew as the Son of God in identical words with 3:17, except that, differently from 3:17, Jesus is not the only one to hear the heavenly voice. It corresponds to the audience in 17:5 that an imperative follows, “Listen to him!” which stands alongside the commission of the Risen One to the disciples in 28:18–20 and its reference to Jesus’ commandments. If one hears an allusion to Psalm 2:7 in the declaration that Jesus is God’s Son, this clearly resonates with the motif of the heavenly enthronement of Jesus as Lord of the universe (cf. 28:18b). The reference to the saying about the coming of the Son of Man “in his kingdom” in 16:28 underscores this aspect. [6–8] The portrayal of the disciples’ reaction in vv. 6–7 is a redactional insertion of the first evangelist. It functions to underscore the climactic significance of the audition and thus to direct attention to the proclamation of Jesus as Son of God. In vv. 6–7 Matthew takes up traditional motifs: falling down (cf. Gen 17:3; Ezek 1:28; 1 En. 14:14; Rev 1:17) and (reverential) fear (cf. Hab 3:2

264

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

LXX; 1 En. 60:3) are the appropriate reactions to an encounter with the divine. Thus Tobit 12:16 describes the reaction of Tobit and Tobias to the archangel Raphael in exactly the same way. Moreover, in Daniel 8:16–18 we also find the feature that the archangel Gabriel touches and raises up Daniel, who has fallen on his face before him (see also Dan 10:9–10). Equally traditional is the response “do not be afraid” (cf. also Dan 10:12, 19; 1 En. 15:1; Rev 1:17). Matthew elsewhere speaks of Jesus “coming up” to someone only in 28:18 (otherwise, people always approach Jesus), thus providing another cross-link between the transfiguration scene and the Easter vision. [9] After the descent from the mountain, there follows—renewed from 16:20—a command to silence, to which an expiration date is now given. In each of the preceding contexts, in both 16:20 and 17:9, the messianic identity of Jesus as Son of God stands in the foreground. Jesus is recognizable as the Davidic Messiah on the basis of his works (11:2– 6; 12:22–23). So far, however, the revelation that he is Son of God has been limited to his disciples. In the course of the passion story, Jesus’ divine sonship will become a topic of public discussion ([21:37– 42]; 26:63– 64; 27:43). Only later, after Jesus’ resurrection, when what Peter, James, and John have witnessed in 17:3–5 has become a reality, may the disciples talk about it as well. The redactional designation of the event in vv. 3–5 as a “vision” reinforces the reference to the book of Daniel noted in vv. 6–7, for the documentation for the underlying Greek word (horama) in the LXX is strikingly concentrated in Daniel. Matthew may here have been inspired especially by Dan 7:13, 15 LXX, that is, by the passage which Matthew not only takes up in 24:30 and 26:64, but also alludes to in 28:18–20. Thereby, the character of Matthew 17:1–9 as an anticipation of the resurrection reality is reinforced even more. If one surveys the story of the transfiguration as a whole, a noticeable affinity to the Sinai tradition emerges in several individual features, in addition to the Daniel coloration already mentioned. Moses, too, climbs a mountain with three associates (and seventy elders), namely Mount Sinai (Exod 24:9, 12–15), which is enveloped by a cloud from which God calls to Moses (24:15–16). When Moses returns from the mountain after his renewed ascent, his face is radiant (Exod 34:29–35; cf. 2 Cor 3:7; LAB [Ps.-Philo] 12:1). In addition, the challenge to “listen to him” (Matt 17:5) has a counterpart in the “prophet like Moses” of Deuteronomy 18:15. At the same time, the differences on the relation of the motifs to each other and their arrangement make clear that the story of Jesus’ transfiguration is not simply modeled on the Moses narrative. This by no means speaks against the view that Matthew intended to evoke associations with the Sinai tradition (the references to the radiance of Jesus’ face go back to the first evangelist!) thereby surrounding the transfiguration narrative with

IV.2 Jesus’ Coming Glory and the Little-Faith Disciples

265

a biblical aura. The echoes of God’s revelation on Sinai should contribute to setting the three disciples’ vision of Jesus’ transfiguration into the context of Israel’s salvation-historical narrative. The additional intertextual references to Psalm 2:7 and Daniel 7:13, 15 in vv. 5 and 9 give concrete instances of this. The story is about nothing less than the vision of the enthronement of the Son of God (Ps 2:7), to whom eternal royal authority is given, and whose kingship will not pass away (Dan 7:13–14). [10–11] The “vision” given to the three disciples evokes their counterquestion, why, according to the scribes, Elijah must come first. It is possible that this question takes up an objection against the Christian community: Since Elijah has not yet come, Jesus cannot be the Messiah. If one ponders the question in its present literary context, that is, on the plane of the Matthean Jesus-story, for the disciples, on the basis of their christological knowledge and salvation-history insights that have been strengthened by the event of vv. 1–9, exactly the opposite is in question, namely the scribe’s assertion. The reference point is the prophetic word of Malachi 3:22–24 (cf. Sir 48:10), which Jesus, too, takes up in his response by speaking of the “restoration.” However, the object in Malachi 3:23 is not the summarizing “everything,” but the human heart—a tendency to expand the reference already found in Sirach 48:10 (“the tribes of Jacob”). [12] In what follows, Matthew has brought forward the statement that goes beyond the traditional “knowledge” that Elijah has already come and adds the explanatory comment “but they did not recognize him.” In the flow of Matthew’s text, this lack of knowledge explains why they have responded to him with violence. By making the explicit analogy between the destiny of the Son of Man and that of Elijah redivivus, the “mountaintop experience” of the transfiguration is immediately juxtaposed with a renewed reference to the impending suffering of Jesus, so that the christological tension introduced in 16:16, 21 is again expressed in 17:5, 12. In other words, analogous to the sequence in 16:13–20, 21–28, so also in 17:1–9, 10–13 the sovereign majesty of the Son of God (as a mountain experience) is bound to the announcement of his suffering (after the descent; v. 12). This dovetails precisely with the way in which the narrower circle of disciples, Peter and the sons of Zebedee (v. 1), are met only once more in Matthew, namely at Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (26:37; Matthew did not take over Mark 5:37; cf. also Matt 24:3 with Mark 13:3), so that also by means of this constellation of figures the heavenly glory of the Son of God and the necessity of his suffering are bound to each other as two sides of the same coin. [13] The concluding statement is once again from Matthew’s own pen. The disciples are again understanding (see also the deletion of Mark 9:10). In 11:14, Jesus has identified the Baptist as the returned Elijah redivivus before

266

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

the forum of the crowds. Now the disciples understand (in reverse order from the way Jesus has made the identification) that Jesus’ reference to the suffering that the returned Elijah has experienced refers to John the Baptist. Against the background of Peter’s reaction to Jesus’ announcement of his own suffering in 16:21–22, this knowledge of the violent destiny of Elijah redivivus helps the disciples dismantle their own lack of understanding of the suffering of the Messiah. Not only does John pave the way for Jesus’ message (cp. 3:2 with 4:17); at the same time, his violent death points in advance to Jesus’ suffering. But Matthew does not explicitly say in v. 13 that the disciples have already attained understanding in this regard. IV.2.2 The Healing of the Epileptic Child and the Little-Faith of the Disciples (17:14–20)

And as they came to the crowd, a man came to him, fell on his knees before him, 15 and said, “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is afflicted with the moon-sickness, and he suffers terribly. In fact, he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 And I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.” 17 Jesus answered and said, “You unbelieving and perverse kind of people, how much longer must I be with you? How much longer must I put up with you? Bring him here to me.” 18 And Jesus spoke harshly to the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed from that moment on. 19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why were we not able to cast it out?” 20 He said to them, “Because of your little-faith! Amen I say to you, if you even have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there.’ And it will move. And nothing will be impossible for you.”* 14

*Verse 21 (“But this kind only comes out by prayer and fasting”) is an addition inspired by Mark 9:29 and is found in only parts of the manuscript tradition; the verse does not belong to the original text. It corresponds to the overarching theme of 16:21–20:34 that Matthew has reduced Mark’s detailed portrayal of the healing to its basic outline. The dialogue about the father’s (un)belief in Mark 9:22–24 has also fallen victim to this abbreviation. Instead of once again taking up the motif of the faith of the supplicant (cf. on 15:28), Matthew concentrates the narrative entirely on the theme of the disciples’ faith as the prerequisite for their healing act, or their failure due to their little-faith. The motif of the absence of Jesus has in view the time after Jesus’ death, in which the disciples will have to carry out their mission without the presence of the earthly Jesus (cf. 10:7–8).

IV.2 Jesus’ Coming Glory and the Little-Faith Disciples

267

[14–16] Matthew has radically shortened the Markan introduction. The argument between the disciples, whom Jesus left behind in v. 1, and the scribes is ignored. Matthew only notes that after the arrival of the group around Jesus among the crowds (not around the other disciples, as in Mark 9:14), someone comes up to Jesus and asks him for mercy for his son (cf. [8:6]; 15:22). Mark’s vivid portrayal of the disease, including its even more detailed description in the encounter between the demon and the miracle worker (Mark 9:17–18, 20–22), is condensed in the designation “lunatism” (selēniazetai, lit., “to be moonstruck,” referring to epilepsy, which in antiquity was related to the moon goddess Selene). To explain the mortal danger posed by the disease, Matthew contents himself with the reference taken from Mark’s second portrayal, that the demon often throws the boy into water or fire (cf. Mark 9:22). The particular accent that distinguishes Matthew 17:14–20 from the other healing stories is introduced by referring back to the disciples’ failure in v. 16. Previously, sick people or supplicants have always approached Jesus directly. During his absence, while Peter and the sons of Zebedee were being granted a vision of the Risen One, the other disciples had to carry out their mission according to 10:1, 8. [17] Their failure evokes the lamentation from Jesus in v. 17, which in the two “how much longer . . .” questions (cf., e.g., Pss 13:2, 3; 74:10) points to the end of his presence among them in the form they have become accustomed to, which will happen in the near future. Many interpreters understand Jesus’ lamentation over the “unbelieving and perverse kind of people” to refer to Israel or the crowds mentioned in v. 14 (as representing Israel), but in this understanding, v. 17 seems out of place in the flow of Matthew’s narrative. The theme in the preceding context, as in the narrative that follows, is the inability of the disciples, so that in the flow of the present narrative v. 17 can only refer to them. The verse is a lamentation of Jesus—aimed at the post-Easter situation of the disciples—that the disciples cannot do anything without him, although, according to 10:1, they would need to be able to do this. It fits in with the reference being to the disciples that when Jesus commands, “Bring him here to me,” he is speaking to the disciples, since the father has already brought his son to them (v. 16). Addressing the disciples as “you unbelieving and perverse kind of people” is indeed singular in Matthew, but this also would be the case if it is the crowds who are addressed, since elsewhere in the Gospel “this kind of people” always refers to the authorities (11:16–19; 12:38–45; 16:1–4; 23:36). It should be noted that the epithets against “this kind of people” in 17:17 differ strongly from the characterization of the authorities as “evil” and “adulterous” (12:39, 45; 16:4). [18] The healing of the boy is only briefly noted by Matthew and stripped of all dramatic elements (Mark 9:26–27). [19–20] On the other hand, Matthew has expanded the following section of instructions to the disciples. While in

268

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

Mark these seem almost like an afterthought, in Matthew they are the goal and main point. In Jesus’ response to the disciples’ question about why they were unable to cast out the demon, Matthew has replaced Mark’s reference to prayer with a logion probably derived from Q 17:6 (cf. Matt 21:21 par. Mark 11:23), so that the theme of faith introduced in v. 17 is continued. The difference between the unfaith diagnosed there and the little-faith with which the disciples are charged in v. 20 corresponds to the difference between lamentation and instruction. Using a well-known hyperbole (e.g., Job 9:5; Josephus, Ant. 2.333; b. Sanh 24a), the image of moving mountains, the believer is promised power that includes the impossible: faith can move mountains. Faith appears as trust in God’s power to change circumstances (for the good). In view of the contrasting of little-faith and a grain of mustard seed, the comparison does not serve to qualify faith (as small or capable of development), but functions rhetorically as support for the great things promised to faith in the sense of an absolute trust in God. The concluding statement, “And nothing will be impossible for you,” refers back antithetically to the failure of the disciples (vv. 16, 19), and thus reveals such faith to be the leitmotif of the Matthean version of the story. IV.3 The Second Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection (17:22–23) As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be handed over into human hands, 23 and they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised.” And they became very sad.

22

Following the failure of the disciples, Jesus confirms what he has begun to reveal to the disciples in 16:21: in the future the disciples will have to cope with the long-term physical absence of Jesus. The reference to gathering in Galilee in the new introduction Matthew has composed for this saying stands out, since there has been no mention of Jesus and the disciples being separated. The note is understandable as an indication of the upcoming pilgrimage to Jerusalem, since those traveling to the festivals usually traveled in groups. Differently from 16:21, in the second passion prediction Matthew takes over the saying about the Son of Man, and thus the wordplay found in Mark: the Son of Man will be handed over into the hands of sinful human beings (Greek text: “men”; cf. the variation “into the hands of the sinners” in 26:45). “Hand over” is a key word in the passion narrative (as here in the passive without naming the subject of the action, also in 26:2, 46), and is there used for the act of Judas Iscariot (26:15–16, 21–25, 46, 48, 27:3– 4; see also 10:4 and 20:18), as also for the handing over of Jesus to Pilate by the members of the Sanhedrin (27:2, 18; cf. 20:19), and finally of Pilate’s handing Jesus over to the soldiers (27:26). In 4:12, the same verb is used of John the Baptist, and the disciples,

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

269

too, must reckon with the possibility of being “handed over” (10:17, 19, 21; 24:9–10), so that this motif extends to include John, Jesus, and the disciples as God’s suffering messengers. Mark’s reference to the renewed incomprehension of the disciples (Mark 9:32) is again not taken over by Matthew; he speaks rather of their sadness as they face the imminent death of Jesus (cf. 26:22). In their sorrow, they seem to be entirely unaware of what Jesus has said about his resurrection. IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God (17:24–20:16) In the longer passage between the second and third passion predictions, ethical aspects of the life of discipleship come to the fore. Continuous reference to the kingdom of God is characteristic of this section. Already in 17:24–27 it is implied that the disciples come into view as children of the king. The parable that concludes the discourse about community life in 18:1–35 takes up the designation of God as King (18:23). Moreover, this discourse is programmatically introduced by the question of who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven (18:1). After the discussion of community relationships in chapter 18, Matthew 19 deals with marriage, children, and the use of possessions as basic dimensions of everyday life. Here, too, the focus on the kingdom of heaven continues as the leitmotif. Thus the theme of divorce and remarriage leads into a statement about those who remain unmarried for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (19:12). Children are not to be repulsed, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them (19:14). For the rich, however, the prospects of entering the kingdom of heaven are exceedingly slim (19:23–24). The end of this section (19:27–20:16) looks forward to the salvation of the disciples, who will receive a hundredfold (19:29). In this context, the kingdom parable about the workers in the vineyard with its portrayal of eschatological reward (20:1–16) promotes solidarity in community relationships. IV.4.1 The Temple Tax (17:24–27)

When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the double drachma came to Peter and said, “Is it true that your teacher does not pay the double drachma?” 25 He said, “That’s not true; he does.” And as he came in the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?” 26 When he said, “From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27 However, so that we do not give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up. And when you open its mouth, you will find a stater; take that and give it to them for you and me.” 24

270

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

Between the second passion prediction and taking up the section Mark 9:33–37 at the beginning of the discourse on community life (Matt 18:1–5), Matthew has placed the question of payment of the temple tax, drawn from his special sources. On the one hand, inserting it at this point in the Markan outline may be motivated by its association with Capernaum (v. 24; cf. Mark 9:33). On the other hand, the pericope fits in chronologically, since the tax was collected prior to the pilgrim festivals (m. Šeq. 1.1; 3.1; cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.77–78; Josephus, Ant. 18.312–313), so that vv. 24–27 reinforce the signal given in v. 22 of the upcoming pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Furthermore, since the pericope indirectly refers to the conflict-laden situation of Christian believers in Judaism (“so that we do not give offense”), it also fits in with the passion theme. Finally, the idea of the kingdom of God implicit in 17:25–26 prepares for the leading thematic significance of the kingdom of heaven in 18:1–20:16 (see above the introduction to 17:24–20:16). The biblical basis for the temple tax is Exodus 30:11–16. As a tax to be paid annually by all adult Jewish males (cf. Neh 10:33), the temple tax was presumably established around the middle of the first century BCE by initiative of the Pharisees, while the Sadducees apparently favored the older practice of a voluntary payment for financing the temple cult, and the Essenes understood Exodus 30:11–16 as a payment to be made only once in a lifetime (4Q159 2.6– 7). Against this background, it becomes clear that the tax collectors’ question in v. 24 was not merely an implicit challenge, nor by any means purely rhetorical. The pericope is composed of two scenes, which picture two conversations in different locations: the brief outdoor dialogue between Peter and the tax collectors, and the indoor conversation between Jesus and Peter (on the house, cf. 8:14; 9:28; 13:1, 36). Peter’s simple positive response to the tax collectors is contrasted with the nuanced conversation between Jesus and his disciple. The precise understanding of vv. 25–26 depends on whether one understands “sons” to refer specifically to Jesus and his disciples or to include all Israelites. In the first case, the freedom of the sons signifies a special status of the Christian community, grounded in the relation to God as Father mediated by Jesus, the Son of God, which can be further differentiated by the fact that the temple cult has lost significance for the disciples, inasmuch as they receive forgiveness for their sins through Jesus (1:21; 26:28). So understood, the pericope would also fit well with 17:22–23 in this respect. Against this interpretation is that it would imply that non-Christian Jews are categorized among the “others” (= foreigners), which would emerge abruptly into this context, and which does not fit Matthew’s theological understanding of Israel (cf. the designation of the Israelites as “children” in 15:26!). In the second case, one can include vv. 25–26 in the controversial discussion of the temple tax sketched above: by comparing it

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

271

with the customary practice of earthly kings who impose taxes only on “others” (probably referring to all who do not belong to the royal family), the Matthean Jesus takes a position against the practice of an annual tax for the temple: God does not require his children to pay a compulsory tax each year. In any case, this text is not evidence for a supposed Torah-critical tendency of the Matthean Jesus, for we have seen that a compulsory annual tax can hardly be derived from the Torah without further ado. The willingness to go ahead and pay the tax is in line with the effort to avoid conflicts. Here the endangered situation of Jewish Christian groups is visible, which called for especially prudent behavior in order to spare the community from unnecessary attacks. The miraculous provision of the amount needed to pay the tax for both Jesus and Peter represents Jesus’ position in an almost playful form (the motif of finding valuable items in a fish’s body is variously documented in antiquity, e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 3.42; b. Šabb. 119a). The tax indeed gets paid, but at the same time the story impressively indicates that the children themselves are not obligated to pay, since it is here God himself who takes care of the required amount. By the evangelist’s time, Rome had replaced the temple tax with the fiscus Judaicus, a head tax imposed on Jews dedicated to Jupiter Capitolinus (Josephus, War 7.218; Cassius Dio, Hist. 66.7.2). Accordingly, the line of argument regarding the status of the children was not applicable. A current significance of the pericope for the Matthean community can only be seen in its paradigmatic meaning: Matthew 17:24–27 provides an example of strategic deescalation in view of the socially difficult situation of the community. The text-pragmatic goal of the pericope is thus the effort expressed in v. 27 not to cause any unnecessary offense. So understood, the text complements the willingness called for in the first passion prediction for disciples to take up the cross. That v. 27 is not to be generalized into a mere ethic of accommodation is already clearly evident in 15:12, where Jesus does not at all regulate his conduct for fear of offending the Pharisees. IV.4.2 The Discourse about the Community Life of the Church (18:1–35)

As is the case with all the discourses, so also Matthew 18 is thoroughly embedded in the narrative context. The signal given in 17:22 of the upcoming pilgrimage to Jerusalem, along with the stance toward paying the temple tax here advocated, is in line with the statement of 19:1 that Jesus left Galilee and went into the region of Judea. The discourse in Matthew 18 is thus presented emphatically as Jesus’ words in the face of his journey toward his suffering in Jerusalem. It corresponds to this situation that the Matthean Jesus inculcates an ethos of humility, made concrete in the theme of forgiveness. Each of these

272

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

is directly connected with Matthew’s understanding of the death of Jesus. This means his voluntary renunciation of the power and authority that belongs to him as Son of God and can thus function as a model of self-renunciation, while at the same time the death of Jesus is in the service of the forgiveness of sins (26:28). The designation “church discourse” sometimes encountered as a designation for the composition in Matthew 18 is imprecise to the extent that it could lead one to expect deliberations about particular functions or offices in the church. Matthew 18, however, focuses on the life of the community of disciples as a whole, and this under a particular point of view, namely the aspect of humility, dealing with sinners, and one’s own endangerment. Roughly speaking, in Matthew 18 the evangelist reworks Markan material in vv. 1–9 (Mark 9:33–47*), to which logia from Q (Matt 18:10–15a, 21–22 par. Luke 15:4–7; 17:3–4) and his own special sources (Matt 18:15b–20, 23–35) are added. The structure of the discourse is difficult to discern. The diachronic profile does not help, since Matthew has subjected his material to his own compositional intentions. Peter’s question in v. 21 marks a division, but otherwise the transitions are somewhat fluid. In vv. 6–20, three sections can be identified: 6–9, 10–14, and the even more distinct unit 15–20. The suggestion that a major break comes after v. 14 has against it that vv. 15–20, as we will see, are connected to vv. 10–14 as an implementing rule. Since vv. 6–9 and 10–14 are held together by the key words “little ones,” it seems best to consider vv. 6–20 as a single unit—in three sections. The disciples’ initiating question in v. 1 (Matt 18 is the first of the Gospel’s discourses to begin with a question from the disciples, but see later Matt 24:3) and Jesus’ reply in vv. 2–4 have a foundational character for the whole, providing the basis for the concept of humility, which is fundamental to the following. Verse 5 concludes by continuing the sayings about the “child” in vv. 2–4. By opening with a relative clause, v. 5 corresponds syntactically to v. 6. Since, moreover, the disciples’ question in v. 1 is answered in v. 4, it seems best to regard v. 5 as the beginning to develop the basic principle established in vv. 1–4. IV.4.2.1 The Basis: Conversion to Being Humble (18:1– 4)

At that hour the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Well, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And he called a child to himself, placed it in their midst, 3 and said, “Amen, I say to you: Unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever takes a lowly place like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” 1

Matthew 18:1–5 is based on Mark 9:33–37. However, Matthew has treated his Markan source quite freely, remodeling it to such an extent that v. 5 (par. Mark 9:37a) is given a new function within the structure of the speech (see

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

273

the introduction to Matt 18). Mark 9:33–37 can be divided into two subunits (vv. 33–35, 36–37): Jesus responds to the disciples’ question of who is the greatest (vv. 33–34) with the logion in v. 35; the symbolic act in v. 36 is explained in v. 37. Matthew, however, brings forward the symbolic act, and in accordance with his reformulation of the initial question in v. 1 (see below), he replaces Mark 9:35 (a variant of this logion appears in 20:26–27 par. Mark 10:43– 44 and 23:11) with his vv. 3– 4 as the response to v. 1. [1] Since Matthew has already provided the setting for this scene in 17:24–25, he can bypass Mark 9:33 here, at the same time moderating the negative depiction of the disciples in Mark 9:33–34. In place of the disciples’ discussion about who is the greatest—about which they remain silent when questioned by Jesus—Matthew sets a direct question of the disciples to Jesus, giving it a new thrust by the addition of “in the kingdom of heaven.” Now the question is about who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. [2–4] Jesus responds by placing a child in their midst, in order to present the child as a new orientation point to the disciples, which is diametrically opposed to the social position of children in the ancient world. The explanation that follows in vv. 3– 4 is two pronged. Matthew first offers—formulated as a conditional clause—a logion about entrance into the kingdom of heaven (cf. 5:20), a variant of Mark 10:15. Instead of discussing particular positions in the kingdom of heaven, the first thing to be discussed is entrance into the kingdom as such. This presupposes a fundamental turn in one’s life orientation (“unless you change”). It is here implied that the disciples have not posed their question merely out of intellectual curiosity, but are themselves out to become “great.” While v. 3 leaves open the question of what exactly is meant by the positive admonition to become like children, v. 4, which is on the whole a redactional formulation, brings clarity: it is not naiveté, innocence, obedience to parents, openness to what is new, or other characteristics sometimes attributed to children that forms the point of comparison, but their generally low status in ancient society. “To make oneself small, lowly” includes the inner attitude of humility as well as concrete renunciation of status, i.e., social lowliness. Instead of trying to be someone great (v. 1; cf. 20:26–27), the disciples should “make themselves small”; instead of striving after places of honor and prestige (cf., negatively, 23:6–7), they should orient themselves downward. Verse 4 explicitly refers to the disciples’ initial question and thus generates a paradox: those who orient themselves toward lowliness will be the highest in the kingdom of heaven. At the beginning of the discourse, Matthew thus has Jesus set forth a fundamental redefinition of the value scale, which sets the precedent for the rest of the discourse. This exemplifies the ethos of lowliness in regard to dealing with the “little ones” and sinners in the church. The narrative embedding

274

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

of the discourse on congregational life in the context of Jesus’ passion predictions indicates that for Matthew, lowliness as an essential characteristic of the Christian orientation is an ethical implication of the way Jesus walked his own path of suffering. In Matthew’s interpretation, this path is marked by the renunciation of the use of power, even to the point of contemptuous death on the cross, whereupon Jesus is then exalted by God. Analogously, the Christian is promised: whoever humbles themselves like this child, that person is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. IV.4.2.2 Concretization of the Humility Ethos (18:5–35) IV.4.2.2.1 Reception of a Child (18:5) 5

“And whoever welcomes a single such child in my name welcomes me.”

Verse 5 presents the first concretization of the ethos of humility established in vv. 2– 4 and links it directly to the opening scene: those who humble themselves like a child, that is, take their lowly place with them at “eye level,” do not deal with one in this lowly status with disdain, but “welcome the child.” This begins with friendly and respectful contact and acquaintance, but may have concrete support in mind, such as providing for needy, possibly orphaned children. Verse 5 does not speak appellatively in the form of direct admonition or warning, but the point lies in the christologically oriented explanation that the acceptance of a child means accepting Jesus himself (cf. 25:40, 45). This christological assumption is already anticipated in the relative clause, which speaks of receiving a child “in my name.” The eschatological motivation of vv. 3– 4 is reinforced by the christologically oriented worldview in which the status of the little ones is ennobled through Jesus’ solidarity with them (cf. 25:31– 46; and for Jesus’ own conduct toward children, 19:13–15). IV.4.2.2.2 Conduct toward the “Little Ones” (18:6–20) IV.4.2.2.2.1 Warning against Misleading the “Little Ones” (18:6–9)

“If any of you gives one of these little ones who believe in me an inducement to sin, it would be better for them if a great millstone were fastened around their neck and they were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of temptations! For it is inevitable that temptations will come, but woe to that person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot leads you into sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye leads you into sin, tear it out 6

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

275

and throw it away! It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire.” The story that follows in the Markan chronology in 9:38–41 tells of the toleration of a miracle-worker who performs exorcisms in the name of Jesus but does not belong to the community of Jesus’ disciples. Matthew omits this story, since it does not fit his concept of the church, and especially does not fit into the thematic flow of the Matthean community discourse. Instead, Matthew continues with a warning against various temptations to sin, still following Mark 9:42– 48. In v. 7, he has inserted a logion from a thematically related passage in the Sayings Source (cf. Luke 17:1[–2]). [6] Verse 6—syntactically analogous to v. 5a—states a fact in an initial relative clause: one of these little ones has been given an inducement to sin. The connection to v. 5 is underscored by the fact that Matthew has not only omitted Mark 9:38– 41, but also 9:37b, thus joining the more specific definition of faith (“who believe in me”) directly to the christological orientation of v. 5. The christological basis of the instruction is thus not only indicated by its narrative embedding, but also brought to bear in the saying itself: Jesus’ own way is central to making plausible what is expected of disciples in relation to the child who is low on the social scale and in relation to the “little ones.” The resumption of the speech about the “little ones” in the verses that frame the parable of the lost sheep (18:10, 14) suggests that “little ones” here hardly can be understood as potentially referring to any Christian inasmuch as he or she manifests the required orientation toward “lowliness,” so v. 6 is accordingly not a comforting word for the disciples that those who endanger them will receive their just punishment. In view are rather those endangered believers in Christ who, in regard to their Christian life-orientation are (still) uncertain and wavering. For 18:6–35, this results in a continuous thematic thread, which deals with their stance toward Christian believers who are not yet firm in their faith, who are sinful or threaten to stray from the right path. “To give them an inducement to sin” points more comprehensively to mislead someone to apostasy from the faith (cf. Luz, Matthew, 2:432). This includes seduction to moral misconduct but can refer to entirely unspectacular misdeeds, for example, that Christian believers who are not firmly anchored in the church do not receive the necessary nurturing care, but are treated disrespectfully and thus driven out of the congregation. The threat to those who mislead others to sin is massive: in view of the sentence such seducers can expect in the final judgment, even the gruesome death of being weighted down with a heavy millstone and drowned would be better. [7] The twofold woe in v. 7 embeds such misleading in an apocalyptic horizon. It is important here that those who cause

276

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

such temptations to sin are not relieved from responsibility from the outset by supposing that such temptations are inevitable. [8–9] The perspective shifts in vv. 8–9. Now the focus is on one’s own being misled into sin. Matthew has used the logia in vv. 8–9, which he here takes over from Mark (he thereby combined Mark 9:43 [hand; cf. Matt 5:30] and 9:45 [foot] into a single logion), in a similar form already in 5:29–30. The application of this imagery there makes it unlikely that hand, foot, and eye refer metaphorically to members of the community. Thus the present passage is not about shunning or even excommunication, especially since the rigorous tone does not fit the differentiated implementation in vv. 15–17, and the statement “better with one eye, etc.” to enter eternal life than to have one’s whole body cast into hell fire can hardly be understood otherwise than as referring to an individual. Hand, foot, and eye thus stand exemplarily for one’s own body parts that mislead into sin, and, as in 5:29–30, here it is not a matter of actual self-mutilation that is called for. The connection with vv. 6–7 can be seen in that one’s own failures can result in the fall of others. IV.4.2.2.2.2 The Parable of the Sheep Gone Astray (18:10–14)

“Take care that you do not disdain one of these little ones. For I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven.* 12 What do you think? If a person has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13 And when it happens that he finds it: Amen I say to you: He rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14 So it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost.” 10

*Verse 11 (“For the Son of Man came to save the lost.”) does not belong to the original text. Matthew here departs from the Markan thread and inserts a parable that probably derives from Q, despite the minimal verbatim agreement with Luke 15:3–7, for the differences can plausibly be explained as different revisions of a common source. Matthew has framed the parable with two verses he has formulated himself, connected to the context by the keyword “little ones.” [10] While vv. 8–9 address individuals, v. 10 shifts back to the whole community of disciples, as signaled by the use of the second-person plural, thus continuing the instruction on behavior toward the “little ones” begun in v. 6. The admonition against treating them with disdain is first based on a reference to the heavenly order, in which the personal angels of the little ones

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

277

have the privileged position of immediate nearness to God. This is a way of saying that God looks upon the little ones as especially valued. Accordingly, the church is not to treat them with disdain. On the positive side, this means taking care of the little ones and going after them when they go astray ethically or even lose their bond to the Christian faith and the church. [12–13] This is what the parable that follows in vv. 12–13 does. Differently from Luke, and probably Q as well, Matthew is not talking about the lost sheep, but about seeking those who have gone astray, while the actual finding in v. 13a appears as something that is merely possible. This perspective is related to the placement of the parable in the community discourse. In 10:6 and 15:24, Matthew speaks of lost sheep in connection with the mission of Jesus and his disciples to Israel (10:6; 15:24). Here, however, the situation addressed concerns people who have joined the community of disciples but later are in danger of turning back (cf. 13:19–22) and thus being lost again (v. 14) if they are not followed and “found” or allow themselves to be “found.” The parable originally thematized the turning of Jesus in loving devotion to the lost, so Matthew presents an adaptation of the parable oriented to inner-church concerns. In the context, it has the function of placing care for the “little ones” in a new perspective, namely as analogous to the care of a shepherd for sheep that have gone astray. Their wandering off is no reason to judge them (cf. Matt 7:1), but can only be the occasion of turning to them with compassion. This impulse put forth by the parable becomes even more clear when one takes into consideration the great significance of the shepherd metaphor that characterizes the work of Jesus in the Gospel as a whole. Jesus is the Messianic Shepherd of Israel who compassionately seeks out the lost sheep (2:6; 9:36; 15:24). Whoever follows him, and thus shares his pastoral ministry in the sense of 10:5– 6, whoever lets their whole life-orientation be determined by him, must consider it self-evident that wavering or straying church members must not be disdained, but be treated with the same compassion that characterizes the works of the Messianic Shepherd. This applies all the more when one reflects on the Old Testament background of Matthew’s adoption of the shepherd metaphor, in which Ezekiel 34 is of prime importance not only in general, but particularly for Matthew 18:12–13. Searching for the sheep (cf. Ezek 34:11–12, 16), concern for strays (cf. Ezek 34:4, 16, as well as Isa 53:6; Jer 27:17 LXX [= 50:17 MT]), and finally, the locating of the ninety-nine sheep “on the mountains” (cf. Ezek 34:13, [14]; also Jer 27:6 LXX [= 50:6 MT]) are all features peculiar to the Matthean version and have a counterpart in Ezekiel 34. The admonition to take care of those who have strayed is thus congruent with the saving act of God promised in Scripture and fulfilled for Christian believers

278

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

by Jesus as the shepherd of his people (Ezek 34:11–22, 23; 37:24), and is thus supported by the authority of Scripture. [14] Accordingly, in v. 14 Matthew explicitly refers to the (saving) will of God: the “little ones” should not be lost (in the Last Judgment). This is why it is necessary to care for them now. As those who follow Jesus, the disciples should prove themselves to be good shepherds who seek those who have gone astray. IV.4.2.2.2.3 The Correction of the Sinner and the Authority of the Congregation (18:15–20)

“If your brother or sister sins, go and reprove him or her when the two of you are alone. If the brother or sister listens to you, you have regained him or her. 16 But if they will not listen to you, take one or two others along with you, so that every such matter may be confirmed by the statement of two or three witnesses. 17 If they refuse to listen to them, tell it to the congregation; and if they refuse to listen even to the congregation, let them be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 “Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, amen I say to you: If two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst.” 15

Matthew 18:15–22 presents a version of Q 17:3– 4 that was already considerably expanded in pre-Matthean tradition. The admonition to rebuke a brother or sister who has sinned, and to forgive them when they repent, has been refined into a three-stage procedure for cases in which the rebuked person does not respond in the desired manner. The evangelist has also added the saying about binding and loosing in v. 18 and a logion about answering prayer in vv. 19–20. The exact understanding of Matthew 18:15–17 is burdened with the difficult textcritical question which can hardly be answered definitively, whether in v. 15a the original reading was “when your brother or sister sins against you” or “when your brother or sister sins.” The reading “against you” does indeed have solid manuscript support but is missing in the especially important manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. For the theory that the words were secondarily deleted, it can be argued that this is due to the influence of Luke 17:3. It is at least as plausible, however, that “against you” in Matthew 18:15 has been introduced here secondarily under the influence of v. 21. The shorter reading makes it easier to understand that in vv. 15–17 the personal reconciliation between the sinner and the one who rebukes him or her plays no role, but, as in v. 14, the salvation of the sinner stands in the foreground. It should also be noted that contextually, the shorter reading without “against you” provides a better fit for joining 18:15–17 with the parable of the sheep gone astray, resulting in a seamless connection

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

279

of 18:12–14 and vv. 15–17, as will be shown below. Not until vv. 21–22 does Matthew, following Q 17:4, apply the theme to wrongdoing that has been personally suffered.

[15–17] The conditional sentence style of vv. 12–13, which goes back to the hand of the evangelist, continues in vv. 15–17. This accords with the content, which in vv. 12–14 was already about behavior toward sinners in the community, so that the case “when your brother or sister sins” is an illustration of the metaphorical language about a sheep that wanders off. Instructions are now given for how to seek the one who has gone astray. The case named in v. 13a, that the sheep is found, corresponds to v. 15b. The eye-catching formulation “and when it happens that he finds it (the sheep)” in v. 13 implies that a positive outcome of the search is by no means to be taken for granted. Then, as v. 14 also envisions the possibility that a sheep that goes astray can be irretrievably lost, so in vv. 16–17 one can see the negative case reflected more closely, that the attempt at correction was in vain. The affinity of the shepherd metaphor with rebuke and correction is well illustrated in Sirach 18:13, where both are combined in a statement about God’s compassion (!): “He rebukes and trains and teaches them, and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock.” In regard to composition, Sirach 18:13 makes clear that the Matthean combination of the parable in vv. 12–14 with the instruction about correction in vv. 15–17 can be understood as a traditional combination of these motifs. [15] Also to be noted is that in the expression “reprove him or her,” Matthew alludes to Leviticus 19:17—and thus to the context of the love commandment, which occurs in the thematic context of dealing with “your neighbor” who is guilty of some misconduct. This connection can be corroborated by the early Jewish reception history of Leviticus 19:17–18, as documented by CD 9.2–8; 1QS 5.24– 6.1 from Qumran, as well as by the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, especially the Testament of Gad. The Qumran texts offer an analogy to the sequence in Matthew 18:16–17. According to 1QS 6.1, a disciplinary matter may not be brought before the plenary assembly until an interview in the presence of witnesses has been conducted (cf. CD 9.3). Even more important than this circumstance is that Testament of Gad 4:2–3 considers the public display of someone’s offense as a disregard of the love command: a hateful person, who does not want to hear God’s command to love the neighbor (v. 2), wants to immediately make the brother’s transgression public (v. 3). Said positively, this means that those who orient their lives by the love command are not interested in publicly exposing the failures of others. Instead, they will privately confront and correct the person concerned. This is precisely what Testament of Gad 6 does, by linking the command to love one another from the heart (v. 3a) to a reflection on one’s conduct toward the transgressor. In the light of

280

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

this intertextual horizon, it becomes clear that the necessary rebuke is to be understood as an expression of love, and that the background of the instruction in v. 15a is that the other person’s transgression is not to be made public immediately, so that he or she is not placed in a bad light in the congregation. Not public exposure, but private conversation, is what should be sought. The discussion of the positive case, when the sinner accepts the rebuke, takes up the soteriological dimension of v. 14: the rebuke serves to win (back) the brother or sister (cf. 1 Cor 9:19–22 and 1 Pet 3:1), so that they are not lost (cf. Jas 5:19–20). [16] If the private conversation does not work out, the next step is an interview in the presence of a limited public of one or two other members of the congregation. Matthew grounds this step with a quotation from Deuteronomy 19:15, of course understood in a sense that seems to be considerably shifted in its Matthean context. It is not apparent that the persons themselves were eyewitnesses of the objectionable deed and accordingly can provide the kind of reliable confirmation of facts necessary before a court (cf., e.g., CD 9.16–23). That the corrective rebuke is justified (and necessary) is not questioned in 18:15a, but the transgressor seems to judge his or her conduct differently from the one making the corrective rebuke. The function of the “witnesses” is therefore to give transgressors insight into their wrongdoing and thus to add weight to the words of the one making the corrective rebuke. [17] It is only if this attempt does not succeed that the matter is to be brought before the congregation. The sinner is no longer in dispute only with individuals, but the whole congregation confronts him or her with what it regards as violation of the will of God. If this attempt also proves to be unsuccessful, the failure of the reproof is confirmed, the transgressor has documented that he or she does not share the church’s understanding of the will of God and thereby expresses their sense of not-belonging. The exclusion from the community implied in v. 17 draws the formal consequence of it. From this point on, he or she shall be “as a Gentile and tax collector,” i.e., be considered an outsider. It is of fundamental importance for understanding the whole discussion to see that the goal of the rebuke is by no means excommunication, but winning back the transgressor. It is precisely this that Matthew’s composition emphasizes by relating the admonition to “seek those who have gone astray” to the provisions for implementation in vv. 15–17 and, conversely, the shepherding care for the sinner as pointing ahead to vv. 15–17. From an ethical point of view, one should hold fast to two aspects of the central statements. First, the transgressor is to be protected by having the initial reproof take place outside the public sphere of the congregation—differently from 1 Timothy 5:20. This is an expression of love. Second, the obligation of a multistaged procedure makes clear that “seeking the strayed” is not to be considered a failure after the first

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

281

effort; it calls for more perseverance and patience. It does not give up until the transgressor disregards even the rebuke of the whole congregation. [18] Appending the logion about binding and loosing confers heavenly validity on decisions of the congregation. While 16:19 speaks of binding and loosing in the sense of authorizing authoritative interpretation of the Torah, in the present context it is about forgiving or retaining sins. The latter case, of course, presupposes a congregational consensus on ethical norms. Independently of the disputed question of whether 16:19 or 18:18 has priority in tradition history, it is therefore to be stated that the sequence of these two logia in the Matthean composition makes sense. The (representative) authority imputed to Peter in 16:19 is the presupposition for 18:18. The connection between these two verses is further underscored by the fact that in both cases, the preceding verse (16:18; 18:17) has the only instances of the word ekklēsia (“church/congregation”) in the Gospel of Matthew. The forgiveness granted in the church is, according to v. 18, not only an interpersonal act on the human level that renews social intercourse, but at the same time means that guilt before God is removed (cf. 9:8). Conversely, from v. 18 it follows that, for the sinner, their lack of insight not only entails social consequences by being excluded from the congregation, but also has soteriological significance. The fact that his or her sin is “bound” by the congregation with heavenly validity does not, however, mean that the decision of the Last Judgment is already pronounced, since later repentance is not excluded in principle. Especially, in the light of vv. 21–35, there can be no doubt that the congregation would then have to receive the sinner back into fellowship. Verse 17b provides no objection to this, for here it is only about instructing church members that they should not continue to pursue the excluded church member after the three-stage procedure has proven fruitless. Verse 17b restricts the attempts at instructive rebuke, but not the readiness to forgive. It would be a new situation if, after all this, the sinner still were to come back on their own. [19] Matthew here has added a logion about prayer, which, taken by itself, would have the hearing of prayer as its theme. In the present context, it is probable that the prayer is for the sinner. This can refer to “seeking those who have gone astray” (vv. 12–14) but also to intercession after the procedures for restoration have failed: even if the reproof was unsuccessful, the disciples can still pray for the sinner. [20] That the disciples can be confident that their prayer is heard is substantiated by the Matthean Jesus when in v. 20 he assures them that he himself is present (cf. 28:20) where two or three are gathered in his name. At the same time, this verse refers to the christological foundation on which the whole discourse is based. Just as the goal of God’s saving will is to ensure that no one is lost (v. 14), so in 1:21 Matthew has centered Jesus’ mission

282

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

programmatically on salvation from sins. While in Matthew this salvation is made real first in the concrete encounter with the earthly Jesus (9:2–8), it is then, and above all, realized by the death of Jesus (26:28). The impending suffering of Jesus is the christological thematic focus in the narrative context of the discourse on church life. To gather in Jesus’ name means in this context the presence of the one whose blood was poured out for the many (26:28) and whose commitment to the sinners obligates those who gather in his name to care for sinners. IV.4.2.2.3 Unlimited Forgiveness, Even for Injustice Suffered Personally (18:21–35)

Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will a brother or sister sin against me and I should I forgive him or her? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say: as many as seven times, but, as many as seventy-seven times. 23 “That is why the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 And as he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But, since he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made. 26 So the slave fell down before him, doing him homage, and said, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And the lord of that slave had compassion on him, released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii, and he seized him by the throat and said, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ 29 Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay (it) to you.’ 30 But he was not willing, but went out and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt. 31 When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they became greatly distressed, and went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. 32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his lord became angry, and handed him over to the torturers until he would pay his entire debt. 35 So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” 21

[21–22] While the positive case of restoring the brother or sister in 18:15b implies the forgiveness of sins (cf. Luke 17:3 [= Q]), and 18:18b is to be referred to the forgiveness of sins, this theme steps into the foreground at v. 21. Matthew resumes following the Q thread he abandoned in 18:15 but reshapes Jesus’

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

283

instruction in Q 17:4 into a dialogue. While it is the disciples who come to Jesus with a question in 18:1, now Peter steps up with a question. He has understood that those who take the rebuke to heart are to be forgiven but now raises the question that has remained open regarding the limit to such forgiveness, sharpening the question to wrongdoing that been personally experienced. It does, in fact, intensify the question of the limitation of forgiveness all the more when one has personally suffered the wrong. When Peter adds to his question, “As many as seven times?” this should be understood as intending a generous offer. But Jesus’ answer goes beyond this, declaring that forgiveness knows no limit. The radicality of the demand is made even more sharp by the allusion to the Song of Lamech in Genesis 4:24 (cf. T. Ben. 7.4): harsh retribution is replaced by boundless forgiveness. [23–27] Jesus’ answer does not, however, stop with his radical demand, but adds a parable about a king who had a slave who could not pay an enormous debt of ten thousand talents on the due date, and responded to the debtor’s plea not by granting an extension of the deadline he had begged, but simply by forgiving the entire debt. The story is introduced as a parable of the kingdom of heaven. It illustrates vividly that the incursion of the kingdom of God opens up the opportunity for a new life precisely for sinners. Since with the sale envisaged in v. 25 one could cover only a fraction of the debt, one can assume in view of the narrative logic that the story originally told of a smaller debt, although still large, that could have been paid by the sale of the slave, his wife, children, and possessions. Matthew then would have drastically increased the amount in order to emphasize the magnitude of God’s mercy to sinners. [28–30] In the second scene, the debtor who has just been pardoned appears himself in the role of the creditor. On the way, he meets a fellow slave who owed him a comparatively minimal amount—one-six-hundred-thousandth the amount he has just been forgiven—and demands immediate repayment. Matthew tells the reaction of the fellow slave in wording closely dependent on v. 26, in order to emphasize the parallelism, except that the homage due the king (= God) is replaced by a mere “begging”; the plea itself, however, agrees verbatim with v. 26. But the slave denies his fellow slave the compassion he himself has just graciously been given. [31–35] It is to be noticed that the narrator has the report of what has happened reach the king through the distressed fellow slaves (v. 31). Behind the characters of the fellow slaves, the members of the congregation are shining through. Their grief shows how church members should react to the refusal of forgiveness among themselves, which violates the congregational ethic. The king now withdraws his forgiveness of the slave’s debt. By his own lack of compassion, which in the address to the slave in v. 32 is called “evil,” a term

284

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

otherwise used only for Jesus’ opponents (12:34, 39; 16:4; 22:18), the slave has forfeited the mercy granted him (cf. Jas 2:13). He is now judged with the same measure he has used in judging others (Matt 7:1b; cf. Luz, Matthew, 2:474) and is handed over to the torturers (v. 34). The accusation in vv. 32–33 pointedly emphasizes the unconditional obligation to pass on the mercy one has received, with overtones of the imitatio Dei (“imitation of God,” v. 33; cf. 5:48), which already resonates in the intertextual allusions of 18:12–14. The whole context is also reminiscent of 6:14–15, where God’s forgiveness is inseparably related to interpersonal forgiveness on the human plane, except that there the interpersonal act precedes divine forgiveness. [21–35] In view of vv. 21–22, one could understand the function of the parable as underscoring Jesus’ radical demand with a massive threat (vv. 34–35). Consistent with their own behavior, those who do not forgive their “brothers and sisters” will at the Last Judgment be held accountable for their own sins, which means they will be condemned. Such an interpretation, however, is insufficient. For understood in context, the distancing language of the parable (it seems to be about someone else) subtly involves Peter in a role change. Peter’s question corresponds to the relation between the slave and his fellow slave in the parable. In and of itself, the parable seems to portray the everyday world in which it is perfectly legitimate for one slave to demand payment from a fellow slave, that is, to insist on his rights. In the parable, however, there is a preceding scene in which the first slave is defined as one who has already been forgiven an enormous debt. His conduct is now seen in a completely different light. It appears grotesque and absurd—and besides, it is a violation of the Golden Rule (7:12): the slave denies his fellow slave what he himself pleaded for. In regard to Peter’s initial question, the parable makes clear that it cannot be adequately discussed in the framework that considers only an isolated incident between the two persons involved. For the parable represents the one who is asked for forgiveness as one who himself lives out of the (incomparably greater) forgiveness of God. That Matthew, differently from v. 1, specifically presents Peter as the one asking the question in v. 21 gives the story a deeper meaning against this background. Of course, also in other contexts Peter functions as spokesperson for the disciples (15:15; 16:16; 17:4; 19:27, but even so, never elsewhere in any of the five major discourses; cf. 13:10, 36: the disciples). Still, it is to be remembered that it is Peter, of all people, who will deny Jesus but after the resurrection is accepted back into the group of disciples, and who is here the symbol of forgiveness as the fundamental principle of what it means to belong to the church. Peter, in fact, corresponds to the slave in the parable, for Peter, too, has been forgiven a great debt. He is thus excellently prepared as the one to ask this question, in order, by

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

285

means of this parable, to communicate the radical demand of unlimited forgiveness as entirely plausible. The aspect of role change in which the parable involves Peter thus fits in well with the ethos of lowliness presented at the beginning of the discourse in vv. 1–4 as the basis for further elaboration: the person asked for forgiveness—even if he is Peter, the rock on which the church is built—cannot look down on the sinner in haughty self-righteousness (cf. 7:1–5), but only as one who remembers that he himself is in need of God’s mercy and thus mindful of his own lowliness. In summary: Matthew 18 presents itself as an integrated discourse thematically well positioned within the narrative. Matthew begins it with the ethos of lowliness, and the rest of the speech then exemplifies this ethos of lowliness. Humility and lowliness are manifest in meeting a child at eye level, in caring for the “little ones” instead of disdaining them, the way a shepherd cares for a strayed sheep. Humility and lowliness manifest themselves in the unlimited readiness to forgive, even when one is personally struck by the deeds of others, because each of us lives from the forgiveness of God. Interpersonal forgiveness is nothing else but the consequence of the experience of forgiveness one has received. The question raised by Peter in v. 21 is to be pondered in the light of God’s forgiveness. IV.4.3 The Radicality of Discipleship and Its Promise (19:1–20:16) IV.4.3.1 Marriage, Divorce, and Celibacy (19:1–12)

And it happened that, when Jesus had finished these words, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And large crowds followed (after) him, and he healed them there. 3 And Pharisees came to him to test him, and said: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason (at all)?” 4 He answered and said, “Have you not read that the Creator ‘made them male and female’ from the very beginning, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,’ 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh? What God has joined together, let no human being separate.” 7 They say to him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He says to them, “It was in view of your hardheartedness that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. But from the beginning it was not so. 9 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife—except for unchastity—and marries another, commits adultery.” 10 His disciples say to him, “When the matter* of a man with his wife so stands, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can handle this saying, but (only) those to whom it is given. 12 For there are 1

286

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by human beings, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can handle it.” *Lit., “the reason” (as in v. 3). [1–2] Following the gathering of the disciples in Galilee (17:22), Jesus makes his way to Jerusalem through Judea. He is still being followed by large crowds (cf. on 4:25). Matthew once again emphasizes Jesus’ compassionate attention to them: despite the great significance of Jesus’ teaching in his Gospel, here he does not have Jesus instruct the crowds (Mark 10:1), but heal them (cf. Matt 14:14 par. Mark 6:34, as well as Matt 4:24; 8:16; 12:15; 15:30). [3] This scene in turn calls on the Pharisees to get Jesus involved in a discussion about divorce. Differently from the Mark version, they do not ask whether divorce as such is permitted, but whether it is permitted for a man to divorce his wife for any reason (at all). There were controversial discussions in ancient Judaism about the legitimate grounds for divorce, as illustrated by m. Giṭtim 9.10: “The House of Shammai say, A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity, since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Dt. 24:1). And the House of Hillel say, Even if she spoiled his dish, since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything. R. Aqiba says, Even if he found someone else prettier than she, since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Dt. 24:1).” The appeal to Deuteronomy 24:1 in Philo (Spec. Laws 3.30, for any reason) and Josephus (Ant. 4.253, for many reasons), reflects the discussion of grounds for divorce and documents that the discussion was widespread in the first century CE. By the insertion of “for any reason (at all),” Matthew places the discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees within the horizon of this halachic debate, but he does this in such a way that the question of the Pharisees [4–6] is attributed to their lack of scriptural knowledge in Jesus’ introduction “Have you not read . . .” (v. 4; cf. 9:13; 12:3, 5, 7; 21:16, 42; 22:31). Jesus pulls the rug out from under all casuistic ramifications in the reflections about legitimate grounds for divorce by referring back to the will of the Creator derived from the combination of Genesis 1:27 and (understood as God’s own word) Genesis 2:24. The creation of humanity as man and woman (Gen 1:27) intends that they become one flesh. Verse 6a clarifies that this unity implies that they can no longer be spoken of as two individuals (“they are no longer two”). The understanding of Genesis 2:24 as divine speech and thus as a direct expression of the divine will is then continued by interpreting the coming together of two people as their being joined by God

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

287

(v. 6b), resulting in an understanding of marriage as a lifelong conjugal relationship. Those who, like the Pharisees, concentrate the discussion of the issue of the legitimate grounds for divorce thus miss the will of God revealed in Scripture. The separation of marriage partners by legally regulated divorce proceedings is accordingly regarded as the unauthorized work of human beings. [7-9] Jesus’ recourse to the will of the Creator (cf. CD 4.20–21) evokes the Pharisees’ counterquestion, why then the Law of Moses legally granted the possibility of divorce by the issuance of a certificate of divorce (Deut 24:1– 4; cf. on Matt 5:31–32). Jesus interprets this option as a permission that takes into consideration the hardheartedness of human beings. But once again, he specifically defines this in contrast to the original will of the Creator (v. 8c). The logion that follows in v. 9, which Matthew—corresponding to the public character of the speech in 5:32—has brought forward from the private instruction given to the disciples (cf. Mark 10:10–12) in the dispute with the Pharisees goes one step further and draws out the consequences of the view of marriage set out above. Divorce makes possible a new marriage; but whoever remarries after a divorce commits adultery. It is here presupposed that a divorce authorized by human beings (v. 6b) cannot nullify a divinely established marriage; therefore, marrying another woman violates the first marriage. However, by adding the unchastity clause to the initial prohibition, Matthew adds—as already in 5:32—an exception to the strict prohibition of divorce, which at the same time also gives still another answer to the Pharisees’ initial question: only unchastity (of the woman) is a legitimate ground for divorce. At the same time, this means that in this case a new marriage is not adulterous, since the marriage has already been violated by unfaithfulness (of the woman). The converse view, according to which remarriage also means adultery in the case of a divorce caused by infidelity (of the woman), and is thus prohibited, disregards the fact that because of the inclusion of the unchastity clause, the logion of v. 9 speaks only of divorce on other grounds. If one compares the dialogue in Matthew with its Markan source, here too is manifest the effort to avoid the impression that Jesus directly opposes a commandment of the Torah. The Markan Jesus asks the Pharisees, “What did Moses command you?” (Mark 10:3)—“you” here clearly signals distance. Jesus then counters the reference to the permission of divorce (10:4) with the appeal to Genesis 1–2 (10:5–9). Here, one Torah passage from the creation story is cited against another passage in the Torah. By bringing forward Jesus’ appeal to the creation story, Matthew avoids having Jesus directly contrast the will of the Creator with the reference to Deuteronomy 24:1– 4. Rather, it is Jesus who is the first to appeal to a passage from the Torah to expound the will of God. Moreover, in vv. 7–8 Matthew has reversed the order of the verbs “command” and “allow” from that in Mark 10:3–4. In Matthew, the Pharisees speak

288

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

of Moses having commanded the issuance of a certificate of divorce (19:7), while Jesus interprets this as a permission (v. 8). So also, Matthew’s addition of the unchastity clause allows there to be a case in which the option provided for in Deuteronomy 24 may be applied.

[10–12] By his integration of the logion about divorce (v. 9) into the dispute with the Pharisees, Matthew has made room for a reformulation of his instruction to the disciples. They take offense at the position Jesus advocates. The wording of their objection clearly refers back to v. 3. By “the matter (lit., ‘the reason’) of a man with his wife,” the point is that the option of divorce (and thus of remarriage) is open only in the case of the wife’s infidelity. If, then, in all other cases a marriage cannot be dissolved, it is not good to marry. Verse 10 also confirms the above interpretation of v. 9, for the reference back to v. 3 shows that the disciples take offense at Jesus’ strict limitation of divorce to grounds of unchastity (of the wife), but not on an assumed general prohibition of remarriage. In Jesus’ reply in vv. 11–12, it is disputed whether the reference to “this saying” refers back to v. (3–)9, to the disciples’ speech in v. 10, or to the logion in v. 12. The latter option is supported by the fact that a variant form of v. 11 is taken up at the end of v. 12, producing an inclusion. The phrase “to whom it is given” is reminiscent of 13:11 and thus already suggests the theme of the kingdom of God, which is then explicated in v. 12. The basis of the argument is no longer the creation, but the kingdom of God. The first two groups of eunuchs (who, according to Deut 23:2, have no access to the “assembly of the L”) only serve to emphasize the distinctiveness of the third group. “Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” is to be understood metaphorically, meaning the renunciation of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The logion may originally have been a response of Jesus to the contemptuous description of Jesus and his disciples as “eunuchs,” with which his contemporaries mocked the wandering existence of Jesus and his group. In the Matthean context, the saying turns the renunciation of marriage, which the disciples may have regarded as the lesser evil almost with an attitude of resignation, into a positive. In view of the imminent breaking in of the kingdom of heaven, which is to be sought with all one’s strength (cf. 6:33), Jesus honors the renunciation of marriage as a possible option. However, we do not find here a command or even a general recommendation of celibacy (cf. 1 Cor 7:7). The radicality of the prohibition of divorce and remarriage does not lag behind the absolute demands of the fundamental command to love one’s enemy and renunciation of retaliation. Nonetheless, responsible ethical reflection must take into consideration the realities of the human condition—expressed in v. 8: human hardheartedness—and, in view of this, in each case seek the best possible way. In such decisions, the teachings of Jesus can serve as important orientation points or ideal goals, but they can also

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

289

degenerate into the letter that kills, if understood as absolute law, when (by ecclesiastical authorities) it is required that even a failed marriage must be continued. If love and mercy are seen in the Matthean ethic as the hermeneutical center of the interpretation of the will of God, then for the sake of compassion a failed marriage is to be dissolved, instead of insisting that two people remain imprisoned in it. With the insertion of the unchastity clause, Matthew himself has already taken the path that there can be exceptions to the strict prohibition of divorce (Paul knows another exception: he considers the possibility of divorce in mixed marriages [between a Christian believer and a nonbeliever]; cf. 1 Cor 7:12–16), and then a new marriage is possible. IV.4.3.2 The Reception of Children (19:13–15)

Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. But the disciples spoke sternly to them. 14 Jesus, however, said: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.” 15 And after he had laid his hands on them, he went away from there. 13

[13] Following the Markan order, the theme of marriage is followed by Jesus’ gracious acceptance of children (cf. Mark 10:13–16). The Greek word Matthew chooses (paidion) means more specifically small children (in the division of the stages of life by Hippocrates, cited by Philo, Creation 105, this stage extends to age seven). This fits in with the statement that they were “brought.” In place of the unspecified purpose in Mark, “in order that he might touch them” (Matthew uses the verb “touch”—with the exception of 17:7—only in the context of Jesus’ acts of healing; see 8:3, 15; 9:20–21, 29; 14:36; 20:34), Matthew, in accordance with the concluding element of the framework for the narrative unit in v. 15, has a request that Jesus lay his hands on the children and pray (cf. 1QGenAp 20.28–29; Acts 6:6; 13:3). What is meant by this request (by the parents?) is blessing (for their children). [14] The parrying attitude of the disciples, apparently unimpressed by 18:2–5 and wishing to spare Jesus the nuisance of dealing with the children, gives him the opportunity of establishing the welcoming of children (cf. the addition of “women and children” in 14:21; 15:38; as well as the “minors” in 21:15). In the course of his revision of the Markan picture of the disciples (cf. on Matt 14:33), Matthew has deleted Mark’s reference to Jesus’ displeasure with the disciples. Jesus’ reply not only grants the kingdom of heaven to children, but speaks in a generalizing manner that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. The openness of the statement fits in with the function of the child in Matthew 18:1– 4 as a role model, where the child embodies the lowliness that is also to be expected from the followers of Jesus. The kingdom of heaven belongs also to those who become lowly as a child (cf. Matt 5:3, 10). Matthew here passes over the logion of

290

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

Mark 10:15, since he has already integrated a variation of the saying in 18:3. [15] Verse 15 only briefly describes the granting of what has been requested. Matthew has likewise omitted Mark’s speaking of Jesus’ hugging the children. Jesus’ action is concentrated on the act of laying on of hands, and thus on what is theologically central. The transmission and reception of this text probably sheds light on the presence of children in the (worship) assemblies: if the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, then they obviously have a place in the community. One can only assume that in the Matthean congregations there was a ritual of blessing the children reflected in this text. On the other hand, it can be said with certainty that the pericope contains no indication of the practice of baptizing small children and does not want to say anything about this question; there is no evidence for this practice in the entire first century CE. IV.4.3.3 Riches on Earth or Treasures in Heaven (19:16–26)

And behold, someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “These: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; 19 honor your father and mother’; and, ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” 20 The young man said to him, “I have kept all these; what do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give (them) to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you: It will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard (this), they were greatly astounded and said, “Then who can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked (at them) and said to them, “For human beings it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.” 16

The passage is divided into an encounter between Jesus and a rich young man (vv. 16–22) and an attached dialogue between Jesus and the disciples on whether and how rich people can be saved (vv. 23–26). Matthew continues to follow the Markan narrative thread but consistently reworks the pericope in order to change the coordination of following the commandments (vv. 18–19) and following Jesus (v. 21).

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

291

[16–17] An inquirer, unidentified at first, comes up to Jesus with the question of what he must do to obtain eternal life. When he alters the adjective in the Markan address to Jesus (“good teacher,” Mark 10:17), drawing it into the question of what to do, Matthew’s initial redactional change at first seems marginal. This becomes clear, however, in his reformulation of Jesus’ answer. Instead of having Jesus humbly reject being addressed as “good,” by referring to the unique goodness of God (Mark 10:18), Jesus raises a criticism against the question itself: “Why do you ask me about what is good?” This counterquestion insinuates that the answer should be self-evident. Within the framework of Old Testament–Jewish convictions, the answer is indeed obvious, and Jesus’ reply presents exactly what is to be expected from a pious Jew, in the light of Scripture texts such as Leviticus 18:5 or Deuteronomy 30:15–20: the way to eternal life is by following the commandments. The unique goodness of the one God (Mark 10:18), which in Matthew’s redaction is referred much more clearly to the question of what (good) is to be done, presents the theological basis: what is good is determined by the One who is good, by the one God, who has revealed his will in the gift of the commandments (cf. Mic 6:8). [18–19] “Keep the commandments” is already a sufficient answer to the initial question of v. 16. The discussion could end here, but Jesus’ dialogue partner is not content with this general response. His next question, “Which?” implies that there could be commandments that, from a soteriological point of view, are not compulsory. According to 5:19, this is also the position of the evangelist (cf. Did. 6.2–3). Jesus does not answer by saying “all,” but cites five commandments from the Decalogue that deal with interpersonal relationships (Exod 20:12–16; Deut 5:16–20), as well as the love command from Leviticus 19:18. The latter is a Matthean addition, while the non-Decalogue commandment “do not defraud” of Mark 10:19 is deleted. The transformation of the previous dialogue makes Matthew’s meaning clear: following them is the criterion for entering into eternal life. Since in 22:40 Matthew specifically identifies the double commandment of love as the sum of the Law and Prophets, this suggests that the love commandment in 19:19 is not to be understood merely as coordinated with the other commandments, but as superior to them. Except for the commandment to honor one’s parents, the Decalogue commandments are all prohibitions. If they are to be understood in the light of the love command, their meaning is not merely to prohibit misconduct, as has already become apparent in the prohibition of murder in 5:21–26. In any case, it has already become clear for Matthew’s readers from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus’ understands the quoted commandments radically and comprehensively. [20] On the other hand, the self-confident answer of the inquirer, now described as a young man, “I have kept all these,” indicates a superficial, literal

292

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

understanding of the commandments, like that with which the Pharisees were charged in the Sermon on the Mount (5:20– 48). This is underscored as the conversation proceeds. Matthew has transformed the statement of the Markan Jesus, “You lack one thing” (Mark 10:21), into a question of the rich man, which he asks out of confidence in his fulfilling the commandments: “What do I still lack?” The hurdle Jesus has set before him seems low, which of course results from his inadequate grasp of the ethical demands bound up with the commandments. [21] It corresponds to this that Jesus’ instruction in v. 21, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give (them) to the poor,” in the narrative flow of this story should not be understood as a demand that goes beyond the commandments already named, for Jesus does not acknowledge the departure of the rich man in response to this command (v. 22) by saying that he will now be denied only a particularly nice place in heaven, but that it is still about the fundamental question of entrance into the kingdom of heaven (vv. 23–25). On the basis of the criterion clearly formulated in v. 17, it is therefore to be inferred that the rich man, contrary to his claim in v. 20, has not in fact kept the commandments—at least, not in the concrete case of the command Jesus gave him in v. 21. It is only now, from this perspective, that the real meaning of the addition of the commandment to love the neighbor becomes clear. Matthew does not intend that the command of Jesus from Mark 10:21 appears as an additional requirement which exceeds the Old Testament commandments. Rather, he understands the command in v. 21 as Jesus’ unfolding of the will of God, as it is expressed in the Torah. This would not have worked, however, with only the Decalogue commands cited by Mark. But, by adding the love command, the requirement of renouncing his possessions for the good of poor people can now be understood as the explication of what it means for the rich man in his concrete situation to fulfill perfectly the Torah in the sense of the love commandment. This fits in with the fact that the theme of perfection in the only other Matthean reference (5:48; also redactional) is bound up with his interpretation of the love command (5:43– 47). So also, the reference back to the better righteousness demanded of the disciples (5:20) makes its soteriological relevance clear. For Matthew, perfection is based on the perfect fulfillment of the Torah, in Jesus’ interpretation hermeneutically centered in the love command, and it is the precondition for “entering the kingdom of heaven” (5:20; cf. 19:23–24). At the same time, it follows from this that keeping the commandments (v. 17), understood as interpreted by Jesus, is regarded by Matthew as an integral element of the discipleship into which Jesus calls the young man. Thus in Matthew, the pericope presents a further illustration that Jesus has not come to destroy the Torah and Prophets, but to fulfill them (5:17), and it also shows what fulfillment of the Torah concretely

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

293

means. Finally, it needs to be stated that Matthew knows nothing of a two-class system of Jesus’ disciples that distinguishes a group of “perfect” from the other disciples. The demand for perfection (5:48) is directed to all. While, alongside the radical interpretation of the love command in the Sermon the Mount, Matthew presents the no less radical interpretation that the perfect fulfillment of the command includes the readiness to devote one’s possessions to helping the poor, it should not be concluded from 19:21 that for Matthew the love command generally includes the command to totally renounce one’s possessions. The situation of the church is not identical with that of the rich young man, since, after the death and resurrection of Jesus, discipleship no longer has the form of traveling around with Jesus. On the other hand, this situational difference does not make this text irrelevant for the Matthean church. Otherwise, Matthew would not have taken up this text and adapted it to his conception of the Torah. Rather, the text points to a community which has intensive care for the poor on the basis of the love commandment written into its family register. The broader context of such a rule of life is the expectation of the imminent advent of the kingdom of God, which will bring with it a reversal of all values. Since one cannot serve two masters at the same time, God and Mammon (6:24), anyone who becomes a disciple of Jesus must above all things strive for the kingdom of God and his righteousness (6:33).

[22] The young man still so confident in his fulfillment of the commandments now goes sorrowfully away. He clings to his property, and even the promise of treasure in heaven cannot tear him away from his earthly possessions. The narrative thus becomes something of a contrast story to 4:18–22. In keeping with this, in v. 27 Peter will point out that they, the disciples, have left everything (cf. 4:20, 22). [23–24] Analogously to 19:3–12, so also here, an encounter with (an) outsider(s) is followed by a private conversation with the disciples (vv. 23–26). With the image of the camel going through a needle’s eye that threatens to drift into the absurd, Jesus emphasizes that wealth is a first-rate stumbling block on the way to salvation. Verse 24 then brings v. 23 to its climax: for a rich person, it is not only difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven, it is impossible in principle. Matthew has deleted the generalizing statement placed in Jesus’ mouth in Mark 10:24; this text is concerned specifically with a soteriological perspective on the rich. [25] First, the disciples further summarize the problem: although the disciples are not among the rich (cf. v. 27), they are shocked, for if the condition “keep the commandments” (v. 17) is generally as strict as is illustrated by the explanation to the rich young man in v. 21, and as represented in the prohibition of adultery cited in v. 18 by the prohibition of divorce and remarriage (vv. 3–9), then the question emerges of whether anyone at all can fulfill this criterion. As already in v. 10, the radicality of Jesus’ position

294

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

gives them problems. On the other hand, the reason for their fright is hardly that—despite 6:19–24 and the critical statements about unlawfully acquired or unjustly distributed possessions in the prophetic-apocalyptic tradition (cf. e.g., Isa 5:8–10; Amos 5:6–12; 8:4–7; Mic 2:1–5; 1 En. 97:7–10)—they evaluate wealth as an expression of blessing (Gen 24:35; 26:12–14; Ps 112:3; contra 1 En. 96:4) and thus conclude from vv. 23–24 that the soteriological perspectives in general must be gloomy if even those allegedly blessed by God will not enter the kingdom of heaven. [26] Verse 26 does not skip back over v. 25 to v. 24, and thus does not offer a chance for salvation to the rich, who, considered on their own merits, are a hopeless case. Rather, it responds to v. 25, operating on the same fundamental level advocated by the disciples: if on the basis of Jesus’ answer in v. 17 the entrance criteria for the kingdom of heaven are, on the whole, oriented entirely and exclusively on the perfect fulfillment of the will of God understood in this radical sense, then it in fact appears to be impossible for any human being to be saved. The second part of the sentence, “but for God all things are possible” (cf. Gen 18:14; Jer 32:17, 27), balances this radical demand by bringing in the factor of God’s grace and compassion. This has already been specifically spoken of in Matthew 18: God is one who forgives even enormous debts. This is what makes it possible for human beings to be saved. So also, the following parable of the workers in the vineyard adds a contrasting accent to the disciples’ fear by bringing into play the goodness of God (20:15). The relationship between demand and mercy is not further systematized here. IV.4.3.4 The Promise of Salvation for the Disciples and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (19:27–20:16)

Then Peter answered and said to him, “Look, we have left everything and followed you. So what about us?” 28 And Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you: You who have followed me, at the renewal (of all things), when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, will also be seated on twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first. 20:1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landlord who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 But when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And as he went out about the third hour, he saw others standing around idle in the market 4 and he said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard; and whatever is just, I will pay you.’ 5 So they went. When he went out again about the sixth and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went 19:27

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

295

out and found others standing, and says to them: ‘Why are you standing around here idle all day?’ 7 They say to him: ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He says to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard.’ 8 But when it had become evening, the lord of the vineyard says to his manager, ‘Call the workers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.’ 9 When those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 And when the first came, they supposed they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And when they received it, they grumbled against the landlord, 12 and said, ‘These last worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have endured the burden of the day and the heat.’ 13 But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go; but I want to give to this last as I give to you. 15 Or am I not allowed to do what I want with what belongs to me? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first last.” The exchange of words about the possibilities of salvation for the rich (vv. 23–26) is followed—as in Mark 10:23–27, 28–31—by a further discussion that deals with the eschatological future of the twelve disciples (vv. 27–30). Jesus’ answer to Peter’s question about how they would fare passes seamlessly into the narrative from Matthew’s special material of 20:1–16, with no new introduction to the speech that includes the parable of the workers in the vineyard, so that it is advisable to treat 19:27–30 and 20:1–16 together. This seems all the more validated by the reappearance of the logion about the first and last in 20:16, which with 19:30 forms a frame for the parable. [27] As Jesus’ reply in 19:26 broke open the general soteriological skepticism expressed in the disciples’ dismay at the strictness of the demand (v. 25), Peter now specifically refers to the challenge of v. 21 and points out that, in contrast to the young man, they have left everything and followed Jesus. The Matthean addition to his source (Mark 10:28) allows Peter, as spokesperson for the disciples, to ask specifically about their future. [28] By the insertion of the logion in v. 28 probably taken from Q (cf. Luke 22:30), in Matthew Jesus’ response is preceded by a promise, which, in view of the saying about the twelve thrones, can hardly be read otherwise than referring strictly to the circle of the Twelve (later reduced by Judas’ departure). The reference in 19:28 is compositionally the first allusion to the Twelve since they were first mentioned in 10:1– 4, which suggests a connection between the two texts. It corresponds to the specific role of the Twelve as partners in the earthly mission of Jesus exclusively to Israel (10:6; 15:24), that in the “renewal (of all things),” which probably means the new creation of the world (cf. Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1), they

296

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

will have a prominent role in the eschatological life of the twelve-tribe people of God. “Judge” is not to be understood one-sidedly in the sense of “condemn.” Elsewhere, courtroom imagery, in which there is a double outcome, appears as Matthew’s typical notion of the final judgment (cf. 25:31– 46). For 19:28 it is thus obvious that the outcome of the judgment is open. [29] Following Mark 10:29–30, this verse opens the promise for all who have left earthly possessions and relationships for Jesus’ sake, but Matthew has deleted the motif of this-worldly compensation (Mark 10:30), which thinks especially in terms of the ecclesiastical familia Dei, and thus has concentrated the promise on the reception of eternal life (cf. v. 16). The prominent position of the Twelve (v. 28) could serve as the point of contact for developing the whole concept of eschatological reward in a differentiated manner (cf. 5:19). But Matthew does not take up this line of thought. Rather, v. 29 says that all, without differentiation, will receive a hundredfold and eternal life. The following parable of the workers in the vineyard even counteracts any suggestion of differentiation. The common denominator of vv. 28 and 29 consists in the fact that the coming salvation will “compensate” the disciples abundantly for all they have suffered on earth. This is where the emphasis lies. Verse 28 expresses this graphically, in view of the special role of the Twelve in their relation to Israel (cf. on 10:1– 6); v. 29 generalizes this dimension. [30] The logion about the first and the last in v. 30 does not refer in this context to the contrast between the rich as the “first” according to worldly standards and the poor disciples as the “last.” This is already indicated by the double use of the saying as the framework for the parable of the workers in the vineyard. Rather, the saying, like the parable itself, has an inner-church application, directed as a warning to the disciples. Many of those in the church who imagine themselves as having a prominent position will be the last, but the last will be the first. [20:1–15] The following parable functions in this context as an explanation of this pronouncement: just as it is pictured in this parable, it will be—or at least it can turn out this way—that the first will be the last and the last will be the first. The question of how people will fare at the eschaton, raised by the rich young man in 19:16 and by Peter in 19:27, provides the thematic signal for the meaning of the parable in the Matthean context. [1] The parable tells of a rather extraordinary event, although the opening runs at first on familiar tracks. Early in the morning, i.e., about 6:00 a.m., the owner of a vineyard goes to the market in order to hire workers for his vineyard. In times when extra help was needed, namely, during the summer grape harvest and pruning the vines in winter, there was nothing unusual in a vineyard culture about hiring day laborers. However, when the vineyard owner goes

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

297

not merely once, but four more times in the course of the same day, it becomes more and more clear that the story has been shaped by the message it wants to communicate. [2] A specific agreement about wages is made only with the first group. The agreed-upon denarius is the usual, if not even a good, daily wage, which secures the necessities of life. [3–5] The second group no longer has a specific agreement, but the owner of the vineyard only says he will give them what is just (v. 4). When in the third and fourth group, in the interest of narrative economy it is only mentioned that the vineyard owner dealt with them in the same way, this is to be read in the same sense as v. 4: they, too, will receive what is just (v. 4). But what is “ just”? According to the prevalent understanding of fairness, wages must be paid according to the number of hours one has worked. The narrative itself works along the same lines, inasmuch as it gives the precise number of hours each laborer worked, initially marked by three-hour periods, and designates how long each laborer worked. Hearers or readers can thus calculate this for themselves. When those who worked the full twelve-hour shift receive one denarius, then those who worked nine hours should receive three-quarters of this, and so on. [6–7] At the end, this pattern of threes is broken. The vineyard owner even goes to the market at the eleventh hour. It is hardly even worth the effort now. The day laborers of the last group work only a single hour. The parable increasingly takes on alienating features distant from the real world. That this last group is nonetheless more significant for the rest of the story than the preceding two groups can already be seen in the brief dialogue in vv. 6–7, which characterizes those still there—not particularly flattering—as the “leftovers” that no one else wanted. Differently from the preceding groups, no pay is even mentioned here, but merely a terse offer: you too, get yourselves into the vineyard. [8] It was standard practice to pay wages the same day (cf. Lev 19:13; Deut 24:14–15), but the way the wages are disbursed is extraordinary. It is necessary for the story that the manager begins with the last, in order that those who worked longer, here called the “first,” can see what the others received. The manager plays no further role, but functions in the narrative only to present the way the wages are paid. The second, third, and fourth groups also disappear from view. The narrative is focused on the first and the last, in the sense of the key words in the sayings that frame the story in 19:30 and 20:16. [9–12] The surprise comes when those who have worked only a short time receive the full day’s pay as was agreed for the first group. The first now expect that they will receive more. Their calculation corresponds to the expectation that has been generated in the listeners by the set times given for how long each group worked. But their calculations are disappointed—they, too, receive the one denarius as specified. At the same time, hereby the hearers’ logic of distributive justice

298

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

has been upset and directed toward a different understanding of justice. For since the workers in the second, third, and fourth groups also receive the same wages, in the light of v. 4 this is the pay the owner of the vineyard regards as “ just.” The justice of the vineyard owner is based on the reality that everyone receives what is necessary for life; it does not stand in tension with mercy, but is conceptually determined by it. At the same time, it must be held fast that those who worked longer also receive a fair wage as well: they receive adequate pay for their work. For the others, the evaluation of the work they have done is increasingly mixed with goodness and compassion. Those who have worked longer do not want to accept this, since they see their higher achievement not properly acknowledged and begin to grumble at what they consider unjust equal treatment. Taking the preceding context into consideration, the reference to enduring the long day and its heat sounds like an echo of Peter’s words that they, the disciples, have left everything (19:27). [13–15] The rather extensive response of the vineyard owner, addressed personally to one of the first group, does not question their achievement or the wages received for service rendered, but centers on their resentment of the others. The address “friend” lacks warmth in this context, but is distancing, seen in the other examples in 22:12 and 26:50. In the first part of his answer (vv. 13–14a), the vineyard owner speaks of how he dealt with the worker who labored all day— the owner has done the worker no wrong, since the worker has received exactly the amount agreed upon. The second part (vv. 14b–15) takes up his dealing with those who worked only part of the day. Again, a rhetorical question is the transitional element, functioning as the reason for the statement made in the first link. The vineyard owner has fulfilled the claim of agreement made by those who worked the whole day and apart from that can deal with his property according to his own will, so that he can give the last as much as the first. Those who worked all day have no right to challenge the freedom of the owner of the vineyard. While the first part of v. 14a concludes with a command (“take what is yours and go”), the second part ends with another question, which hangs in space unanswered and gains force as the closing point of the speech. Those who worked all day must ask themselves whether their eyes are bad (cf. 6:23) that are offended by the goodness of the owner of the vineyard. The evil eye refers to those who look with resentment on those who have received grace—instead of rejoicing with them that they, too, can make a living. Here the parable abruptly ends. The situation is like that in the parable of the merciful father in Luke 15:11–32, which ends with the words of the father to the elder son, who should rejoice at the return of his brother, but without picturing his actual response. So also, the problem of the elder son in Luke 15 is like that of those who worked all day in Matthew 20. It is hardly

IV.4 The Life and Actions of the Disciples in the Light of the Kingdom of God

299

enough simply to say that they stub their toe at the goodness of God. Their problem is that others—the unworthy younger brother and those who worked only briefly—receive God’s goodness in a way that they perceive as disrespecting their own status. Like the father in Luke 15, the owner of the vineyard in Matthew 20 represents God. In the context, the words “because I am good” thus recall the explicit designation of God as “the One who is good” in 19:17. As God, through the gift of his (good) commandments shows the way to (eternal) life, in exactly the same way it is inherent in his goodness to accept those who begin late to follow this path. In the light of Peter’s question in 19:27, the distribution of wages at the end of the day is transparent for receiving salvation in the Last Judgment. The denarius, the payment necessary for life, corresponds to the reception of eternal life (cf. 19:16). Thus, when someone became a disciple or joined the church plays no role. Those called early and those called late are treated alike; what matters is that they have responded to the call to work in the vineyard. It is reassuring to those who are called later, who could be understood in the evangelist’s time as referring primarily to Gentiles, without limiting the parable to the relation of Jews and Gentiles. Those who have worked a long time should rejoice with the latecomers, and—apart from the twelve thrones (19:28)—should not assume that there are any special places in the kingdom of heaven. To be sure, the parable is not concerned only with eschatological rewards and status, for it is to be understood as having consequences for the internal life of the church among Jesus’ followers, as illustrated by the discourse in chapter 18 evoked by the disciples’ question about the greatest in in the kingdom. The eschatological equal treatment of all by the owner of the vineyard at the same time undermines the current claims to positions of special status in the congregations, by which the parable receives a critical thrust that is eminently inner-church. This clearly converges with a tendency found elsewhere in Matthew (see esp. 23:8–12). [16] The concluding saying, that many first become last and last, first, appears at first glance not to fit in very well with the message of the parable, since the parable is not about reversing relationships, but that all receive the same. A closer and deeper look, however, reveals that framing the parable with the same saying in 19:30 and 20:16 was well thought through. The saying by no means focuses on the order in which the wages were paid. What is more important is that the last become first in the sense that the last (also) receive the wages promised to the first, grounded in the goodness of God. But how do the first become last? The answer may be found in the criticism that echoes in v. 15b of those who worked a long time, as well as in the reference to the grumbling, which evokes associations for biblically literate hearers of the conduct of the

300

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

wilderness generation (see, e.g., Exod 15:24; 16:2; 17:3; Num 14:2; Deut 1:27; Ps 106:25), who were not permitted to enter the promised land. The first could in fact become the last, because they marginalize themselves by their muttering, resentment, and lack of solidarity with the other “workers”—much like the elder son in Luke 15 excluded himself from the party. (In this respect, the narrative course of the parable is slightly mixed up, though, as the wages have already been paid.) For those in the church who set themselves above others in terms of their “achievements,” the parable includes a threat that, in terms of text-pragmatics functions as a warning. The parable is intended to prevent the “firsts” from becoming the “lasts” by their lack of solidarity with others. Matthew 20:1–16 is not aimed at reforming the basic rules of this-worldly just wages. On the contrary, its peculiarities in this respect reveal that God’s dealing with human beings, in particular his eschatological judicial action, cannot be adequately grasped by merely applying the this-worldly principles of how wages are paid. Such an application would ignore and resent the incalculable goodness of God. At the same time, the parable gives no impulse to rely passively on God’s goodness, especially because its point consists precisely in speaking of the goodness of God toward others. On the contrary, its intention is to guide people to rejoice with those who have been paid with mercy and compassion: the mark of the community of disciples is to be that they are brothers and sisters (cf. 23:8). It is usually assumed that the parable of the workers in the vineyard goes back to Jesus. One can only speculate about what he intended as its main thrust. Perhaps it addresses the sullen discomfort of the pious that Jesus turns graciously to sinners—these latecomers, so to speak—and accepts them into his service. It is also possible, however, that the parable responds to differentiations within the Jesus movement, perhaps between those disciples who traveled around with Jesus and those supporters who remained settled. In the first case, Matthew would have dealt with the parable in much the same way as with the parable of the lost sheep (Matt 18:12–14 par. Luke 15:3–7): a parable that originally dealt with Jesus’ merciful turn to sinners was applied ecclesiologically.

IV.5 The Third Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection, the Question of the Sons of Zebedee, and Instruction about Being Great and Service (20:17–28) And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and said to them on the way: 18 “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the high priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death; 19 then they will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified; and on the third day he will be raised.” 17

IV.5 The Third Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection

301

Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, prostrated herself before him, and wanted to ask a favor of him. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She says to him, “Declare that these two sons of mine in your kingdom will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left.” 22 But Jesus answered and said, “You [pl.] do not know what you [pl.] are asking. Are you [pl.] able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They say to him, “We are able.” 23 He says to them, “You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is no business of mine, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 When the ten heard it, they became indignant with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise their power over them. 26 It is not to be so among you; but whoever wants to be great among you is to be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man has not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” 20

With the notice that Jesus was on his way up to Jerusalem that picks up the itinerary in 19:1, the text block 16:21–20:34, which prepares for the passion story, heads toward its end. The third prediction of Jesus’ passion and resurrection is followed by a conversation between Jesus and the mother of the sons of Zebedee and the two brothers themselves (vv. 20–23), which—analogous to 16:21–28 (cf. the introduction to 16:21–20:34)—in turn is followed by instructing the disciples (vv. 24–28). [17] Compared to his source in Mark 10:32–34, Matthew has tightened up the introductory stage setting for Jesus’ speech. In addition to the itinerary notice mentioned above, the only item of importance for him is that Jesus took the Twelve aside, in order to make clear that the announcement of Jesus’ passion and resurrection is only made to the disciples, as in 16:21 and 17:22–23. This implies that there is still a larger crowd in Jesus’ retinue (cf. 19:2; as well as 20:29; 21:8–9). [18–19] As the place of Jesus’ passion gets closer, the prediction becomes more detailed. In 16:21, Jesus only said in summary that he must suffer much, just as 17:22 speaks summarily of the delivery of the Son of Man into human hands. Now the details follow: after his being handed over (by Judas) to the high priests and scribes (26:47–57), he will be condemned by them to death (26:59– 66), and then be handed over to the Gentiles (27:1–2). While Matthew has followed Mark verbatim to this point (Mark 10:33), he has altered the Markan syntax of the rest of the prediction, thereby changing its meaning significantly. Matthew has changed the paratactic arrangement of Mark 10:34,

302

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

in which the Gentiles are the subject of the verb “mock” (Matt 27:27–31), “spit on” (omitted by Matthew), “scourge” (Matt 27:26), and “kill” (changed by Matthew to the more explicit “crucify”), into a subordinate purpose clause dependent on “hand over,” thereby naming the intention of the high priests and scribes in delivering Jesus to the Gentiles. Matthew thus places the emphasis squarely on the high priests and scribes as the driving force in the action against Jesus, and thereby as the ones responsible for his execution (27:32–50). The way his conviction is described in 27:11–26 will bring this into sharp profile. The replacement of “kill” (Mark 10:34) with “crucify” can be related to the first explicit reference to the Gentiles in the passion predictions: the reference to the Gentiles brings with it crucifixion as the Roman mode of execution. [20–21] Just as, following the second passion prediction (17:22–23), the disciples approach Jesus with a question about who will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven (18:1), so in a very similar way in vv. 20–21 Jesus is confronted with a plea in which this striving after greatness can again be recognized. Differently from Mark 10:35–37, the petition does not come from the two sons of Zebedee themselves, but from their mother (cf. 27:56). This hardly serves to excuse the disciples, for they are with their mother when she approaches Jesus, and in Jesus’ response in v. 22 the disciples appear as those who (actually) made the request (“. . . what you [plural in Greek] ask”). The approach to Jesus is clearly more respectful than in the Markan story, where the brothers turn to Jesus in an almost demanding tone: “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you” (Mark 10:35). In Matthew, however, the mother prostrates herself before Jesus—and at first remains silent. Jesus’ question, “What do you want?” in the context of the worshipful attitude of the woman has an almost royal resonance and is thus set in a clearly different context from its Markan counterpart (Mark 10:36). In addition to the royal coloration with which Matthew has bolstered the introductory scene in vv. 20–21, he finally adds that the petition for places of honor at Jesus’ right and left hand is supplemented not by “in your glory,” as in Mark 10:37, but by “in your kingdom” (v. 21). This reformulated request is embedded in contextual references specific to Matthew in two ways. First, “in your kingdom” is connected to the concept of the “kingdom of the Son of Man” already found in 13:41 and 16:28. According to 13:41, the world is the dominion of the Son of Man until the time of the Last Judgment, and in 16:28 Jesus promised the disciples that some of them would see the Son of Man coming “in his kingdom.” In the second place, the expression “to be seated at the right hand and the left” evokes, in the Matthean context, the promise of 19:28 that “at the renewal [of all things], when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, they will also be seated on twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes

IV.5 The Third Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection

303

of Israel.” Read against this background, the petition of the two sons of Zebedee is about the places of honor in this group. In the third place, by these named contextual references, the situational connections with Matthew 20:17–18a, which Matthew takes over from Mark 10, are presented in a new way: Now that Jesus is going up to Jerusalem with his disciples, the sons of Zebedee evidently conclude that the establishment of the messianic rule of the Son of Man is imminent. It is thus the right time to present their concerns. It is not at all necessary to assume that the disciples are ignoring Jesus’ instruction in 20:18b–19 and harbor the expectation that Jesus will now immediately ascend the throne of David in Jerusalem as royal Messiah. On the contrary! This time, however, their attention is not focused on the announcement of Jesus’ death, as in 17:22–23 (and mutatis mutandis in 16:21–23), so that they are grieved (17:23), but they are looking at the resurrection, which lets Jesus’ death appear as merely a transitional stage, and they connect the resurrection with the installation of Jesus in his reign. This connection gains both contour and plausibility in terms of narrative logic if one looks once again at 19:28. Jesus speaks there of the rebirth or restoration (of all things) as the time when he himself will be seated on his glorious throne. This refers to the new creation associated with the end of the world (13:39– 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20), but the Greek term (paliggenesia) used there is semantically ambiguous. Lexically, it could also, for example, refer to the resurrection (cf., e.g., Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.1.63; 10.4.46), so that 20:19, in connection with 19:28, could inspire in the sons of Zebedee the expectation that Jesus would soon be seated on his throne. This is even more so, since in 16:28 he promised that some of them would see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. The petition in 20:21 thus not only expresses an ethical disorientation manifest in their striving for status, but also a misunderstanding of the resurrection and the kind of rule exercised by the Son of Man. To be sure, from a certain point of view the connection between Jesus’ resurrection and installation in his reign is not entirely false, as 28:16–20 will show. But resurrection does not mean a return to earthly existence, as Herod Antipas supposed with reference to John the Baptist (14:1–2), and as reflected in the evaluations of Jesus’ identity among the populace in 16:14. And above all, the installation of the Risen One as sovereign over all the world (28:18) is not connected with his return to earth with mighty power and the establishment of an earthly kingdom in which the Twelve could function as fellow rulers from their thrones, but his resurrection implies withdrawal from earthly power structures as the result of his exaltation to the right hand of the Father (22:44; 26:64). [22–23] Against the background of this misunderstanding of the nature of the Son of Man’s post-Easter reign, Jesus’ response to their petition with

304

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

the words, “You do not know what you are asking” gains a sharper profile. To be sure, the Risen Lord promises his disciples that he will be with them (28:20), but the reign of the Son of Man between Easter and the parousia is not the time in which they will share his rule, for they remain on earth and the valid pattern for their life, including the time after Easter, is to be oriented to the life and suffering of the earthly Son of Man (20:28). When he speaks of the cup which he must drink (cf. 26:39; Matthew here omits the parallel words about “baptism” in Mark 10:38–39), Jesus directs their focus on his destiny of suffering. This is what the disciples are to keep before their eyes. Matthew underscores this by his subtle cross-reference between 20:20–23 and the crucifixion scene, for the formulation “one at the right, one at the left” (20:21, 23) returns verbatim in 27:38, so that a profound meaning resonates behind 20:21: in Jerusalem there will indeed be places at Jesus’ right and left hand—not on a throne, but on a cross. With the question to the sons of Zebedee, whether they too are able to drink this cup, Jesus explicitly incorporates the disciples into his own destiny of suffering (cf. 10:24; 16:24). When the disciples respond positively to this question, Matthew hardly wants the reader to understand this as a heady miscalculation on their part, analogous to the example of Peter in 26:33–35, and this despite the failure of the disciples in 26:37– 46. James the son of Zebedee died a martyr’s death under the rule of Agrippa (41– 44 CE; cf. Acts 12:1–2), an event undoubtedly known by both Matthew and his readers; moreover, in v. 23 Jesus explicitly confirms their answer. Nonetheless, their petition remains unfulfilled. For even if Jesus wanted to do so (which is surely to be denied), he could not comply with their request, since the (possible) award of the places of honor is the privilege of God alone, which Matthew emphasizes with the addition of “by my Father” to “for those for whom it has been prepared” in his source. Here we see yet another text that receives a specific accent through Matthew’s own concept of the kingdom of the Son of Man. The informed reader sees that the perspective here implicitly shifts from the kingdom of the Son of Man, in which the sons of Zebedee set their hopes on becoming those who would sit on their thrones sharing the rule of the Son of Man, to the final judgment that would be part of the eschatological events at the parousia (cf. the echo of “for those for whom it has been prepared” in 25:34), that is to say, their hoped-for future in the kingdom of heaven. In view of v. 22, it becomes clear through v. 23 that the ability to drink the cup does not mean the criterion for attaining the places of honor for which they strive. In any case, Jesus is not authorized to grant these places in the “kingdom of the Father,” should there be such, and in his kingdom between Easter and the parousia there are no such places—contrary to what the sons of Zebedee assume. Rather, the reference to the cup in v. 22

IV.5 The Third Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection

305

points out that to take up one’s cross in following Jesus is the task which is now relevant, not to have one’s eye set on future honor in Jesus’ kingdom. Its ethical correlative is the ethic of lowliness, which Jesus unfolds in vv. 25–28. [24] It is not clear whether the indignation with which the other ten disciples respond to this private conversation is evoked by the status seeking and lack of solidarity of the sons of Zebedee—in 19:27 Peter was not specifically referring to himself when he asked what would be received (!). Or, on the contrary, was their anger provoked by the fact that they, too, are animated by striving for the best places in the coming kingdom? Matthew leaves this an open question. Contrary to the widespread preference of interpreters for the latter option, Jesus’ instruction in vv. 25–28 provides no substantial evidence for it, since it can be understood as either a supplement to or correction of the reaction of the disciples. [25–27] That in vv. 25–28 Jesus completely brackets out the issue of status in the kingdom of heaven, differently from 18:2–4, corresponds to the different concerns treated in 18:1 and 20:20–21; since what the sons of Zebedee ask for cannot be granted in any case, the focus is entirely on thisworldly relationships, that is, at being great “among you” (v. 26) or being “first” (v. 27). While the sons of Zebedee show a tendency to transfer the hierarchically structured thinking about status inherent in the constellations of earthly power to the kingdom of Jesus, he brings the normative behavioral model that applies to the disciples into sharp contrast with the way pagan rulers exercise their power. The verbs “lord it over” and “exercise power” do not refer merely to special cases of serious misconduct of earthly rulers, but portray the way power is generally exercised in worldly structures. The community structure of the church must be fundamentally different from these. While the two initial clauses in vv. 26b–27—“whoever wants to be great . . . to be first”—fit in with usual human ambitions, which also determined the petition of the sons of Zebedee (cf. v. 21: “What do you want?”), the following clause in each case reduces them to absurdity. For whoever orients themselves to the servant (“deacon”) and the slave as the model of the way they live their lives has in fact abandoned the quest to be great, to be first. Likewise, in 18:1–4 the question of who will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven is thwarted by the fact that heavenly honor presupposes self-denial on earth. For Matthew, the church is inherently not a hierarchically structured community in which individuals claim superior status (cf. 23:8–12). Matthew decidedly rejects any form of dominating rule in the church: the church is not a place where one can want to rule others and have them serve one. The fundamental principle is rather service to others. The concluding christological chord of the preceding brief instruction makes it clear that vv. 26–27 deal with an indispensable core definition of Christian community. The ethos of service is anchored in the reality that Jesus

306

IV. The Passion as the Central Point of the Way of the Messiah

himself understood his life as service to others. The Messiah King is thus categorically different from earthly rulers. Matthew has changed the inferential particle “for” in Mark 10:45 to the comparison particle “ just as,” in order to make it clear that the way Jesus lived his life is not only the reason, but the norm for the disciples’ own life-orientation. Clothing this statement as a saying about the meaning of Jesus’ own coming (cf. 5:17; 9:13) underscores its great significance. Discipleship to Jesus is determined at the very core by service to others. In the case of Jesus, his service to others is climaxed by giving his life for them. The ransom metaphor comes from the realm of ransoming prisoners or buying slaves from their bondage, but the word can also be used for paying the debt of someone who otherwise is subject to the death penalty (cf., e.g., Exod 21:30; Num 35:31–32). A soteriological dimension is here attributed to the death of Jesus. In 26:28, this line will be taken up again and, in conjunction with 1:21, will make clear that this is where the mission and assignment of Jesus reaches its ultimate goal. The reference to “many” could be evoked by Isaiah 53:11–12; in any case given the density of citations and allusions to Isaiah in Matthew, and especially in view of the quotation of Isaiah 53:4 in 8:17, there can hardly be any doubt that Matthew himself associated the pronouncement in v. 28 with the Isaiah passage and presupposed that his addressees would do likewise (cf. on 26:28). IV.6 The Healing of the Two Blind Men at Jericho (20:29–34) And as they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed (after) him. 30 And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out and said, “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!” 31 The crowd sternly ordered them to be quiet; but they cried out even more loudly, and said, “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!” 32 And Jesus stood still, called them, and said, “What do you want me to do for you?” 33 They say to him, “Lord, that our eyes be opened.” 34 And Jesus had compassion, touched their eyes, and immediately they regained their sight and followed him. 29

Matthew has already given a variant of 20:29–34 in 9:27–31. Now that Matthew takes up the pericope again, this time presenting it in its Markan context, its dependence on Mark is closer, but Matthew still sets his own accents in 20:29–34. [29–30a] As usual, Matthew has streamlined his exposition. As in 9:27, the blind beggar Bartimaeus of Mark 10:46 has become two anonymous beggars—perhaps to emphasize the paradigmatic character of the narrative. [30b–31] Once again, an appeal for mercy is addressed to Jesus as Son of David (v. 30; cf. 9:27; 15:22). The attempt of the crowd to quiet down the blind beggars (cf. 19:13) functions here as a contrasting background, against which Jesus’

IV.6 The Healing of the Two Blind Men at Jericho

307

compassionate turning to them stands out all the more clearly (cf. on v. 34): Jesus has come to serve (the marginalized; cf. 20:28). On the other hand, this intervention provides the narrative possibility of depicting the persistence of the two blind men and especially, to let their call for mercy be heard again. In step with his tendency to tighten up the narrative, Matthew could also, of course, have merely said that they cried all the louder. But the verbatim repetition of their appeal makes its significance clear: corresponding to the placing of 9:27–31 near the end of the section 8:1–9:34, so also here, immediately before his entry into Jerusalem, Matthew underscores the Davidic Messiahship. At the same time, he creates a point of contact for the acclamation that the crowds will call out in 21:9. [32] Matthew has omitted the intermezzo in Mark 10:49b–51 as a superfluous narrative digression. In Matthew, Jesus himself calls the two blind men to him to ask what they want. The question is reminiscent of v. 21; it is only in these two places that Jesus asks supplicants what they want. The royal tone of voice introduced by Matthew in v. 21 can be heard again here, especially since Jesus is called Son of David, and directly in conjunction with the entrance of the “meek king” into Jerusalem (21:1–9). [33] Matthew has reformulated the entreaty of the blind men: the Markan “Rabbouni” addressed to Jesus is replaced with “Lord” (cf. 8:2, 6; 9:28; 17:15), already supplemented in v. 30 (kurie, “Lord,” is textually uncertain) and v. 31 (also redactional) with the Son of David title (cf. 15:22); moreover, as in 9:30, with the formulation that the eyes of the blind will be opened, Matthew alludes to Isaiah 35:5 (LXX; cf. also Isa 42:7). [34] And finally, the conclusion is also reshaped in v. 34. For the last time, Matthew inserts the motif of compassion so important in his presentation of Jesus (cf. 9:36; 14:14; 15:32) but deletes the encouraging word “your faith has saved you” (Mark 10:52), while the faith motif is still emphasized in 9:28–29 (for the compositional consequence, cf. on 15:28). As a result, the emphasis is all the more on the fact that those who have been healed now immediately follow Jesus, which only here ends a healing story in Matthew. The only healing story in which this motif is found, though in a different position in the story, is the parallel narrative in 9:27–31, where Matthew has the blind men “follow” Jesus into the house at the beginning of the story, accepting an at least noticeable constellation of the scene in order to get this motif in. At the same time, 9:27–31 is, except for the brief note in 8:15, along with 20:29–34 the only healing story which concludes by portraying the (re-)action of the person(s) healed, which does not merely have, as in 9:7, 25 or 12:13, the function of confirming the healing. As the two formerly blind men follow Jesus in 20:34, they make him known (as the healing Davidic Messiah) in 9:31, despite Jesus’ command to silence. The healings of the blind men receive a special importance by these

308

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

descriptions of their reaction. This reflects the fact that, for Matthew, they also have an important metaphorical significance: the Messiah heals the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6; 15:24) of their blindness (cf. on 9:27) V. J’ F C  H O   L J (–) Jerusalem has already been introduced as the place of Jesus’ suffering in the first passion prediction (16:21; prepared for by the signal in 2:3). Accordingly, with Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem (21:1–11) the conflict theme steps to the fore with vehemence. The passion narrative proper is preceded by one final major conflict between Jesus and the (political and religious) authorities (21–23). Matthew’s presentation follows a clear structure: Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem is divided into two days in Matthew 21–23 (though 26:55 implies a longer period). On the first day (21:1–17), Jesus and his procession enter Jerusalem, and he enters the temple and heals people there (21:14); nothing is yet said about teaching. On the next day he returns to the temple, in order to teach there (21:23). In a certain way, the familiar compositional scheme of Matthew 5–9 is here repeated, in reverse order, except that here neither his healing nor teaching is elaborated. It is his disputes with the authorities that take center stage, for the authorities take him to task for both his healing and teaching. The brief dispute in 21:15–17 is followed in 21:23–22:46 by an extensive debate. Jesus’ dispatching the authorities then presents the occasion for him to urgently warn his disciples and the people against the scribes and Pharisees (23). In 23:32–39 this ends up as a pronouncement of judgment, with the eschatological outlook then extensively elaborated in Jesus’ last great discourse in 24–25. The expansive parenesis focused on vigilance underscores the reality that Jesus’ followers will also have to give account before the Judge. V.1 Jesus’ Procession into Jerusalem and His Action in the Temple (21:1–17) And as they approached Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 and said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 And if anyone says anything to you, you are to say that the Lord needs them. And he will send them immediately.” 4 This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, who says, 5 “Say to Daughter Zion: Behold, your king is coming to you, meek, and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a draft animal.” 6 And the disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them, 7 and brought the donkey 1

V.1 Jesus’ Procession into Jerusalem and His Action in the Temple

309

and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. 8 And the very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road; and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 And the crowds that went ahead of him and that followed were crying out and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Praised be the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” 10 And as he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil, and said, “Who is this?” 11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee.” 12 And Jesus entered the temple and threw out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves 13 and said to them, “It is written: ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a ‘robber’s cave.’” 14 And blind and lame people came to him in the temple, and he healed them. 15 But when the high priests and the scribes saw the amazing things that he did, and heard the children crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant 16 and said to him: “Do you hear what these are saying?” But Jesus said to them: “Yes! Have you never read, ‘Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise (for yourself)’?” 17 And he left them, went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there. In the narrative of Jesus’ procession into Jerusalem, Matthew has added thematic accents important to him, especially by the insertion of the fulfillment-quotation in vv. 4–5, his formulation of the cry of acclamation in v. 9, and the addition of vv. 10–11. Differently from Mark 11:1–11, 15–19, the entry narrative has been bound together as a single unit with the so-called cleansing of the temple (21:12–13) and expanded by telling of healings in the temple (21:14–17). It is characteristic of the resulting textual unit that once again Israel’s double reaction to Jesus is revealed (vv. 9–11, 15–17). [1–3] With his arrival in the village of Bethany, east of Jerusalem at the Mount of Olives, Jesus takes the initiative to prepare for his entry into the city, with which he publicly announces his messianic status for the first time himself—of course, not with words, but by means of a symbolic act. The use of other people’s animals is already the expression of a royal claim (cf. 1 Sam 8:16). The sending of the disciples to procure the animals on which he will ride manifests Jesus’ foreknowledge already apparent in the passion and resurrection predictions (16:21; 17:22; 20:17–19), and which characterizes the passion story as a whole (26:1–2, 12–13, 21–25, 31–35, 46). The doubling of the tethered colt from Mark 11:2 to a tethered donkey (cf. Gen 49:11) and her foal is due to Matthew’s effort to represent an exact fulfillment of the prophetic prediction cited in vv. 4–5. [4–5] Matthew has

310

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

modified the beginning of the quotation from Zechariah 9:9 (“Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion”) with words from Isaiah 62:11 (“Say to daughter Zion”), since, in the framework of the Matthean conflict story, an invitation for the city to rejoice is inappropriate for typifying Jerusalem (see on v. 10). However, with the opening taken from Isaiah 62:11, Matthew is able to precisely portray what he is going to picture in vv. 9–11. The attributes characterizing the king in Zechariah 9:9 are here focused on his meekness. The absence of “ just and salvific” (LXX) certainly does not mean that Matthew is reserved about these attributes, but points positively to the fact that for Matthew, gentleness is an important characteristic of the Messiah Jesus (cf. 11:29)—unless this is due merely to the version of Matthew’s Zechariah text. Matthew thus intentionally draws an alternative picture contrary to the messianic expectations with a military coloration (cf., e.g., Pss. Sol. 17:21–25; 1QSb 5.24–29; 4Q161 frag. 8–10, 23, 25–26; 4Q285 frag. 5.3– 4) that fueled the revolt against Rome (66–70) and were discredited by its outcome, the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem. For Matthew, this does not call into question the traditional expectation of the royal Messiah itself, but merely confirms that the military-political hopes were completely wrong. In fact, the royal Messiah came some time ago, but as a meek king and healer, not as a military liberator (see Theissen, “Vom Davidssohn zum Weltenherrscher,” 156– 64). Jesus enters Jerusalem as this kind of king. [6–8] That Jesus’ request of vv. 2–3 was carried out is only briefly noted, in contrast to Mark 11:4–7a. With regard to Matthew’s constellation of figures in his Jesus-story, it is important to note that in v. 8 he explicitly makes the crowds the subject of the acts of homage (cf. e.g., 2 Kgs 9:13; Philo, Embassy 297). [9] Accordingly, Matthew specifically ascribes the cry of acclamation in v. 9 to the crowds (Luke 19:37–38, however, to the disciples!). The cry takes up Psalm 118:25–26 (LXX 117:25–26). “Hosanna” is actually a call for help, but here functions as an exclamation of joyful praise, as affirmed by the Matthean addition of “to the Son of David” (in the dative case; cf. Did. 10:6). This insertion not only reflects the great significance that Davidic sonship has throughout the Matthean christological concept; it is also directly related to the quotation in v. 5. The cry of the crowds, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” announces to Jerusalem the coming of the meek king (cf. v. 10). By emphasizing the Davidic-royal coloration of the event by the interplay of the two insertions in vv. 5 and 9, the following praise to him as “who comes in the name of the Lord” refers explicitly to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah. On the other hand, Matthew has omitted Mark 11:10a’s continuation of the praise with “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David,” which is not found in Psalm 118:26. In addition to his adaptation of the word of Scripture, Matthew will also have been influenced by concerns

V.1 Jesus’ Procession into Jerusalem and His Action in the Temple

311

about the content, since Mark 11:10a can be misunderstood in the sense of a politically oriented messianic expectation. With the acclamation in 21:9, for the third time Matthew’s Jesus-story places a verbatim statement of Jesus’ person or identity in the mouth of the crowds. By so doing, Matthew has enabled the reader to discern a progressive christological realization: from the recognition of God’s devotion to Israel expressed in his unique act in Jesus (9:33), to the incredulous question of whether Jesus is perhaps even the messianic Son of David (12:23), to this acclamation that Jesus is in fact the Davidic Messiah. To be sure, for Matthew, Jesus is even more than the Son of David (cf. 1:18–25; 22:41– 46), and the disciples in 14:33 and 16:16 have already shown a deeper christological knowledge by confessing Jesus to be the Son of God, but this does not question the reality that the crowds here express a correct—and, for the evangelist, an important—insight into Jesus’ identity. There is also no indication here that the crowds are guided by what Matthew regards as a false messianic expectation and are thinking of the messianic Son of David in political-national categories. Matthew has in fact just deleted the passage in Mark 11:10a that could be misunderstood in this sense. Moreover, the acclamation of the crowds is set by 20:30–31 in the larger context that presents Jesus as the healing Messiah, reinforced by its repetition in 21:14–15. The crowds thus praise Jesus in v. 9 precisely as the one who has been sent to them: as the meek Davidic-messianic shepherd of his people (2:6; 9:36; 15:24), who turns to them with help and healing. [10] The addition of this little scene in vv. 10–11, freely composed by the evangelist, is directly related to the fulfillment-quotation in vv. 4–5: the announcement of the king’s coming has been made to Jerusalem, now the response is described. The shock waves that ran through the whole city are reminiscent of 2:3. By and large, there are very close links between Matthew 2:1–12 and 21:1–17: in both cases, Jerusalem is confronted with the news of the arrival of the messianic king. Here as there, this sets the whole city in turmoil. Moreover, in 21:15–16, for the first time since 2:4–6 the high priests and scribes appear together at the narrative level (in 16:21 and 20:18 they are grouped together in Jesus’ predictions, with 16:21 including the elders as well). The situation is thus repeated. But in neither case is it said that the ordinary folk of Jerusalem are already actively against Jesus—they are alarmed because a reaction from the establishment is to be reckoned with. In 21:10, the reaction of the city’s inhabitants is at first limited to asking who “this one” is. [11] When the crowds now describe Jesus as prophet in their reply, this casts no shadow on their acclamation of him as Son of David in v. 9, as though it insinuates that the people immediately fall back to a level of inadequate knowledge of Jesus’ identity. The crowds are not here asked to declare whom they believe Jesus to be—they have already done that in their acclamation—but to

312

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

say who it is that they are identifying as the Son of David. What is really striking is that they do not simply answer with “that is Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee,” but speak of the prophet Jesus. Matthew here intends to make a cross-reference to Jesus’ lamentation over Jerusalem as the city that kills the prophets in 23:37–39, and thus alludes to the tradition of the violent destiny of the prophets—as he does elsewhere in the Gospel (cf. 5:12; 21:35–36; 23:30–31, 34–36). In view of the constellation of figures in the Matthean Jesus-story, in which the Jewish crowds (here evidently understood to be festival pilgrims from outside the city; cf. 20:29–30) are contrasted with the city itself in vv. 9–11, it is clear that Matthew by no means wants Jerusalem to be understood as representative of Israel. This will become important for the understanding of 27:11–26. [12–13] Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem reaches its destination in the temple. Differently from Mark 11:11, where Jesus at first only looks around, and the expulsion of the merchants does not take place until the next day (11:15–19), the Matthean Jesus goes into action immediately. Moreover, in Matthew all the merchants are driven out. This action located in the (fore-)Court of the Gentiles is directed against the economic profit that the temple operation drew from the religious practice of the people. The particular mention of the tables of those who sold doves (differently John 2:14–16) points to the exploitation of the poor by the inflated prices for the sacrificial animals (cf. m. Ker. 1.7) as a focal point of the criticism, for the sacrificial doves are a concession to the poor (cf., e.g., Lev 5:7; 12:8). The saying of Jesus in v. 13, with the help of quotations from the Old Testament, sets the function of the temple as it was originally intended and the actual state of the temple as diametrically opposed. The saying “My house shall be called a house of prayer” based on Isaiah 56:7 is abbreviated from the Markan version (Mark 11:17) by the omission of “for all the nations,” for the saving act of God for all the nations happens through the incorporation of people from all nations into the church (16:18; 28:19–20), not by their coming to Zion. Rather, as the result of the authorities’ anti-God actions climaxed by the death of Jesus, Jerusalem and the temple are delivered over to judgment (cf. 23:37–39; 27:25). Already in Matthew 2:1–12, the motif of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion (see on 2:11) was transformed by the magi being redirected to the baby Jesus in Bethlehem. Taking up the charge in Jeremiah 7:11 that the temple has degenerated into a robber’s cave underscores the fact that Jesus’ critique against the temple targets the financial benefits that the Jerusalem authorities draw from the temple; even the poor are “robbed” (see above). The reader is to overhear the context of the quotation in Jeremiah’s temple sermon—it is followed in Jeremiah 7:12–14 by the announcement of the destruction of the temple. [14] After the merchants are expelled from the temple, the space is free for Jesus to heal people there. The unique Matthean combination of the blind

V.2 The Power of Faith

313

and lame (in 11:5 and 15:30–31 included in a more extensive ensemble) alludes to 2 Samuel 5:6–8, thus making a contrast between David and the Davidic Messiah. The blind and lame are the ones David excluded from the house of the Lord but are healed by Jesus and integrated into participation in the temple. Through Jesus’ presence, the “robber’s cave” becomes—for a short time—a place of compassionate care (cf. 14:14; 20:34). [15–16] The healings are accompanied by the continuing cries of “Hosanna to the Son of David,” so that once again the presentation of the Son of David as the healing Messiah steps into the foreground. That now it is children, instead of the crowds, who acclaim Jesus as the Son of David, occurs as an anticipation of the quotation to follow in v. 16. It is striking that the high priests and scribes in 21:15–16 do not intervene in Jesus’ action against the merchants (cf. Mark 11:18), but first come on stage when they see his healings and hear the acclamations of the children (the analogy in Luke 19:38– 40 could indicate the influence of tradition alongside Mark). Analogous to 12:23–24, it is again the status of the Davidic royal Messiah ascribed to Jesus by others that forms the context of the hostile attitude of the authorities. The repetition of this constellation makes it clear that Matthew wants it to be understood that this is a fundamental motif of the conflict (cf. further at 2:3– 6). It is the endangering of their own leadership positions that shapes the hostility to Jesus. Jesus reacts once more by holding up the authorities’ ignorance of Scripture before them (cf. Matt 9:13; 12:3, 5, 7; 19:4). While in v. 13 he bases his action against the merchants by his recourse to the prophets, so here he throws light on the acclamations of the children by referring to Psalm 8:3 (LXX). That the acclamation as Son of David is validated by the quotation as praise prepared by God himself thereby confirms (also in view of v. 9) that it by no means is made as an inadequate or failed christological statement. [17] As in 16:4, Jesus leaves the authorities that have just been dressed down and goes to spend the night in Bethany, a village about three kilometers east of Jerusalem. V.2 The Power of Faith (21:18–22) In the early morning, as he returned to the city, he was hungry. 19 And when he saw a lone fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, “May no fruit come from you again forever!” And the fig tree immediately withered. 20 And when the disciples saw (it), they were amazed and said, “How did the fig tree wither immediately?” 21 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Amen, I say to you: If you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. 22 And everything you ask for in prayer you will receive, if you believe.” 18

314

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

Before Jesus returns to the temple, vv. 18–22 present an episode on the way: cursing the fig tree (vv. 18–19) and the related instruction to the disciples (vv. 20–22). In Mark 11:12–14, 20–25, the two subsections of the pericope form the framework for the so-called cleansing of the temple (11:15–19). By connecting the cleansing of the temple directly with the entrance into Jerusalem, resulting in the dissolution of the Markan connection between the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple, [18–19] the former has been stripped of its symbolic dimension. Even less is it possible to find here a symbol for the rejection of Israel, since “fig tree” is not a conventional metaphor for Israel, and nowhere else does Matthew say a word about the rejection of Israel, not even in 21:43 or 27:25. The cursing of the fig tree, whose withering must happen immediately since the instruction to the disciples begins directly afterward, in Matthew serves only as an illustration of this instruction. [20–22] Thus, Matthew has the disciples ask, “How did the fig tree wither immediately?” (v. 20), and the response of the Matthean Jesus explicitly takes up the cursing of the fig tree, using its withering as an example of the possibilities of faith. The believer will “not only do what has been done to the fig tree” (v. 21). In Matthew, the only function of the fig tree episode is as a paradigm of the power of faith. Faith here appears as trust in God’s power to change things in unexpected ways. Even more: those who believe are promised participation in this power. Verse 21 has a parallel in 17:20, where Matthew has taken up the corresponding logion from Q, the saying about the mustard seed (cf. Luke 17:6). In 21:21, the qualification of receptive faith has the additional motif of not doubting (cf. Jas 1:5– 6); a comparison with Q 17:6 indicates the probability of a later stage of reflection. While the power of faith in 17:20 is in the context of the power to heal, in 21:22 there follows an application to the supplication itself (cf. again Jas 1:5– 6), where the fulfillment of the petition is dependent on a faith that does not doubt. The passage 7:7–11 is also to be pondered in regard to the theme of confidence in God’s answering to prayers. Matthew omits Mark 11:25, since he has already used a similar saying in 6:14–15. V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple (21:23–22:46) On the second day, Jesus returns to the temple, this time to teach (v. 23). This is the trigger for the last great controversy between Jesus and the hostile leaders, the religious and political authorities of the people. In 21:23–22:46, Matthew has created a structured, symmetrical composition. By the redactional addition of the parables of the two different sons (21:28–32) and the royal wedding banquet (22:1–14) to the parable of the vineyard owner (21:33–46) on the

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

315

one hand, and the thematic binding together of the three conflict dialogues in 22:15– 40 on the other, there are two central “trilogies” (21:28–22:14 + 22:15– 40). These are framed by the question of the authorities challenging Jesus’ own authority (21:23–27) and the question of Jesus to the Pharisees, whose son the Christ is (22:41– 46), two halves of a christological framework, resulting in a 1–3–3–1 structure. In 21:23–22:46, the speech initiative changes in each block between Jesus and the different groups of the ruling class. The high priests and the elders open the debate (21:23–27); with the parable trilogy (21:28–22:14) Jesus takes the initiative; the following three conflict dialogues (22:15– 40) are the reactions of the authorities to statements of Jesus (22:15a); finally, in 22:41– 46 Jesus resumes the argument. The parable trilogy thereby indirectly presents an answer to the question about authority, and 22:41– 46 is Jesus’ counterattack against the attempts of the authorities to catch him in one of his statements (22:15). In the end, the authorities are brought to silence and leave the field (22:46). V.3.1 The Question of Authority (21:23–27)

And after he entered the temple, as he was teaching, the high priests and the elders of the people came to him, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” 24 And Jesus answered and said to them, “I will also ask you a single question. If you tell me (the answer), then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, where did it come from? From heaven, or from human beings?” And they thought the matter over with one another, and said: “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From human beings,’ we are afraid of the crowds; for all regard John as a prophet.” 27 And they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “So, I am not saying to you by what authority I am doing these things.” 23

In vv. 23–27, Matthew follows his Markan source more closely than previously, but here too he sets his own accents. [23] It corresponds to the healings in v. 14 that Matthew now has Jesus teach in the temple (cf. Luke 20:1) and thus assume the role the authorities claim for themselves. These come on the stage now, represented by the high priests and elders of the people, for the first time in this combination typical of the passion narrative (26:3, 47; 27:1, 3, 12, 20; 28:11–12); Matthew has omitted the scribes of Mark 11:27. Matthew 21:45 makes it clear that the evangelist thinks of the elders in this constellation as including followers of the Pharisees.

316

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

In the question of by what authority Jesus is doing this or these things (the Greek text has the plural), the specific reference to Jesus’ teaching in v. 23 shows that, among others, it is Jesus’ authority as a teacher that is in question (cf. 7:29). The question, however, is not limited to Jesus’ teaching, as already indicated by the plural “these things.” Rather, such things as the events of the preceding day are included (vv. 1–17). The question is thus addressed comprehensively to the identity of Jesus manifest in his works. After their intervention against the acclamations of the children in the temple in v. 16, the authorities raise the question anew as to what or who legitimizes his actions. Both the immediate and wider context of Matthew’s Jesus-story make it evident that the question of the authorities does not arise from a genuine interest in information. Rather, they want to provoke Jesus to openly profess his messianic status announced the preceding day by the “Son of David” acclamations of the crowds and the children. With this, they could charge him as a false messianic pretender before the Roman governor. [24–25a] By setting his answer to the question posed by the authorities under the condition that they first answer his question about the origin of John’s baptism, Jesus turns the tables and embarrasses them. They begin to discuss tactics. The way they begin their deliberations suggests that the authorities already know the right answer to Jesus’ question: if they respond honestly, they would have to say, “from heaven.” [25b] They cannot admit that, however, for that would reveal their own disobedience (cf. on 3:7–10). Even more: the real point of Jesus’ counterquestion is that the answer to the question of the origin of John’s baptism at the same time touches on the question the authorities have asked Jesus. For if they know that John’s baptism was authorized by heaven, then at the same time they would have to acknowledge that Jesus was the Mightier One announced by the Baptist (3:11). So, if they give the right answer to Jesus’ counterquestion, at the same time they reveal the hypocrisy involved in their challenge to Jesus and would have to deal with the follow-up question, then why do they ask about the origin of his authority? [26] On the other hand, they could not give the answer they know to be false, that John’s baptism is of human origin. In this case, they would have to fear the crowds, and they regard themselves as their shepherds. The crowds, in fact, consider John to be a prophet (cf. 11:9; 14:5), and that means that they think John’s baptism was from heaven. The designation of the authorities as “elders of the people” is not without a certain irony—the authorities do not represent the people, but must fear them. [27] Driven into a corner by Jesus’ counterquestion, they make the evasive reply, “We do not know.” But their demonstrated insincerity cannot be the basis for Jesus’ answering their question. Nonetheless, Jesus does respond to their question—indirectly, with the parable trilogy.

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

317

V.3.2 The Parable Trilogy (21:28–22:14)

The parable trilogy is a Matthean composition. The first evangelist found in this location in Mark only the parable of the vineyard owner (21:33– 46 par. Mark 12:1–12). Matthew precedes this with the parable of the two different sons from his special material (21:28–32) and follows it with the parable of the royal wedding banquet from Q (22:1–14). The first two parables exhibit an analogous structure formulated as dialogues (cf. 2 Sam 12:1–7; Luke 7:41– 47; 4 Ezra 4:13–21). In each case, Jesus’ narrative parable (vv. 28–31a, 33– 40) ends with a question (vv. 31a, 40); the response of the authorities (vv. 31b, 41), which is a verdict against themselves, is followed by the application of the parable, forming its conclusion (vv. 31c–32, 42– 44). The comparison of vv. 33– 46 with Mark 12:1–12 shows that Matthew has redactionally adapted the parable of the vineyard owner to the dialogue structure of vv. 28–32. Consistent with the narrator’s transitional commentary in vv. 45– 46 that the high priests and Pharisees realize that the parables are aimed at them, the dialogical structure of 21:28–32, 33– 44 is missing in the third parable in 22:1–14; the latter passage is a continuous speech of Jesus. There are, however, clear agreements in motifs and vocabulary between 22:1–14 and 21:33–46—even more strongly than that between the first two parables. Again, there is talk of a son (21:37–39; 22:2); slaves are sent out, who are disobeyed, or abused and killed (21:34–36; 22:3– 6); again, the murderers are themselves destroyed (21:40–41; 22:7). On the other hand, the contacts between 21:28–32 and 22:1–14 are noticeably weak. The redaction-critical analysis is thus also reflected in the connections between the three parables: the parable of the vineyard owner clearly proves to be the point of crystallization and axis of the Matthean composition. Thematically, the three parables are interconnected by the fact that they articulate the continuing resistance encountered by God’s messengers. The first parable is related to the reaction to the Baptist, in the parable of the vineyard owner the opposition to the Son stands at the center, and finally in the parable of the wedding feast the slaves who are sent out stand for Jesus’ disciples. The trilogy thus depicts the sequence “John–Jesus–the disciples of Jesus.” The decisive question for interpretation is whether the three parables are to be read in terms of the history of salvation and bring up the replacement of Israel by the church open to the nations of the world, or whether they are only about a reckoning with the Jewish authorities. The following interpretation will present the reasons for accepting the second option.

318

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

V.3.2.1 The Parable of the Two Different Sons (21:28–32)

“So what do you think? A man had two children; he went to the first and said, ‘Child, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 He answered and said, ‘I don’t want to’; but later he regretted this and went. 30 And he went to the second and said the same. And he answered, ‘I (go), sir’; but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They say, “The first.” Jesus says to them, “Amen, I say to you, that the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you on the road of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even after you saw it, you did not repent, so that you might believe him.” 28

[28–31b] The lack of a narrator’s introduction in v. 28 makes clear the direct connection with the preceding. Verses 28–31a seamlessly continue the direct speech of Jesus in v. 27b. The transitional question “So what do you think?” prepares for the dialogical form of what follows. In the parable, both sons actually conduct themselves differently from what they tell their father they will do. This is explained only in the case of the first: he regretted it. Nothing is said with regard to the second son about a change of mind. The way this is applied to the authorities (vv. 31c–32) suggests that from the outset he never intended to go into the vineyard (cf. on v. 32). Since Jesus’ question in v. 31a presupposes that one of the sons did in fact do the will of the father, it is here implied that the initial “no” of the first son is not significant for how he is finally evaluated. The “no” is regretted; repentance is always possible and stands under God’s promise that no one is defined by their past (cf. Ezek 18:21–32; 33:10–20). Taken as a whole, the parable reinforces a typical trait of Matthean theology: what counts is not saying, but doing (cf. 7:21–23). [31c–32] All the same, Jesus’ application in vv. 31c–32, taken with the broader context, gives the parable an accent that is superimposed on the parenetic dimension. The criticism is unambiguously directed solely against the high priests and elders of the people addressed in the context (21:23), not against Israel as a whole. For one thing, the publicans and prostitutes—the latter mentioned only here in Matthew—stand for the sinners in Israel, male and female, who responded to the Baptist’s call for repentance; the contrast is thus internal to the Jewish community. In addition, Jesus’ reproach in v. 32, that those in view here have not believed John, directly refers back to v. 25, where in the tactical considerations of the high priests and elders their de facto distance from the people becomes clear (v. 26).

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

319

[31c] It is hardly to be read into the statement that the tax collectors and prostitutes “will go (on the road) into the kingdom of God” before the authorities that this latter group will also enter the kingdom. The emphasis lies on the reversal of rank: the high priests and elders see themselves as at the top; in fact, however, they are even behind the tax collectors and prostitutes. In regard to access to salvation, it is here implied that—staying with the imagery of the parable—the “gate” to the kingdom of heaven is closed before the authorities can enter (the shift to “kingdom of God” may be due to the preceding reference to the “will of [the] father”). The tax collectors and prostitutes thus serve as the contrasting foil, in order to allow the hopeless situation of the authorities to emerge in the strongest terms possible: even the former sinners par excellence will enter the kingdom of God, because even they have repented (though the authorities have not). [32] Verse 32 has a distant parallel in Luke 7:29–30, but, in view of the clear differences, we can hardly proceed on the basis that both are based on Q as their common source. Verse 32 is rather to be attributed to the pen of the evangelist, who uses it to integrate the parable into the overarching context: with the statement that John came “on the road of righteousness” (cf., e.g., Prov 8:20; 21:21 LXX; Job 24:13 LXX; 1 En. 82:4), Jesus himself now gives an answer to his question about the origin of John’s baptism (v. 25). In terms of content, the statement implies John’s own righteous life (cf. 3:15) but mainly points to him as one who sought to lead people to righteousness by his message of repentance, as shown in the following contrast that the authorities, unlike the tax collectors and prostitutes, did not believe John. In the light of v. 25, what stands at the center of this reproach is not that they closed themselves off to the heavenly origin of John’s baptism, but that they were not obedient to John’s message of repentance (cf. 3:2, 7–10). The double incongruence between the application in v. 32 and the parable itself is striking. For one thing, v. 32 takes up only part of the parable, inasmuch as one can at most find the initial response of the two sons presupposed: the “no” of the first would then be interpreted as referring to the previous distance from God of the tax collectors and prostitutes; the emphatic “yes” expressed by “I go, sir,” of the other would stand for the authorities’ external religiousness expressed only in lip service (cf. 15:8). Also, the concluding sentence of v. 32 has no direct counterpart in the parable, although speaking of the lack of repentance takes up a motif from the parable (v. 29): even that the tax collectors and prostitutes believed the Baptist, i.e., were moved to repentance by his message, did not generate any regret or repentance among the authorities. This concluding sentence clearly places the emphasis on the failure of the authorities being addressed.

320

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

V.3.2.2 The Parable of the Vineyard Owner (21:33– 46)

“Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a wine press in it, built a watchtower, leased it to tenants and went on a journey. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his produce. 35 But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other slaves, more than the first; and they treated them in the same way. 37 But finally he sent his son to them and said, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come on, let’s kill him and get his inheritance.’ 39 So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41 They say to him, “He will put those miserable creatures to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at their times.” 42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’? 43 Therefore I say to you: The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its* fruits. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.” 45 And when the high priests and the Pharisees had heard his parables, they realized that he was talking about them. 46 And they sought to arrest him, (but) they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet. 33

*The pronoun refers to the “kingdom of God.” In the Greek text, this reference is clear, since the word for “kingdom” is feminine (as is the pronoun “its” in the Greek text), while “people” is neuter. In the parable of the vineyard owner, Matthew has considerably reworked his Markan source (Mark 12:1–12). The narrative content of the parable itself (vv. 33– 41) was tightened up, while the application in vv. 42– 44 significantly expanded. Matthew has also reshaped Mark 12:9–11 in vv. 40– 44 to be more dialogical, like the model in vv. 28–32. Verse 44 is missing from some manuscripts but is probably original. The verse is also found in Luke 20:18, but not in the Markan source. If one does not resort to a different recension of Mark used by Matthew and Luke, the data can hardly be explained otherwise than by assuming a fixed oral tradition used alongside Mark 12:1–12. [33] With the transitional “Listen to another parable,” as in v. 28 the direct speech of Jesus is continued without any intervening comment by the narrator. Matthew has already told one parable about a landowner (differently

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

321

from Mark 12:1, “a man”) and his vineyard in 20:1–15. In each place, the landlord stands for God, but the thematic configuration is different in 21:33– 46. This begins with the extensive description of planting the vineyard in v.33. Those among Matthew’s addressees who knew their Bibles would certainly recognize the allusions to Isaiah 5:2, which Matthew made even more clear by minor changes in his source, Mark 12:1. They will thus have understood the vineyard as a cipher for Israel (Isa 5:7), especially since “vineyard” is also found elsewhere as a metaphor for Israel (e.g., Isa 3:14; 27:2– 6; Jer 12:10; LAB [Ps.-Philo] 30:4). The tenants, to whom the owner of the vineyard has leased it, accordingly stand for the authorities in Israel, as confirmed by vv. 45– 46. It is precisely by the allusion to Isaiah 5 at the beginning that attention is drawn to the differences from the Old Testament text. Thus, in the parable of the vineyard owner the subject is not that the vineyard yields bad fruit; the focus is rather directed to the misconduct of the vineyard workers. Accordingly, at the end the vineyard is not abandoned, but gets new tenants. [34–36] In contrast to his source in Mark 12:2–5, Matthew has reduced the sending of the slaves, who stand for the prophets (cf. e.g., 2 Kgs 9:7; 17:13, 23; Jer 7:25), to two missions. To make up for this, several slaves were sent together on the first mission (v. 34), and while in Mark it was only the third mission, of a single slave, that ends with his death, in Matthew the first mission already involves murder. Once again, the tradition of the violent fate of the prophets stands in the background (cf. on 5:12). With the last two members of the triad “beat–kill–stone” in v. 35, Matthew forms a cross-reference to 23:37 (cf. on 21:11): Jerusalem is a city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to it (“stone” is found in Matthew only in 21:35 and 23:37). In Matthew, it is only the larger size of the second group that distinguishes it from the first. The reaction of the vineyard workers is the same (v. 36). [37–39] There is still no punitive counteraction by the vineyard owner. Instead, in his forbearance he sends his son, with the hope that this time the tenants will show respect for him. In the veiled language of the parable, Jesus here brings his own ministry into the story. However, the tenants see the coming of the heir as the chance to grab the vineyard by killing the son. The parable thereby presents a significant way of interpreting the killing of Jesus through the adoption of a motive that already determines Herod’s course of action in Matthew 2: by killing Jesus, who has been acclaimed by the festival pilgrims and the children in the temple as the Davidic Messiah (21:9, 15), the high priests and (Pharisaic) elders (21:23, 45) attempt to secure their position in Israel. This intra-Matthean link is accompanied by an intertextual allusion, for their words “Come on, let’s kill him” agree verbatim with the words of Joseph’s brothers in Genesis 37:20 LXX. That the killing of the son in v. 39, differently

322

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

from Mark 12:28 (but like Luke 20:15), takes place outside the vineyard reflects the usual practice (cf. Lev 24:14, 23; Num 15:35–36; Deut 17:5; 1 Kgs 21:10, 13; Luke 4:29; Acts 7:58). [40–41] Of course, there is no way the tenants’ plan can succeed. Its irrationality reflects the absurdity of the authorities’ attempts to get rid of Jesus. The open question in Mark 12:9 about how the owner of the vineyard will react (“What then will the owner of the vineyard do?”) has been formulated more narrowly by Matthew, who inserts the owner’s coming into the question, and also adds “to those tenants.” In accordance with Matthew’s reorienting the parable in comparison with Isaiah 5:1–7, the issue is not what the owner will do with the vineyard, as in Isaiah 5:4– 6, but what he will do with those tenants. As already in v. 31b, and following the model of 2 Samuel 12, Matthew has the authorities pronounce their own judgment. For one thing, Matthew has intensified the tone of the answer, already foreshadowed by having made the question more precise in v. 41, by changing Mark’s “He will destroy the tenants” to “He will put those miserable creatures to a miserable death.” Matthew has also expanded the answer in anticipation of v. 43 by adding a relative clause describing the new tenants as those who—probably as an allusion to Psalm 1:3—“yield their fruits (to their masters) in their times.” [42] Jesus’ application of the parable in vv. 42–44 is in three parts. Of these, Matthew’s source in Mark 12 provides only v. 42, which picks up the destiny of the son in the parable—renewed from 21:9—by means of a quotation from Psalm 118, this time from 118:22–23 (cf. 1 Pet 2:7; Barn. 6.4). The tenants now return in the saying about the builders. That the stone rejected by them has become the cornerstone has in view the resurrection of the Son they have killed, which will be the act of God: “This (i.e., the cornerstone) was the Lord’s doing.” This implies that the plan of the Jewish authorities to confirm their position by killing Jesus is doomed to failure. [43] This is unfolded in a verse inserted by Matthew. It has frequently been taken as evidence that Matthew is speaking of the replacement of Israel by the church: Since the kingdom of God is here given to a people, referring to the church, it is presupposed that “from you” in fact means “from Israel.” If Matthew had intended to be understood in that way, then he could easily have said it that way. Moreover, the assumption that the authorities addressed with “from you” represent Israel in the strict sense of the word is decidedly against the Matthean differentiation between the authorities and the crowds (cf., e.g., 9:33–34; 12:23–24; 21:9–16). This is all the more clear since this distinction is explicitly taken up in the transitional comment on the setting in vv. 45– 46, which states with unequivocal clarity that the authorities realized that the parable was aimed at them, but they did not dare to make their move against

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

323

Jesus because of the crowds. Furthermore, in v. 33 it was suggested that Israel is represented in the parable by the vineyard. Finally, interpreters should refer back to the parable of the two different sons in 21:28–32, which thematizes an inner-Jewish differentiation, and which in any case directs its criticism against Jesus’ specific disputation partners, namely the high priests and elders (v. 23). There can be no doubt that those to whom the kingdom of God is given has in view the (true) followers of Jesus. However, their designation as a people who will bring forth the fruits of the kingdom does not mark off the church as the new people of God. For the word “people” does not translate laos, often used in the LXX as a technical term for Israel as the people of God (e.g., Exod 3:7; Deut 7:6; Isa 1:3; 40:1), also used by Matthew in this sense (e.g., 1:21; 2:6; 4:16, 23), but rather the word ethnos, which refers primarily only to a group that is somehow related and belongs together. To be sure, in post-Homeric Greek, “nation/people” developed into the predominant meaning, but without suppressing the possibility of other usages. Thus, for example, we find in Xenophon the question of whether there was any ethnos more simpleminded than the ballad singers (Symp. 3.6), and Dio Chrysostom has a list that includes flute players, actors, boxers, and such, which concludes with “and such ethnos” in the sense of “other such people” (1 Glor. 66.8). First Maccabees 1:34 refers to a unit of Seleucid soldiers in the occupying forces stationed in Jerusalem as a “sinful ethnos.” And Proverbs 28:17 LXX admonishes, “Instruct a son, and he will love you. . . . You shall not obey a lawless ethnos (= ‘bunch of such people’; cf. 26:3).” In the two last named examples, the emphasis lies on the adjective that characterizes the ethnos (in the sense of a group of people sharing some common bond).

Accordingly, in Matthew 21:43, ethnos refers to the (true) followers of Jesus as a group of people bound together, more closely defined as those who bring forth (produce) the fruits of the kingdom of God. The emphasis rests on this defining description (cf. v. 41). The idea of the church as the people of God should be kept out of the picture in v. 43. This text is not talking about Israel being replaced by the church, but, as in v. 41, the vineyard (= Israel) gets new caretakers, so in v. 43 the present authorities are replaced. The parable of the vineyard owner is thus completely in line with the process of substitution, which has already been established in the context of the sending of the twelve disciples to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” in 9:36–10:6—Jesus’ disciples take the place of the old, bad shepherds (cf. on 9:36). Verse 43 interprets this replacement as the handing over of the kingdom of God. “Kingdom of God,” instead of the phrase “kingdom of heaven” predominant in Matthew, is attached to the saying of the Lord in v. 42, at the same time taking up the theocentric orientation of the parable, in which Matthew has spoken of “his slaves” (vv. 34–35; differently Mark 12:2–3),

324

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

“his produce” (= “fruits,” v. 34; differently Mark 12:2), and “his son” (v. 37; differently Mark 12:6). There are two ways in which the “kingdom of God” may be understood in v. 43, which are not mutually exclusive. One can understand “kingdom of God” in the sense of eschatological salvation, as in v. 31. Verse 43 would then make explicit the soteriological side of the judgment in v. 41. The ruling class as such will not only be replaced due to their misconduct, but also lose their own salvation. However, another interpretation is also possible, which is more in step with the theme of the parable and brings to bear the present dimension of the kingdom of God. In v. 43 one can find the idea that God carries out his rule through earthly representatives, as is apparent, for example, in the Chronicler’s concept of the Davidic kingship. Thus, according to 1 Chronicles 28:5, God chose Solomon to “sit on the throne of the kingdom of the L over Israel,” and according to 2 Chronicles 13:8 the kingdom of the L is placed in the hand of the descendants of David (cf. also 1 Chr 29:23). Testament of Benjamin 9:1 latches on to this idea, and announces that the L will take away the kingdom (from Benjamin’s descendants) because of their immorality. In the Matthean context, it should be kept in view that the present dimension of the kingdom of God finds its valid expression in the observance of God’s Law. This connection between the kingdom of God and the Torah is frequent in the rabbinic literature (see, for example, Mek. Exod. 20.2; Midr. Levi. Rab. 2 on1:2; Sifra Lev. on 18:6; Midr. Pss. on 20:3) but is rooted in pre-rabbinic tradition (Jub. 12:19; 2 Macc 1:7; as well as, e.g., Sib. Or. 3:716–720; Philo, Moses 2.3– 4). In this sense, v. 43 can be illustrated by the interplay of 16:19 and 23:13: The authorities close the kingdom of God to others by their false teaching, but the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” are handed over to Peter as guarantor of Jesus’ teaching. God is the people’s true king (e.g., Isa 44:6; Zeph 3:15), and the role of the authorities is to transmit the will of God, based on the Torah, to the people. Against this background, v. 43 declares that the role previously assigned to the authorities is now transferred to the disciples of Jesus. On the basis of Jesus’ own interpretation of the Torah with empowered authority, they produce the fruits of the kingdom in an exemplary way and are able to instruct others in its proper observance (28:20a). This opens the kingdom to others, the kingdom of heaven they proclaim as near. Thus the disciples are not here presented as replacing Israel, but as having a mission to Israel (and, according to 28:18–20, even beyond Israel to the rest of the world). [44] Verse 44 builds on the stone metaphor in v. 42 and vividly portrays the soteriological consequences of the rejection of Jesus which suggests the massive threat of judgment in Isaiah 8:14–15, and especially the destruction of the four world empires in Daniel 2:44–45. After the provocative juxtaposition of the

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

325

authorities to tax collectors and prostitutes in vv. 31c–32, Jesus’ reckoning with his opponents has once again intensified in vv. 42– 44. [45–46] When the authorities (on the Pharisees, see above on 21:23) now perceive that the parables have been coined against them, this is hardly more than stating the obvious. In the light of 26:63, it seems to be apparent at the same time that, in view of their question posed in 21:23, they are not unaware of the claim that Jesus’ parables make about himself. It is only their fear of the crowds, who regard Jesus as a prophet, that puts the brakes on their desire to arrest Jesus, but this means no more than that in developing their strategy for their further course of action, they must take the people’s view of Jesus into consideration (cf. on 22:15 and 26:3–5). While Mark incidentally confirms their fear of the crowds, Matthew adds an explanation, namely that the people consider Jesus—like John (21:26)—to be a prophet. Matthew thus is referring back to 21:11 and anticipates 23:37. If one adds to this that in v. 35, through the last two members of the triad “beat–kill–stone,” there is likewise a reference to 23:37, a network of textual references emerges that is important for interpretation: Jerusalem and the authorities appear on the one side, and the people who are not residents of Jerusalem on the other. V.3.2.3 The Parable of the Royal Wedding Banquet (22:1–14)

And Jesus answered and again spoke to them in parables, and said: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. 3 And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they were not willing to come. 4 Again he sent other slaves, and said, ‘Say to those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet!’ 5 But they paid no attention and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. 6 But the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. 7 The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. 8 “Then he said to his slaves: ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the street corners, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ 10 And as those slaves went out into the streets they gathered all whom they found, both good and bad. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe. 12 And he said to him: ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind his feet and hands, and throw him out into the outer darkness! There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.” 1

326

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

Despite the considerable differences between 22:1–14 and Luke 14:16–24, both evangelists likely found the parable in Q. The differences are mainly the result of the way Matthew has fundamentally reworked the parable in the context of the parable trilogy (21:28–22:14). [1] After the interruption of the dialogue in 21:45– 46, and differently from the two preceding parables, in 22:1 Matthew begins afresh with an introductory note that sets the stage. [2] Also unlike the parables in 21:28–32 and 21:33– 46, the third parable is presented as a parable of the kingdom of heaven. This corresponds to the fact that the view is now directed to the eschatological banquet (cf. 8:11). The simple banquet (Luke 14:16) has now become a wedding banquet which a king has prepared for his son. Having spoken of the kingdom of God in the two preceding parables (21:31, 43), God now appears in the parable himself, as the king. The son, as in 21:37–39, is again Jesus, which, in conjunction with 21:33– 46, results in a coherent christological sequence. As the theme of 21:37–39 is the killing of the son, and 21:42 has the resurrection in view, so now 22:2 presupposes his exaltation to God. The concept of the exalted Lord as heavenly bridegroom, implied here and to reappear in 25:1–13 (cf. 9:15, which has the earthly Jesus in view), is also found elsewhere in the New Testament (2 Cor 11:2; Rev 19:6–9; 21:2, 9). The role of the bride remains unfilled in Matthew 22:1–14 (as also in 25:1–13); only the wedding guests are in the purview of the parable. [3] While in the Lukan version a single slave announces the beginning of the meal to those who have been invited, in Matthew, groups of slaves are sent out twice, in verbatim dependence on the parable of the vineyard owner (cf. 22:3 with 21:34 and 22:4 with 21:36). Since in v. 2 the post-Easter exaltation of Jesus is presupposed and people are invited to the marriage banquet of the king’s son, the slaves no longer represent the Old Testament prophets (differently from 21:34–36), but Jesus’ disciples, who during their mission invite people to the “wedding banquet of the son.” While Luke has those who have been invited excuse themselves for various reasons that are quite understandable, Matthew intensifies the negative character of the invitees already in the first sending by referring only shortly to their unwillingness. Since in Matthew it is the king who issues the invitation, this unwillingness appears as simply arrogant arbitrariness. [4–6] By having the slaves sent out twice, Matthew underscores the host’s sustained, kindly effort, which is further emphasized when the second group of slaves specifically point out the gastronomic delights that are in store for the guests. However, this extremely friendly reaction of the king does not change the fundamentally unwilling attitude of those who have been invited, which is also explained in more detail than the way the first sending was described. That one goes to his farm and the other turns to his

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

327

business is vaguely reminiscent of the reasons given by those invited in Luke 14:18–19, but Matthew gives the impression that those who have been invited are simply following their—deferrable—everyday business, while Luke (like Gos. Thom. 64) names special occasions. Above all, Matthew intensifies the portrayal of the presumptuous arbitrariness of the invitees to its most extreme, when the rest of them taunt and kill the king’s slaves (v. 6; as analogy, cf. Josephus, Ant. 9.265). [7] Matthew evidently found in Q the motif that the reactions of the invitees ignited the wrath of the host (Luke 14:21), but it receives a different point of reference by the insertion of v. 6. Moreover, since the host has the resources of a king at his disposal, his wrath is manifested not merely by inviting other guests (Luke 14:21), but in a punitive expedition of his armies against the murderers and their city, which takes place before the banquet is served. While the Lukan parable portrays disinterest or wrong priorities —apparently preserving the basic orientation of Q on this point—the Matthean reworked version reflects a massive conflict. The pictorial logic, which with v. 7 can hardly be read otherwise than as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, has clearly been reshaped by the history interpreted by the parable. [8–10] That those who were invited have proven themselves to be unworthy (v. 8) can change nothing, and the celebration proceeds as planned. So vv. 8–10 point back to the wedding banquet in order to picture the success of the renewed mission of the slaves, who now bring together those they have found on the streets. [3–10] Just as little as 21:33– 46 portrays a replacement of Israel by the church, one cannot infer a substitution of the mission to Israel by the mission to the Gentiles from the series of sending slaves in vv. 3–7 and 8–10. Even if Matthew—though this is not the case—should elsewhere advocate or presuppose such a thesis, there is no convincing way to see this depicted in 22:3–10. For one thing, seeing the destruction of Jerusalem (v. 7) as a turning point shatters against the fact that, according to 28:16–20, the mission to the Gentiles begins with Easter. We may add that, in the Matthean narrative conception, Jerusalem by no means functions as a representative of Israel, as shown by 21:9–11. Accordingly, when the “king” punishes Jerusalem (v. 7), this in no way implies a turning away from Israel. Moreover, since the invitation is to the “wedding banquet” of the exalted Son of God, vv. 3– 4 are also about the postEaster ministry of the disciples. But this also eliminates the option of regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus as the transition point from the mission to Israel to the universal mission to the nations. Furthermore, the parable itself does not include any references at all that can be interpreted as references to Israel and the Gentiles. At the level of the narrative imagery itself, it is natural to see those who are first invited to the royal wedding banquet as the prominent people in the kingdom, while vv. 9–10 would refer to extending the invitation to

328

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

common people. The most straightforward explanation would then be that the parable contrasts the religious leadership and ordinary folk, and this is also required by the preceding context. In the preceding, Jesus has already shown the constant resistance of the authorities to God’s messengers shown against the Old Testament prophets (21:34–36), the Baptist (21:32), and Jesus himself (21:37–39). According to 22:2–7, this opposition continues against the mission of the disciples. That fits in with the way Jesus “answers” the intention of his opponents in 21:45– 46, which he obviously knows about (cf. 9:4; 12:15, 25), with the parable of the royal wedding banquet. Thus here the dispute with the high priests and Pharisees is continued. The contrast in 21:28-32 between different Jewish groups, the authorities on the one hand and tax collectors and prostitutes on the other, recurs mutatis mutandis in 22:1–10 in the juxtaposition of the authorities and the crowds of ordinary people. The separate thematic treatment of the sending of Jesus’ messengers to the authorities has a counterpart in 23:34 (cf. further 10:16). The sequence of the two occasions of sending out messengers in 22:1–10 thereby functions only as a narrative device, which takes up the self-evaluation of those being addressed, who suppose they stand in a privileged relation to the “king.” But this no more reflects a sequence of different missions of Jesus’ disciples than does the sequence of the two scenes in 21:29 and 21:30. Thus if the sequence of the events in 22:1–10 is not to be transferred allegorically to the interpreted world of early church history, the “excursus” in v. 7, which is awkward in all chronological interpretations, presents no problem, for it takes up and concretizes 21:41 in the context of the parable trilogy. In all this, it should be noted that the parable of the royal wedding banquet is not in tension with 10:6, 23. On the contrary, it presupposes and thus confirms that the mission to Israel is the task of the church that continues until the return of Christ. The parable updates the differentiation between the authorities and the crowds that characterized the reactions to Jesus’ ministry in Israel to the postEaster phase and thereby casts light on the situation of the Matthean communities: the only responses Jesus’ messengers receive from the Jewish authorities is rejection or even violence. The response of the “ordinary people” is more positive. [10] The hall for the wedding banquet is filled; the authorities are not able to prevent that. Verse 10 is open to being understood that some Gentiles are subsumed among those who are here brought together, but this is not the focus here. The explicit identification of those invited as “bad as well as good” reflects that the message of the disciples is also directed to sinners, analogous to Jesus’ own ministry (cf. 9:13). Since this characterization applies just to those who are invited, and not to those who recline at table, the concept of the church as a corpus mixtum is not necessarily connected with it. For the invitation includes

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

329

the call to repentance (3:2; 4:17): the “bad” who are called are to turn from their evil. The tax collectors and prostitutes who responded to John’s call on the “way of righteousness” are spoken of in 21:31–32 in exactly the same way. [11–13] To be sure, Matthew then adds a scene in vv. 11–13 that makes clear that for those who have responded to the call of Jesus’ messengers, this in itself is no guarantee of salvation. [11] The wedding robe, which the king notices is missing from one of his guests, stands for the lack of doing good. In the course of the narrative theology of the parable trilogy, the motif of doing the will of the Father (21:31) and producing fruit (21:41, 43) is here carried further. If the narrative logic here presupposed is that those who have been gathered from off the streets are given time to go home and put on a clean robe appropriate for a royal wedding feast, one can find here a symbol of the turning toward doing righteousness that is necessary for entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. 5:20). More likely, however, we should find here only a tension in the logic of the parabolic picture (that those gathered in from the streets should suddenly be wearing clothing adequate for a royal wedding), which is the result of Matthew’s wanting to give the parable a parenetic point that functioned within the church. Either way, the guest without the wedding robe can hardly represent all the “bad” of v. 10. If Matthew had wanted to say that the disciples should call everyone into the church without distinction, and that the king would then separate out the bad ones—recognized by their inappropriate clothing—we would have expected to find a plural in vv. 11–13 that corresponds to v. 10. In any case, it is implied that between v. 10 and vv. 11–13 the bad ones invited to the wedding banquet are required to abandon their evil ways. Addressing the guest without the proper clothing as “friend” is by no means to be heard in a positive sense (cf. on 20:13). [13] His expulsion evokes the imagery of God’s judgment already familiar from 8:12; 13:42, 50 (cf. also 24:51; 25:30). [14] The saying in v. 14 expresses the parenetic aspect of the scene in vv. 11–13. Alongside those called in vv. 3– 4, who by their own conduct have excluded themselves from salvation, there can and will be some even among those who have responded to the call who will not finally be numbered among the elect. In Matthew, the Last Judgment serves not only to delegitimize opponents, but is also parenetically directed to those inside the church. The invitation is open to all without discrimination, but participation in the eschatological banquet is conditional on doing righteousness. Therefore, only a few will experience this joy (cf. 7:14). V.3.3 The Trilogy of Conflict Stories (22:15– 40)

After the massive charges against the authorities represented by the three parables in 21:28–22:14, they attempt to trap Jesus with a trick question (22:15).

330

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

What appears as a single episode in Mark 12:13–17 becomes in Matthew a series of tests. Unlike the parable trilogy, this does not happen by Matthew’s supplementing the Markan pericope with two further selections from Q and his special material. Rather, the trilogy of conflict stories is based entirely on Markan material and retained in the Markan order. However, Matthew has turned the friendly conversation between two teachers about the first commandment in Mark 12:28–34 into another conflict story, in which a Pharisee, a teacher of the Law, confronts Jesus with a question in order to test him. By reformulating the introduction to the conflict story that begins in 22:34, the Sadducees’ question about the resurrection in 22:23–33 (par. Mark 12:18–27) also appears as an attempt to expose Jesus as an inadequate teacher. The introduction in 22:15 thus serves as an omen of what is to come, which sets the direction for the whole trilogy that follows. The Jewish authorities want to elicit a statement from Jesus that can be used against him, or at least corner him with tricky questions, in order to undermine the admiration he enjoys among the people and thus clear the obstacle of 21:46 out of the way. In 22:15– 40, as in Matthew’s overall configuration of the series of conflict stories, it is the Pharisees who are Jesus’ main opponents. V.3.3.1 The Question about Taxes (22:15–22)

Then the Pharisees went away, and made the decision to entrap him in what he said. 16 And they send their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, and say, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one, for you are not concerned with whether or not people approve of you. 17 Tell us, then, what you think: Is it permitted to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” 18 But Jesus, since he recognized their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” So they handed him a denarius. 20 And he says to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” 21 They say to him, “The emperor’s.” Then he says to them, “Give therefore to the emperor what is the emperor’s, and to God what is God’s!” 22 And when they heard this, they were amazed, backed off, and went away. 15

[15] While in Mark 12:13 it is the high priests, scribes, and elders (see Mark 11:27) who initiate the attempt by some of the Pharisees and Herodians to test Jesus by asking him a trick question, Matthew has the initiative proceed from the Pharisees themselves, whom the evangelist has already registered as Jesus’ opponents in 21:45. Given the support that Jesus enjoys among the people (21:46), they must work out a strategy about how best to proceed against Jesus. Matthew’s formulation that they “made the decision” evokes the lethal decision

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

331

made in 12:14. [16–17] That they do not confront Jesus themselves, but send their “disciples” (probably meaning the students of the Pharisaic scribes), can be understood as part of their plan. Those who have been attacked so strongly by Jesus can hardly set up a trap in which Jesus shall fall with any credibility. To increase their chances of success, they require “fresh” faces. The supporters of the Herodian dynasty (v. 16) are merely stage props. In 12:14, Matthew has deleted them from his source (cf. Mark 3:6). In the politically explosive question about taxes to Rome, they have probably been retained because Matthew sees in them a group loyal to Rome. The disciples of the Pharisees begin their loaded question with a captatio benevolentiae (rhetorical technique, “fishing for goodwill”). Although in 21:23, it was while Jesus was teaching that he was attacked with a challenge to his authority, now he is flattered with comments about the truthfulness of his teaching. The aim of this poisonous praise is to elicit an unguarded statement from Jesus: if it is true that when Jesus teaches he is not concerned about whether or not people approve of his answers —including powerful people—he should demonstrate this attitude when it is a matter that concerns the Roman authorities, even the emperor, and not mince words. With the introduction to the question about taxes in v. 17, “So tell us what you think,” Matthew refers back to the opening of the parable trilogy in 21:28, thus emphasizing that the question is a payback for Jesus’ previous charge against them. In 21:31, 41 Jesus made the authorities pronounce their own verdict. Now they want to do the same to him. The trap is well constructed: if Jesus responds negatively to the question or lets himself be provoked to say something critical about having to pay the tax, he places something in the hands of his opponents that can be used against him in charges before Pilate; but the Pharisees can use a positive answer to discredit him in the eyes of the people burdened with taxes, who in 21:46 are still protecting him from being seized by the authorities. [18] Jesus, of course, sees through his opponents this time too (9:4; 12:15, 25). Differently from Mark 12:15, Matthew intensifies the negative characterization of Jesus’ opponents by letting Jesus recognize their evil intentions (v. 18a: “he recognized their malice”) and then transfers the Markan charge of hypocrisy (Mark 12:15a: “he knew their hypocrisy”) to the beginning of Jesus’ reply (Matt 22:18b: “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites?”). By portraying their wickedness (cf. 9:4; 12:34, 39, 45; 16:4) and their hypocrisy (cf. 15:7: 23:13–29; cf. also 6:2, 5, 16), Matthew here joins the two central characteristics that determine his portrayal of Jesus’ opponents. They take action against Jesus out of their anti-God malice; they obscure their real intentions by their hypocrisy. Thus in this case their question has no other purpose but to put Jesus to the test. [19–21a] Responding to their question with a command

332

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

to show him the coin used for the tax, Matthew brings the evil hypocrisy of the opponents to light even more clearly than is the case with the command of the Markan Jesus to bring a denarius for him to see. For the Matthean formulation presupposes unequivocally that the opponents carry the tax coin, on which the image of the emperor can be seen (vv. 20–21), even into the temple. Obviously they themselves pay this tax, so that it is evident that they have not come to Jesus to ask a serious question, but only to put him to the test (v. 18; cf. 16:1; 19:3; 22:35). [21b] The sovereignty with which Jesus lets the attacks of his opponents go nowhere culminates in v. 21b in Jesus’ aphoristic conclusion. From its first half, to give the emperor what belongs to him, and after Jesus has revealed that the opponents themselves pay this tax, nothing can be achieved here that would counter Jesus’ popularity with the people. And he has given them just as little basis for bringing charges against him before the Roman authorities. The real point of his answer, however, lies in the second half of the sentence, which goes beyond the original question, and gives it added emphasis: “and (give) God what is God’s!” This addition implies that the tax issue, relatively speaking, is irrelevant. Priority is to be given to reflecting on what is to be given to God (cf. 6:33). In the light of Matthew’s Gospel as a whole, a countercriticism can be heard along with this. The fact that they give the emperor what he is entitled to is clear from the fact that they carry the tax money with them but they do not give to God “what belongs to God.” The contextual connection with the parable of the vineyard owner, in which the evil tenants deny the owner the fruits of his vineyard, underscores this (21:34–39). [22] While the Markan conclusion of the pericope only states that the opponents were astonished, Matthew goes beyond this and says that they backed off. Matthew here takes up a note from Mark’s portrayal of another scene, which stands at the conclusion of the parable of the tenants (Mark 12:12), and which Matthew has omitted there because he has added the parable of the royal wedding banquet (Matt 22:1–14). Jesus’ sovereign response to the tax question appeared to the evangelist to be an appropriate place to add this note and thus underscore the opponents’ failure. V.3.3.2 The Sadducees’ Question about the Resurrection of the Dead (22:23–33)

The same day some Sadducees came up to him and said that there is no resurrection, and they asked him 24 and said, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies childless, his brother shall do the duty of a brother-in-law, marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. 26 The second did the same, so also the third, down to the 23

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

333

seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman herself died. 28 In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her.” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they do not marry, nor are they given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astounded at his teaching. [23] After the failure of the attempt by the Pharisees’ disciples to set a trap for Jesus (22:15), on the same day—as Matthew explicitly notes at the beginning of the story—the Sadducees, who already appeared alongside the Pharisees in 3:7; 16:1, now enter this scene. This stage setting obviously has an ironic note, for the Sadducees approach Jesus with a question about an issue on which the Pharisees basically agree with Jesus against the Sadducees (see Gielen, Der Konflikt Jesu, 254). The conviction of the Sadducees that there is no resurrection (cf. Acts 23:8; Josephus, War 2.165; Ant. 18.16) appears in Matthew not as an explanation by the narrator, as it does in Mark 12:18 (this would be inappropriate in Matthew’s context, where such comments would be unnecessary for his informed addressees). Matthew formulates the comment as a summary in the indirect quotation that introduces the dispute, which is thus subdivided into two aspects. The Sadducees first challenge Jesus with their fundamental denial of the resurrection, which calls for him to offer proof to the contrary. Then they confront him with a pedantic, nitpicky case they have constructed, intended to show the absurdity of belief in the resurrection. In accord with this, Jesus’ response is also divided into these two steps. [24] In the case they present as an example, the Sadducees initially take recourse to the command of Deuteronomy 25:5– 6, cited freely with some influence from Genesis 38:8, in which the brother of a man who dies childless is instructed to marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. [25–27] On this basis they present an adventurous case in which a woman is married to seven brothers in turn. [28] With their question of whose wife she will be in the resurrection, they are not able, of course, to embarrass Jesus and expose him to the crowds as a false teacher (cf. v. 33). [29–32] What actually happens is that Jesus’ countermove exposes the incompetence of his opponents. Jesus’ opening response, accusing his opponents with the double charge of ignorance of both the Scriptures and the power of God, is unfolded in reverse order. First, they do not understand God’s power, for the resurrection is more than, and different from, merely a return to the old forms of bodily existence to which

334

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

marital cohabitation of husband and wife belongs (Gen 1–2; cf. Matt 19:4– 6). The reality of the resurrection world is a matter of transformation (cf. 1 Cor 15:35–58) into the mode of reality in which the angels in heaven live (v. 30; cf. 2 Bar. 51:5, 10). The case presented by the Sadducees is thus based on false presuppositions, in that it naively represents the resurrection life as merely the continuation of earthly life. In the second place, their fundamental denial of the resurrection illustrates their ignorance of the Scripture. The special place the testimony of the Torah holds for them (see Josephus, Ant. 18.16), illustrated in the preceding by their attempt to prove that the resurrection is impossible by appealing to Deuteronomy 25:5– 6, is also reflected in Jesus’ response. He does not make use of Daniel 12:2–3, but cites God’s self-identification in Exodus 3:6 as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Following the quotation, Jesus cites the theological presupposition that makes this verse a proof of the resurrection: if God is God of the living, not of the dead, then his self-identification in Exodus 3:6 presupposes that the patriarchs are still alive, or that they will be raised to life in the resurrection (cf. 4 Macc [7:19]; 16:25). [33] Matthew has added a note about the reaction of the crowds to Jesus’ response. The attempt of the Sadducees to embarrass Jesus before the crowds has thoroughly failed, for the multitudes are positively amazed at Jesus’ teaching. The parallel in 7:28–29 makes clear that their amazement is intended in the positive sense. The repeated note about the positive response from the crowds is based on Mark 11:18. Since Matthew has omitted that scene from Mark in which the high priests and scribes continue to plot Jesus’ death, and since in his account of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem so far he has reported healings (21:14) but has said nothing about his teaching, he could not use Mark’s reference to the astonishment of the crowds in its Markan location. However, Matthew by no means wanted to suppress this, and thus found a suitable place for it in his own composition. Jesus’ superiority that radiates from his dispute with the Sadducees provides him the opportunity to add this comment, at the same time renewing and validating the contrast between the people and the ruling class. V.3.3.3 The Question of the Greatest Commandment (22:34– 40)

Now when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together at the same place. 35 And one of them, a teacher of the Law, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?” 37 So he said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” 34

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

335

Matthew 22:34– 40 manifests striking agreements with Luke 10:25–28 over against Mark 12:28–34. For example, Matthew 22:35 / Luke 10:25 mentions that Jesus is being tested (or “tempted”) with the question about the greatest commandment, and the questioner in each case is described as a teacher of the Law. This is particularly conspicuous, since this term is found only here in Matthew. Moreover, since Luke does not use the story about the double commandment in its Markan location, one might easily assume that Matthew and Luke had a second source for this story in addition to Mark 12:28–34. This could have been in Q, but it is also possible to think of firm oral tradition. It is noticeable that in Luke 10:25–28 it is the teacher of the Law who formulates the double commandment of love. It fits in with this that in Mark 12:28–34 the scribe emphatically agrees with Jesus’ declaration that the commandments to love God and the neighbor are the greatest. In Mark and Luke, therefore, it appears that the double commandment of love does not appear as something distinctive of the disciples of Jesus, but as a more widespread position, which can be further documented by parallels in early Judaism (T. Iss. 5:2; 7:6; T. Dan 5:3; Philo, Spec. Laws 2.63). In the context of the dispute between his congregations and the Pharisees, Matthew clearly places the accent differently. Because of this conflicted situation, it does not fit in with his view to have a teacher of the Law who does not belong to the community of Jesus’ disciples be the one who introduces the commandments of love of God and neighbor as the primary teaching of the Torah. Mark 12:32–34b is thus omitted, just as the friendly atmosphere of the dialogue in Mark has no place in Matthew. Rather, the pericope is consistently integrated into the history of conflict characteristic of Matthew: Jesus is not dealing with an individual scribe who has a positive attitude toward Jesus’ previous statements, but with the group of Pharisees that constitute his main opponents. Moreover, the double commandment of love—and thus the high evaluation placed on the commandment to love the neighbor—is reclaimed exclusively for his own group, while throughout the Gospel Jesus’ questioners are charged with an understanding of the will of God that is entirely deficient. [34–35] Compared to Mark 12:28, Matthew has completely reformulated the introduction to the story in vv. 34–35. When the Pharisees learn that the attempt of the Sadducees has also failed, they again see themselves challenged to carry out their decision made in 22:15. So they again meet together, and a teacher of the Law from their group confronts Jesus with the next question designed to test him. [36] To be sure, the question of which is the greatest commandment is, in and of itself, thoroughly Jewish, and, taken by itself, there is nothing insidious about it. In the Matthean context, however, the Pharisees’ approach can be illuminated by noting the connection with the preceding

336

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

controversies about the Sabbath law (12:1–14) and handwashing before meals (15:1–20). Jesus’ placing mercy as more important than the temple—and thus over the worship of God in the temple (12:5–7; cf. also 5:23–24) —as well as his criticism of the practice of vows at the expense of honoring one’s parents (15:4– 6), allowed his opponents to accuse him of devoting attention to human beings instead of making the love of God primary, thus devaluing the importance of acknowledging and worshiping the one God as the first and most important principle of Judaism (cf. e.g., Let. Aris. 132; Ps.-Phoc. 8; Philo, Decalogue 65; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.190). If, therefore, in the early Jewish context the question of which is the greatest commandment can be answered with nothing more than a reference to the love or fear of God, one can understand the question in such a way that the Pharisees are now trying to get Jesus to make an explicit statement about the Torah which would show that for him the worship of the one God is not the highest priority. Locating the scene in the temple gives it an additional contour, because Jesus has twice before appealed to Hosea 6:6 (“I desire mercy, not sacrifice”) against the Pharisees (9:13; 12:7). [37–39] Again, the Pharisees’ attempt goes awry, for Jesus’ response binds together his emphasis on compassionate turning to the neighbor with his stance on the love of God as the greatest commandment. Thus, by his quotation from Deuteronomy 6:5 as the “greatest and first commandment” (v. 38), Jesus first aligns himself with the Jewish consensus and thereby undermines the Pharisees’ intention to set a trap for him (v. 15). In a second move, however, vv. 37–38 are then interpreted in accordance with the preceding emphasis in Matthew of the compassionate turning to one’s fellow human beings (9:13; 12:7): without being asked, the commandment to love one’s neighbor is cited as the second commandment, which Matthew, by his reformulation of the introduction in v. 39, explicitly places in the same category. It is precisely this placing of the two commandments on the same footing that is the point of the Matthean version. If one includes here the statement in 7:12 about the “summary of the Law,” then in 22:34– 40 it is the love of God which is added in comparison to 7:12! From this broader context it is thus evident that for Matthew the love of God is not realized by tightening up the purity laws (15:1–20), or the rigorous observance of the rules for the Sabbath (12:1–14), or extending the practice of tithing (23:23), but by doing the divine will centered on the demand for compassion, so that the love of God and neighbor, to the extent that they are not actually identical, at least cannot be played off against each other. And since placing love for neighbor on a par with the command to love God also takes up the previous emphasis on compassion, Jesus’ response also carries the overtone that the Pharisees do not give love for the neighbor the proper rank (cf. on 5:43– 48; 9:13; 12:7; 23:23).

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

337

[37–38] The four prepositional phrases in Mark 12:30 are reduced to three in Matthew 22:37, which corresponds to Deuteronomy 6:5, but the final phrase in Matthew (“with all your mind”) adduces a variant found in some manuscripts of the LXX for “with all your heart.” On the other hand, the third term from Deuteronomy 6:5 is omitted (“with all your strength”), which Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27 present, but in a wording not found in extant LXX manuscripts. One might ponder the possibility that in Matthew’s historical context the interpretation of “with all your strength” was understood to refer to one’s possessions, an interpretation documented in later sources but already known in Matthew’s setting (e.g., Tg. Onq. on Deut 6:5; b. Ber. 61b; Sifre Deut. § 32 on 6:5). In that case, this phrase would have been omitted in anticipation of the following command to love the neighbor. To serve God with one’s possessions does not mean to erect cathedrals, but to support the needy (cf. 6:19–21, 24; 19:21), so that it would be included in the commandment to love the neighbor. [39] The commandment to love the neighbor is to be understood as universal in the light of 5:43– 44. That Matthew ascribes to it the function of summarizing the whole Torah has already been indicated in 19:19, [40] and this is now explicitly stated in v. 40. The statement that the Torah “hangs” from these two commandments to love God and the neighbor does not reduce the Torah to these two commands, but these are presented as the fundamental basis and major premise of the whole Torah and thus established as the guidelines for their interpretation. As in 5:17 and 7:12, the Prophets here come into view as interpreters of the will of God found in the Torah. Phrased the other way around: the way in which the Prophets presented the obligation to do the will of God helps to develop an adequate understanding of the Torah (on this, see again the reception of Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:13 and 12:7). V.3.4 Jesus’ Question about the Sonship of the Messiah (22:41– 46)

And since the Pharisees had gathered together, Jesus asked them 42 and said, “What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?” They say to him, “David’s.” 43 He says to them, “In what sense then does David by the Spirit calls him Lord, when he says, 44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’? 45 So if David calls him Lord, in what sense is he his son?” 46 And no one could answer him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare to question him further. 41

Matthew continues to follow the Markan thread, but he has reformulated Jesus’ monologue in Mark 12:35–37 into a dialogue, transforming it into a controversy story, so that [41] this refashioned introduction now links it to the preceding one. From his side, Jesus now seizes the opportunity provided

338

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

him by the Pharisees having gathered together (cf. v. 34) to challenge them to demonstrate their competence as interpreters of Scripture. After his opponents have failed in all three attempts (vv. 15– 40), in vv. 41– 46 Jesus exposes the Pharisees with a single “counterattack.” [42] As in 21:28, Jesus begins by asking his opponents about their own opinion. As the authorities began the disputation in 21:23 with the question about Jesus’ authority, which would have been rightly answered by declaring that Jesus is the Messiah sent and legitimated by God, so Jesus now concludes the disputation by addressing the issue of the messianic expectation itself. A closer look reveals a correspondence between the authorities’ double question in 21:23 and Jesus’ double question in 22:42 (replacing Mark 12:35b). “By what authority are you doing these things?” corresponds to “What do you think of the Christ?”; “Who gave you this authority?” finds a counterpart in “Whose son is he?” According to Matthew’s Christology, this second question calls for a two-part answer: the Messiah is the Son of David and the Son of God (cf. on 1:18–25; 11:2; and 16:16). Jesus’ question is thus doubly ambiguous. One can understand it as a general question about the Messiah. At the same time, however, Jesus—in interplay with 21:23—is also dealing with his own identity. With reference to the Son of David, the Pharisees give the answer to be expected in the light of early Jewish messianic expectation, as found, for instance, in Psalms of Solomon 17:21– 46. They thus determine the identity of the Messiah with precisely the title that the one who now addresses the question to them has been acclaimed in 21:9, 15. Already in 12:23–24, the Pharisees themselves, recognizing the budding recognition among the people that Jesus is the Son of David, sought to nip this in the bud by accusing him of operating by the power of Beelzebul. In view of this “case history,” it should dawn on the Pharisees that Jesus’ question has a second floor, but, in view of a possible accusation before Pilate that Jesus is a messianic pretender, they can gain nothing from this, because Jesus does not make his own identity explicit (cf. 26:63– 68, 27:11). Since the answer of the Pharisees is not false, but “only” incomplete, [4344] Jesus does not reject it in what follows, but, by asking two follow-up questions that confront the Pharisees with a problem in biblical interpretation, he demonstrates that the problem of their answer is that it has only one level. The two questions—each introduced with “how/in what sense”—are by no means synonymous. The first question is based on a christological interpretation of Psalm 110:1 (cf., e.g., Acts 2:34–35; 1 Cor 15:25; Heb 1:3, 13), which has as its first line “the Lord spoke to my Lord,” understood in the sense “God spoke to the Messiah of the house of David.” Since David is considered the speaker in the psalm, David therefore speaks “by the Spirit,” i.e., inspired by the Holy

V.3 The Disputes between Jesus and His Opponents in the Jerusalem Temple

339

Spirit (cf. Acts 1:16; 2:29–35; Josephus, Ant. 6.166), of his Messianic Son as “Lord.” If one relates this to the introductory question of whose son the Messiah is, then the answer to the question of how David can call him “Lord” must be: because the Messiah, the Son of David, is at the same time Son of God and as such is superior to David. [45] The second question looks at the issue from the opposite angle, how the one David calls “Lord” can be his son. The reader of the Matthean Jesusstory knows the answer from 1:18–25: Jesus, the Son of God, is “adopted” by Joseph, who is a son of David, as his son (1:20). The new Matthean version of 22:41– 46 thus recapitulates and reinforces the christological approach of Matthew 1, but the emphasis now lies with increased strength on the fact that identifying Jesus as the Son of David, taken by itself, is not enough. This note has already been sounded in 14:33 and 16:16, but it will emerge even more clearly in the following context, for Matthew will emphasize the passion narrative as the passion and resurrection of the Son of God. In the structure of the Gospel as a whole, 22:41– 46 thus has something of a hinge function. With the last explicit use of a saying about Jesus as Son of David, Matthew points back to the ministry of Jesus that he has in a certain way framed by Matthew 1 and 22:41– 46, for this is centrally characterized by Jesus’ turning mercifully to his people in the role of Son of David. By referring to the Son of God theme in 22:41– 46, at the same time he looks forward to the passion narrative to come. [46] The Pharisees are silenced by Jesus’ questions. Those who opposed the crowds that were pondering whether Jesus might be the promised Son of David (12:23–24) now reveal their inability to explain the Scripture’s statements about the Davidic Messiah. Viewed in terms of textual pragmatics, what is revealed here is the evangelist’s attempt to comprehensively delegitimize his Pharisaic counterpart: not only in questions about interpretation of the Torah (cf. 5:20– 48; 12:1–14; 15:1–20; 19:3–12), but also on the subject of messianic expectation, the opposition of the Jewish authorities to Jesus goes hand in hand with their incompetence in understanding the Scripture. When he says that no one knew how to answer Jesus a word, Matthew intentionally refers back to 22:15: instead of trapping Jesus in what he said (lit., “in a word”), their attempt has left themselves with nothing to say; they must realize that their attempt has failed. Matthew underscores this when at v. 46b he adds the note he omitted at the end of the pericope about the double commandment of love in Mark 12:34c, that no one dared to ask Jesus anything else. With the addition of “from that day on” he makes clear that the phase of verbal dispute has reached its definitive end. Jesus has impressively

340

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

demonstrated his superiority in teaching, and thereby his “authority” (21:23). The Jewish authorities, after the plan concocted in 22:15 proved useless, have to develop a new course of action to “seize” Jesus (21:46) and get him out of the way. This thread will be picked up again in 26:3–5. V.4 The Discourse against the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1–39) After he has once again shown the malice and incompetence of the authorities led by the Pharisees in the disputes in 22:15– 46, in 23:1–39 Matthew adds a speech addressed to the people and Jesus’ disciples concerning the Pharisees and scribes, which is tantamount to the final delegitimization of the Pharisees as authorities in Israel. In view of the problematic impact this passage has had in the history of interpretation, we must note at the outset that this is indeed a highly polemical text. A balanced, historically adequate representation of neither the beliefs nor the way of life of the Pharisees is to be found here. The insight that in the ancient world polemics were not squeamish helps us to classify the text historically but does not remove its problematic character. The speech can be roughly subdivided into three sections of different lengths. The main section, which consists of seven woes (vv. 13–36), is preceded by a sharp contrast between the fame and recognition sought after by the scribes and Pharisees and the humility and willingness to serve expected of Jesus’ disciples. In vv. 37–39, the speech opens into a lament over Jerusalem. The placement of the speech is inspired by the brief warning against the scribes in Mark 12:38– 40, the content of which is worked into the beginning of the Matthean speech in vv. 6–7, with major changes. Otherwise, the speech is essentially based on the woes in Q 11:39–52, which forms the basic framework of the second part of the speech in vv. 13–36. However, the differences in the woes between Matthew and Luke in both wording and order are so significant that attempts to reconstruct the text of Q they used continues to be highly speculative. We can continue to assume there is a good basis for believing that Q, like Matthew 23:13–36, contained seven woes. The reduction to six in Luke results from his reformulation of the woe against merely external purity (Matt 23:25–26) in Luke 11:39– 41. Conversely, Matthew has taken two of the woes in Q (Q 11:43, a parallel to Mark 12:38b–39a, and Q 11:46), stripped them of the woe formula, and inserted them in the first part of the speech in v. 4 and vv. 6–7. In their place, he has inserted two new woes in v. 15 and vv. 16–22, restoring the original number of seven woes. The concluding saying about Jerusalem is paralleled in Luke 13:34–35 and thus is also derived from Q, where (following the Lukan order) it was not connected with the woe pronouncements.

V.4 The Discourse against the Scribes and Pharisees

341

V.4.1 Thirst for Glory versus Relating to People as Brothers and Sisters (23:1–12)

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 and said, “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in Moses’ teaching chair. 3 So, all that they say to you, do and keep, but do not do according to their works! The problem is that they say, but do not do. 4 They tie up heavy, unbearable burdens, and lay them on people’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. 5 They do all their deeds to be admired by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. 6 They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the seats of honor in the synagogues, 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces, and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’ 8 But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi’! For you have one teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. 9 And call no one among yourselves on earth ‘Father,’ for you have one Father—the one in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘master,’ for you have one Master, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you is to be your servant. 12 But whoever exalts themselves will be humbled, and whoever humbles themselves will be exalted.” 1

[1] The first verse sets the scene for the entire speech. The crowds (cf. Mark 12:37b), who have overheard the disestablishment of the authorities (22:33), are now instructed by Jesus together with his disciples about the authorities—which means, they are warned against them. [2–3] The initial statement that the Pharisees have seated themselves in Moses’ teaching chair merely confirms the social reality, but by no means includes the affirmative judgment that they rightly occupy this authoritative position. So also, v. 3a only seems to imply such acceptance, for the option of regarding vv. 2–3a as a true concession has conclusively against it not only the explicit warning against their teaching in 16:12, but also 5:20–48, where Jesus’ exposition of the Torah which leads to the “better righteousness” is contrasted with the scribes’ and Pharisees’ inadequate understanding of the Torah. Moreover, the Matthean Jesus has repeatedly reproached the Pharisees for their ignorance of Scripture (9:13; 12:3, 5–7; 19:4), in 15:1–9 has rejected the Pharisees’ tradition as merely human rules, and in 15:12–14 harshly criticized the Pharisees and scribes as blind leaders. Last but not least, understanding 23:2–3a in the sense of a sincerely intended acceptance would clash with v. 8, where Jesus presents himself as the one teacher. Against this background (and after the disputes in 22:15–46!), v. 3a can hardly be understood otherwise than as an ironic statement that functions as an abutment for v. 3b: it serves to bring out the “hypocritical” contradiction between speaking and acting of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. 21:28–32!). In this light, their sitting in Moses’ teaching chair (v. 2) appears to be pretentious arrogance.

342

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

[4] Verse 4 (par. Luke 11:46) substantiates the discrepancy between talking and doing pointedly marked in v. 3c. The “heavy burdens” (cf. the contrast with 11:29–30) stand metaphorically for the high demands that the teaching of the authorities places on others. In this way they convey a deep sincerity and impressive piety. But all this is purely external, for what they charge others to do, they do not even come close to doing themselves. [5–7] From a strictly logical perspective the reproach that follows in vv. 5–7 stands in a certain tension with v. 4. Those who have just been accused of not lifting a finger now appear in v. 5a as in fact having works to display. But this tension is only superficial. Matthew now wants to draw attention to the fact that the scribes and Pharisees, when they do something, act only out of a desire for glory. Verses 3– 4 and 5–7 thus have a common denominator: Matthew wants to portray the piety of the scribes and Pharisees as pure hypocrisy. Fairness requires in this place an indication that criticism of dishonest motives is not something that only Christians have achieved. Rather, among the rabbis, too, the principle is found that God’s will is to be done for its own sake (see, e.g., m. Abot 1.3; b. Ber. 17a). Verse 5a claims that the scribes and Pharisees do what Jesus’ disciples should categorically avoid according to 6:1—the abuse of pious practices in order to elicit recognition from the people and thus generating the appearance of piety. Making the phylacteries worn conspicuously on the head and the left forearm broad (Exod 13:16; Deut 6:8; 11:18) and the tassels large (cf. on 9:20) is pointed out as an example of this attitude (v. 5b). The craving for glory and admiration that stands behind this conduct is then illustrated in vv. 6–7 when Matthew points out how the Pharisees and scribes publicly stage and enjoy the position of authority they claim. This reinterprets the actual recognition they receive as the motive for all their actions. Matthew found these detailed charges in Mark 12:38–39 and Q 11:43. He combined both formulations with the order given by Matthew corresponding to Q 11:43, “the seats of honor in the synagogues, and the greetings in the marketplaces.” Matthew has added the additional criticism that they enjoy being called “Rabbi,” as a transition to the instruction in vv. 8–12. [8–12] Verses 8–12 comprise a unit composed by the evangelist. Verses 8–10 derive from his special material, while in v. 11 he refers back to 20:26 (par. Mark 10:43), and in v. 12 he takes up a wandering logion that occurs in various places in the tradition (cf. Luke 14:11; 18:14), which already stood in the background of 18:4. [8–11] Verses 8–11 include—with a light variation in vv. 10–11—three parallel admonitions, in each of which a negative imperative is followed by its justification. The disciples should consistently reject honorary titles, for in Jesus they have their one teacher and master. Similarly, they

V.4 The Discourse against the Scribes and Pharisees

343

should reject the title “father,” which could also function as an honorary title for scholars (e.g., Sifre Deut. § 34 on 6:7) but must be reserved for God. It is striking that in v. 10—differently from v. 8, but analogous to v. 9—the one master is qualified by an apposition appended to the end of the sentence, and here Jesus speaks again of the Messiah (cf. 22:42). Although he does not explicitly apply this title to himself, it is still evident to the disciples (cf. 16:16) and, according to 21:9, is probably also transparent to the crowds that he does not mean anyone other than himself. In the first and third admonitions (vv. 8, 10–11), statements are added about the relation of the disciples to each other, which are mutually supplementary and have a programmatic ecclesiastical character. Since the teaching authority belongs exclusively to Christ, on whom all who are set apart as teachers in the church are dependent, and since all are children of the one Father, the church should be characterized by a social structure of brothers and sisters (cf. 12:49–50). To be sure, the church, too, has its scribes (13:52; 23:34), but they should not claim a special position for themselves, but fit themselves into the community of brothers and sisters. Where God and his Messiah are acknowledged as the authorities, all human distinctions are irrelevant. This social structure of the church as a family of brothers and sisters becomes more prominent, in that the one who wants to be the greatest in the church is to be the servant of all, following the example of Jesus (v. 11; cf. 20:28). [12] The statement in v. 12 concludes the section by picturing it in an eschatological framework: those who exalt themselves, as the Pharisees are here charged with doing, will finally be humbled by God, but those who distinguish themselves on earth by humility, making nothing of themselves, will be honored by God at the end (cf. 18:4). By taking up again in vv. 11 and 12 sayings he has previously used, 23:8–12 is interwoven with the preceding themes of the ethos of the church. By repeating these themes, the evangelist shows the importance he attaches to the idea of a non-hierarchical, familial social structure of brothers and sisters in the church. By the insertion of vv. 8–12, the indictment of the scribes and Pharisees is given a parenetic accent. Analogous to the contrast of v. 4 to 11:29–30, and v. 5a to 6:1, the scribes and Pharisees here function as a negative foil for what the evangelist wants to say. The church leaders should conduct themselves in a way that clearly differs from that of the status seekers. In view of the addressees, it should not be concluded that this discussion of church structure applies only to the disciples. Rather, at the same time the crowds are challenged to turn away from their previous authorities and to turn to Jesus as the one Teacher (cf. Matt 11:28–30).

344

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

V.4.2 The Seven Woes (23:13–36)

“But woe to you, you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites, for you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven! For you do not come in yourselves, and when others want to enter, you stop them.* 15 Woe to you, you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites, for you cross sea and land to make a single proselyte! And you make the new convert a son of hell, twice as bad as yourselves. 16 “Woe to you, you blind guides, you who say, ‘Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath.’ 17 You fools and blind people! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred? 18 And: ‘Whoever swears by the sacrificial altar is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar is bound by the oath.’ 19 You blind people! For which is greater, the gift on the altar, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the sacrificial altar, swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it. 23 Woe to you, you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law: justice and mercy and faith. You ought to have practiced these, without neglecting the others! 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel! 25 Woe to you, you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites, for you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full because of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean. 27 “Woe to you, you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites, for you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and every impurity! 28 So you also on the outside look righteous to human beings, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. 29 Woe to you, you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites, for you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, 30 and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you testify against yourselves that you, too, are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 Snakes! Brood of vipers! How do you want to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets, sages, and scribes, (some of) whom you will kill and crucify, and (some) you will flog in your synagogues and pursue 13

V.4 The Discourse against the Scribes and Pharisees

345

from town to town, 35 so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of Abel, the righteous one, to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the sacrificial altar. 36 Amen, I say to you, all this will come upon this kind of people.” *Verse 14 (“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance you make long prayers; therefore, you will receive the greater condemnation.”) does not belong to the original text. With the woes in vv. 13–36 that stand in the prophetic-apocalyptic tradition (cf. e.g., Isa 5:8–24; 10:1–11; Hab 2:6–10; 1 En. 94:6–19), Matthew turns again to the direct delegitimization of the scribes and Pharisees, now stereotypically designated as “hypocrites” (vv. 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; cf. on 6:1–2). Differently from Luke 11:37–52, where the woes are directed to the Pharisees and teachers of the Law themselves, in Matthew 23 it is the crowds and disciples who continue to be addressed (v. 1). Matthew thus uses the stylistic device of apostrophe, incorporating the woes into his instruction to the disciples and the crowds about the Pharisees. The actual hearers are different from those addressed by the woe form. Whether or to what extent individual scribes or Pharisees remain within hearing distance is irrelevant for understanding the scene in Matthew 23. Jesus no longer talks with them, but only about them, for his previous attempts have turned out to be pointless. Neither does Matthew distinguish between woes that apply to the Pharisees and those directed to teachers of the Law, unlike Luke 11:39–52 (vv. 39– 44 against the Pharisees, vv. 45–52 against the teachers of the Law), but directs all seven woes against both the scribes and the Pharisees. If one seeks to subdivide the seven woes, a symmetrical composition of 2 + 3 + 2 can be seen. This structure is certainly to be attributed to the hand of the evangelist. Woes are usually associated with a pronouncement of judgment, as illustrated by Matthew himself in 11:21–24. This also applies to the series in Matthew 23, though here the judgment is not linked to each individual woe, but is combined with the conclusion in vv. 32–36. [13] The series is opened by two terse woes that cast light on the fatal consequences of the work of the scribes and Pharisees from the perspective of the people’s salvation. The first woe stands at the end of Luke’s series (Luke 11:52); its position at the head in Matthew 23:13 is due to Matthew’s compositional interest. Just as Jesus indirectly presented himself as the one teacher in 23:8–12, so v. 13 looks at the consequences of the inadequate or false interpretation of the will of God by the scribes and Pharisees. They thereby block people’s access to salvation, at the same time keeping it closed to themselves (cf. 5:20). In the

346

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

broader context, v. 13 is to be read in connection with 16:19. The failure of the scribes and Pharisees has become irrelevant for people anyway, since the keys to the kingdom of heaven have been handed over to Peter. The very first woe thus implies that the claims of the scribes and Pharisees to leadership have been comprehensively called in question. [15] The second woe, found only in Matthew, then declares the fatal soteriological consequences of their work from the perspective of Gentiles who turn toward Judaism. The saying about “crossing sea and land to make a single proselyte” (cf., e.g., Jonah 1:9; Hag 2:6; 1 En. 97:7) is a figurative illustration for exerting the greatest effort and thus provides no evidence in ancient Judaism for an active, organized mission to distant lands. The real background of v. 15 can be seen in the fact that people who have a sympathetic interest in Judaism, the so-called God fearers, were pushed to become proselytes by Pharisaic-minded Jews. An illustration of such efforts is provided by Josephus’ report of the conversion of King Izates of Adiabene (Ant. 20.34– 48). It is quite possible that v. 15 picks up on a situation with which Matthew himself was confronted: people from among the Gentiles who were attracted to Jewish believers in the Messiah, or have already been baptized, are being wooed or harassed by the Pharisees, who were trying to get them to become full proselytes, thus formally converting to Judaism, which would include the circumcision of males. Verse 15 makes clear that joining the Pharisees does not lead to salvation, but to hell. [16–26] A triad of woes follows in vv. 16–26 that criticizes the scribes’ and Pharisees’ understanding of the Torah. Along with this thematic orientation, there is the characteristic feature of the passage in which the Pharisees are called “blind leaders” (vv. 16, 24; cf. 15:14) or simply “the blind” (vv. 17, 19, 26). This motif is not found in the Lukan woes; it probably derives from Matthew himself, who emphasizes the Pharisees’ lack of knowledge and inability to interpret the Torah adequately. In all three woes in vv. 16–26, the charges can be illustrated from the preceding context. [16–22] Thus the third woe (vv. 16–22), which, like v. 15, belongs to Matthew’s special materials, takes up the theme of the fourth antithesis in 5:33–37. As the thesis there illustrated the scribes’ and Pharisees’ inadequate understanding of the Torah (cf. 5:20), so here this is supplemented by two examples constructed along the same lines which show the absurdity of the halakhic differentiation between oaths that are binding and those that are not. The same pattern is followed in each example: the position that is criticized is first quoted (vv. 16, 18), only to then show that it is nonsensical on the basis of the same pattern (vv. 17, 19). The oath that is supposedly not binding refers to something greater than does the oath that is considered to be binding. Thus the temple is greater than the temple gold, which probably refers to the temple treasury (v. 16). So also, the altar is more important than the sacrifice placed

V.4 The Discourse against the Scribes and Pharisees

347

on it, for the latter first becomes holy by being placed on the altar, just as the inviolability of the temple treasure is derived from the temple. Verses 20–21 draw the logical consequence from this state of affairs: the oath that invokes that which is greater implies in each case the oath that invokes that which belongs to it and that is regarded as binding. The two examples in vv. 16–19 are taken up in reverse order in vv. 20–21, because the conclusion of v. 21 serves as the transition to v. 22. The line of thought in v. 21, in contrast to vv. 16–17, takes an unexpected turn, for according to vv. 16–17 it should be said in analogy to vv. 18–19, 20 that whoever swears by the temple also swears by what (the gold) is kept in the temple. When instead, on the basis of the idea of the temple as the dwelling place of God (cf., e.g., Hab 2:20; 11QT 29:8–9; Josephus, War 5.459) it is pointed out that the expression “by the temple” is the same as swearing “by God,” the content overshoots vv. 16–19 and anticipates v. 22, which goes back to 5:34. Matthew here makes clear that the Pharisees’ internal differentiation regarding the binding nature of different oath formulas falls apart, since ultimately they all always appeal to God himself. By referring back to 5:34, Matthew also indicates that oaths are to be omitted altogether. While in 23:16–22 the polemical exposing of the absurdity of the Pharisees’ rules stands in the foreground, the instruction in 5:33–37 also hovers in the background: the Pharisees are thus concerned with problems (and burden others with them) that, in the light of the will of God as taught by Jesus, appear to be useless from the outset. [23–24] The fourth woe in vv. 23–24 (par. Luke 11:42) attacks the way the scribes and Pharisees falsely weigh the importance of different commandments. The command to give a tenth of grain, fruit (Lev 27:30), oil, and wine to God (Deut 12:17; 14:23)—actually, to the Levites and priests (Num 18:21–32; cf. Neh 10:38– 40; 12:44; Philo, Virtues 95)—was also applied by them to garden herbs, as in the rabbinic principle formulated later: “A governing principle they stated concerning tithes: ‘Anything which is (1) food, (2) cultivated, (3) and which grows from the earth is subject to [the law of] tithes’” (m. Maaś. 1.1, trans. Neusner; on dill, cf. m. Maaś. 4.5; on cumin, Demai 2.1). The social achievement of an additional tithe for the poor, to be paid every third year (Deut 14:28–29; 26:12–13), is disregarded in the fourth woe, as shown by the juxtaposition of tithing and “ justice, mercy, and faith” (cf. the similar triad in Micah 6:8). By designating this triad as the “weightier matters of the Law,” Matthew brings out once again the primacy of social action over ritual observance (cf. 5:23–24; 9:13; 12:7), which is emphatically central for his hermeneutics of the Torah. The commandment about tithing belongs to the lesser commandments (cf. 5:18–19) which, to be sure, as underscored in the final clause of v. 23, are not abolished, but should not be placed at the center, as the scribes and Pharisees are here represented as doing (cf. Luke 18:12). The saying in v. 24 (missing

348

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

from the Luke 11:42 par.), which is linked to the practice of straining wine (cf. Amos 6:6 LXX; m. Šab 20.1–2), placards the wrong focus of their attention. Gnats are ritually unclean (see Lev 11:20–23, 41– 44); the straining of wine serves to filter them out. But camels are also ritually unclean (Lev 11:4; Deut 14:7). Verse 24 thus pictures, in a hyperbolical manner, that the Pharisees are concerned with the “small” things in the Torah, but in the “great” things—in the ethical sense—make themselves “impure.” [25–26] The fifth woe in vv. 25–26 (par. Luke 11:39– 40) builds on the purity motif implied in v. 24, at the same time calling to memory the controversy in Matthew 15:1–20. Preoccupation with the ritual purity of kitchen vessels now comes in alongside handwashing before meals. For Jesus, this is an expression of an understanding of purity oriented to externals, while he himself focuses on the uncleanness that comes from the heart (15:18–20). In 23:25–26 he extends this line of thought by contrasting the external purity of cups and plates with the food and drink they contain which comes from and thereby expresses the greedy and self-indulgent behavior of the scribes and Pharisees. The reproach found in Mark 12:40, that the scribes devour the houses of widows, is probably omitted by Matthew because he saw v. 25 as its counterpart: at mealtimes they pay meticulous attention to the ritual purity of tableware, while at the same time they pursue an immoral, luxurious life based on robbing others (cf. on 21:13), which documents their decadence and excess. This is also linked formally to the distinction that can be made regarding the ritual purity of the inside and outside of kitchen vessels (cf. m. Kelim 25.4: “. . . a utensil whose outer parts are made unclean—its inner part is not made unclean,” trans. Neusner). In Matthew 23:25, however, what is inside is not qualified in terms of ritual, but ethical impurity; moreover, it is not a matter of food inside the vessel remaining pure and therefore edible, even if the outer part of the vessel is ritually impure, but precisely the opposite: it is the external that is pure. The polemical criticism is mixed with mocking overtones: the Pharisees are preoccupied with their exposition of the Torah focused on their ritual questions with their (ultimately) useless differentiations (cf. vv. 16–19), while disregarding what is really important, the social demands of the Torah. Correspondingly, the admonition added in v. 26, to cleanse first the inside of the vessel, makes clear the necessity of ethical conversion. The orientation of how the matter is to be understood shifts from that of v. 25 to a purely metaphorical use of “vessel” for the person involved, so that Matthew, similarly as in v. 24, creates a transition to the next woe. [27–36] With the last two woes, Matthew concludes the section of denunciations related to specific questions of interpretation of the Law and switches over

V.4 The Discourse against the Scribes and Pharisees

349

to general, fundamental attacks that eventually culminate in the pronouncement of judgment. [27–28] The sixth woe, in vv. 27–28 (par. Luke 11:44) takes up the incongruity between external appearance and internal reality from v. 26, and now contrasts the external facade presented by the scribes and Pharisees (cf. v. 5), with their internal reality that actually defines them: on the inside, they are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness (cf. 7:23; 13:41). This contrast is then illustrated in v. 27 by comparing them to whitewashed tombs that appear beautiful from the outside but on the inside are filled with impurity. Later rabbinic texts (m. Maaś. 5.1; m. Šeqal. 1.1; m. Moed Qaṭ. 1.2) document the custom of identifying graves that were difficult to recognize by whitewashing them with lime to guard against accidental contamination, but Matthew can hardly have this practice in view. This would fit neither his description of the graves as “beautiful,” nor can the contrast of external and internal be made understandable on this basis, since the white coloring serves precisely as a warning against contamination. A background motif might be found for v. 27 in the fact that Herod erected a grave marker of white stone at David’s tomb in Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 16.182), and splendid white limestone adorned the patriarchs’ tombs in Hebron (War 4.531–532). Matthew may have this in mind (cf. Lau, “Geweißte Grabmäler”). The beautiful façades of the graves, though, did nothing to change the reality inside, which consisted of nothing except the unclean bones of the dead (on the ritual impurity of the dead, cf., e.g., Num 6:6–7; 19:11–22). So also, the external appearance on display by the scribes and Pharisees changes nothing of their ethical “impurity” coming from within. [29–31] The climax then comes in the seventh woe of vv. 29–31 (par. Luke 11:47– 48) on the persecution of the prophets and the (truly) righteous. The two concluding woes are linked by the keyword “graves” (vv. 27, 29), but above all in vv. 29–31, as in vv. 27–28, the guiding motif continues to be the contrast between external appearance given by the scribes and Pharisees in their taking proper care of the tombs of the prophets and righteous (v. 29), on the one hand, and their actual conduct, on the other. The words placed in their mouths in v. 30 are formulated with an intentional ambiguity: they distance themselves from the murder of the prophets with the claim that they, if they had been alive at that time, would not have participated in shedding their blood (the recurring blood motif found later in the pronouncement of judgment in vv. 35–36 already occurs here)—but they speak of the murderers as their “fathers.” They thus identify themselves, confirmed by v. 31, as the “sons” of those who killed the prophets. Matthew here makes a serious wordplay on the linguistic feature that expressions with “son of . . .” have not only the genealogical sense, but can also mean “belonging to a group” on the basis of affiliation or manifesting the same kind of behavior. For one thing, the “evidence” of actual affiliation is provided by

350

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

the mission declaration of v. 34, which presupposes that those Jesus sends out belong to the series of the prophets (cf. 5:12, as well as 22:2– 6 in the context of 21:34–36). Moreover, v. 30 already appears to the reader to be hypocrisy, because of the previous opposition to Jesus, “the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee” (21:11; with regard to their opposition against Jesus, one need only note 12:14; 21:46[!]; 22:15). They display their reverence for dead prophets, at the same time opposing the prophets of their own present. [32–33] While Matthew found the link between the woe pronounced in vv. 29–31 with the pronouncement of judgment against “this kind of people” (vv. 34–36) already in Q (cf. Luke 11:47–51), the insertion of vv. 32–33 is from his own hand. Matthew here takes up the idea that God has set a certain measure for sin (cf. e.g., Gen 15:16; 2 Macc 6:14–15; Jub. 29:11; 1 Thess 2:16). When this measure is complete, God’s judgment breaks in. After Matthew has placed the scribes and Pharisees as links in the chain of those who murdered the prophets (vv. 29–31), he can now sarcastically challenge them to go ahead and complete the measure of sin already filled in by their fathers. The declaration of v. 33, redactionally composed by Matthew on the basis of 3:7, accordingly looks to the inevitable future judgment. [34] Matthew has given the mission saying in v. 34 a significantly different orientation from that of his Q source. In Q, as in Luke 11:49, the saying is a word spoken in the past by Wisdom, announcing the sending of prophets and sages. Matthew, in contrast, makes it a saying about the sending of contemporary messengers by Jesus. The designations “prophets” (= Q), “sages” (= Q?), and “scribes” (added by Matthew) thus all refer to disciples of Jesus (cf. 10:41; 13:52). In v. 34, their mission is underpinned by an interpretation reflecting the judicial perspective of the context, which is idiosyncratic (and theologically very problematic): the disciples are not only sent out despite the persecutions foreseen (cf. 10:16–25) because it is necessary for the salvation of others, but precisely because of the persecution, so that in this way the measure of sin of the “fathers” of the scribes and Pharisees becomes full (v. 32), and so that the judgment can break forth on them (vv. 33, 35). Matthew’s view that those who persecute Jesus’ messengers and the murderers of the prophets form one collective of guilt that transcends the generations has already appeared in the parable trilogy (21:34–39; 22:3– 6). The fact that in their mission the disciples are not sent exclusively to the scribes and Pharisees by no means supports the thesis that in vv. 34–36 there is a de facto broadening of the intended audience to all Israel. Matthew continues to use the second-person plural, which in the preceding addressed the scribes and Pharisees. The mission instruction in 10:16 already had in view a mission addressed to the authorities in particular (see also 22:2–7 and 21:34–39), which is in no way incompatible with the perspective of 9:36 and 10:6, in which the

V.4 The Discourse against the Scribes and Pharisees

351

disciples are sent to the masses in Israel. Like 10:16, so also 23:34 does not speak comprehensively, but in terms of one aspect. What is in view here is that, within the framework of the mission of the disciples to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” they inevitably come into contact and confrontation with those who see themselves as the shepherds of the people—in Matthew’s view, wrongly so. It can be safely assumed that in Matthew’s historical context, it was in particular the prophets and scribes of the church who were involved in clashes with the Pharisees. Matthew has considerably expanded the statement about persecution in v. 34b. “Kill” has been supplemented—alluding to Jesus’ own death—by adding “crucify,” the “flog in your synagogues” of 10:17 is repeated, and the saying about persecution is extended by the “town to town” imagery of 10:23. The contacts with 10:17 and 23 underscore that the mission in 23:34a is to be read in the sense of the specific confrontation with the authorities, and thus in line with 10:16—not with 10:6. [35] Verse 35 then develops the judgment perspective of v. 33. The formulation that the shedding of all the righteous blood will be charged to the authorities (cf., e.g., Jer 26:15) links this judgment to the passion story, especially with the cry of the Jerusalem people assembled before Pilate in 27:25. Moreover, the expression “righteous/innocent blood”—probably influenced by Lamentations 4:13 (and cf. Joel 4:19; Jonah 1:14)—has a counterpart in 27:4, 24, as well as in the designation of Jesus as righteous/innocent in 27:19. In the explanation of the expression “all the righteous blood” by “from Abel (Gen 4) to Zechariah,” the reference is probably not to the Zechariah son of Baruch, who, according to Josephus (War 4.334–344) was murdered in the temple by the Zealots—in this case, the story would arch from the beginning of human history directly to the time of Matthew himself—but to the priest Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:20–22, although the latter is introduced there as a son of the priest Jehoiada (2 Chr 24:20). It is likely that the Zechariah here is confused with the prophet of Zechariah 1:1, 7, who, like a contemporary of Isaiah (Isa 8:2) was called “Zechariah, son of Berechiah.” This prophet Zechariah, however, cannot be in view here, since according to both the Old Testament and early Jewish tradition, he was not murdered (see Liv. Pro. 15:6). The particular sacrilege of murder in the temple is echoed in Lives of the Prophets 23:1–2: “From that time visible portents occurred in the Temple.” The judgment horizon that appears here is decisive for Matthew’s allusion to 2 Chronicles 24:20–22. The choice of the second-person plural in the relative clause, “whom you [pl.] murdered,” pushes the idea of a collective guilt that overarches time to the extreme, “fusing” the scribes and Pharisees here targeted with the murderers of that Zechariah.

352

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

[36] Verse 36 reinforces v. 35a. Instead of righteous/innocent blood, we find “all these”; instead of “upon you,” we now have “upon this kind of people.” The latter expression by no means implies an extension of the charge to all Israel. On the contrary, the parallelism of “upon you” and “upon this kind of people” in the narrative flow proves that the latter expression refers to the authorities (cf. 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4). The change between v. 35 and 36 corresponds exactly to the transition from “we want to see a sign” to “an evil . . . kind of people demands a sign” in 12:38–39. The rejection of a generalizing interpretation of v. 36 to apply to all Israel is confirmed in the fact that “from Abel to Zechariah” in v. 35 does not present an outline of the history of Israel, for this does not begin until Abraham (cf. 1:1–2). “This kind of people” is therefore not a paraphrase for Israel, or the present living generation of Israel, but is talking about the “group of murderers,” whose contemporary representatives are the scribes and Pharisees. As is true elsewhere in the Gospel of Matthew, the sharpness of the polemic in chapter 23 reflects the severity of the conflict between the Matthean churches and the Pharisees. The twofold reference to beatings in the synagogues (10:17; 23:34) lets us see that the opposition of the Pharisees against the Christ-believers was certainly not just in the form of insulting language (5:11). In Matthew 23, these experiences erupt in a polemical vilification of their opponents, the sharpness of which is probably related to the situation that the Pharisees present an attractive alternative to many of those that Matthew would like to reach with his “gospel of the kingdom” (e.g., 4:23; 24:14). In order to minimize their influence, Matthew draws a thoroughly dark picture of them. To be sure, it is not enough to reduce the conflict to a struggle for influence, for there is no doubt that Matthew proceeds on the conviction that those who entrust themselves to the Pharisees have no chance of entering the kingdom of heaven. His concern is for their salvation. This is illustrated by his setting the speech in a situation in which Jesus addresses not only the disciples, but also the crowds. Nevertheless, in view of today’s reception of Matthew 23, it cannot be emphasized enough that this text is to be read as a polemical document in which the conflicting parties were not capable of treating each other fairly. But, after this has been said, Matthew must be given the benefit of the doubt that his prayer for those who persecute the church (5:44) will also have included the Pharisees. V.4.3 The Lamentation over Jerusalem (23:37–39)

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a mother bird gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you, deserted. 39 For I say to you: From now 37

V.4 The Discourse against the Scribes and Pharisees

353

on, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’” While Matthew’s concern to thoroughly discredit the scribes and Pharisees as authorities in Israel reaches its climax with the final woe and pronouncement of judgment in vv. 29–36, in vv. 37–39 (par. Luke 13:34–35) he adds a lamentation over Jerusalem. Matthew’s composition reflects the way he has thought through the role of Jerusalem in his narrative plan: as already indicated in 2:3 and revealed in the first of the passion predictions (16:21), Jerusalem is placed in the front row of Jesus’ opponents, and the destruction of the city is bound up with the reaction of the authorities to the mission of the disciples, analogous to 22:2–7. Thus 23:37–39 does not imply a broadening of the perspective to include the judgment of all Israel any more than do vv. 34–36, since in Matthew’s conception, Jerusalem by no means represents Israel, as shown in 21:9–11. [37] The designation of Jerusalem in v. 37 as the city that stones the prophets and kills those who are sent to it evokes the image of the tenants of the vineyard in 21:35, which underscores the connection between Jerusalem and the authorities depicted in Matthew 23. So also, the prophet Jesus (21:11) will be killed in Jerusalem. Verse 37b points to Jesus’ patient concern for the city (for the metaphor, see, e.g., Deut 32:11; Ruth 2:12; Ps 17:8; Isa 31:5); the statement of the city’s unwillingness is reminiscent of 22:3. [38] The result: God’s judgment (v. 38). The context, especially 24:1–2, suggests particular reference to the temple (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 9:1, 3, 7, 8; Isa 60:7; Jer 7:11). The “house of God” (cf. 21:13) has become “your house” that is left deserted (cf. Hag 1:9; Tob 14:4; T. Levi 15:1), which means: God gives up on the temple and abandons it. Through the insertion of—probably redactional—“deserted” (Greek erēmos), Matthew has created a cross-reference to the saying of the prophet Daniel that announced the “desolating sacrilege (Greek to bdelugma tēs erēmōseōs) . . . in the holy place” in 24:15. [39] Verse 39 connects the abandonment of the temple conclusively with Jesus’ departure. In Jesus’ healings (21:14) and teaching (21:23), Immanuel, the presence of God, has been manifested in the temple. But v. 39 is the last word that Jesus will say in the temple. After that, he will no longer do anything in the temple, but Jerusalem will kill the Immanuel, and thus God will no longer be present in the temple. The ensuing outlook on the parousia implies that in this period of world history, nothing more will change. With the expression “from now on,” Matthew makes clear that this is a dividing line (cf. on 26:29, 64). From then on, the presence of God among human beings will become real in the “being-with” of the exalted Jesus with his own (18:20; 28:20). According to v. 39, Jerusalem will finally end up affirming the word of the crowds of Psalm 118:26, with which they announced to the city the coming

354

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

of the Messianic King (cf. 21:5, 9). It is questionable whether this implies the possibility of a saving perspective for Jerusalem in the Last Judgment. In favor of this option, it is argued that the quotation from Psalm 118:26 taken by itself, and according to its use in 21:9, suggests a positive announcement. This contrasts with the more likely option, seen in the light of the preceding context, that Jerusalem’s insight comes too late. Verse 39 would then be read in analogy to the judgment scene in 1 Enoch 62, where the powerful glorify and worship the Son of Man who appears as their judge, but their punishment can no longer be averted. So also, the acclamation of the returning Christ in v. 39 is only the acknowledgment of what can no longer be denied, but does not open the door to salvation (similarly, for example, in Phil 2:10–11, universal salvation does not follow from the universal acknowledgment of the exalted Christ). If one looks at v. 39 at the level of the narrated world, then the crowds which have been addressed since v. 1 are here confirmed in their acclamation of Jesus (21:9). Transferred to the level of the evangelist’s own communication to his readers, the text challenges them, in view of what they know about what has happened to Jerusalem, to get on the right side immediately or, if already there, to stay there. The different perspectives on the Last Judgment (v. 33) and on God’s judgment becoming manifest in the earthly course of history (v. 38) are intentionally and rhetorically linked in 23:32–39: The announcement of the condemnation to hell that the opponents will face is supported by the reference to the destruction of Jerusalem that is already a past event for the addressees. From it they can already read that Jesus’ opponents are indeed on the way to hell. V.5 Transition: Jesus Leaves the Temple (24:1–2) And Jesus went out of the temple and went away, and his disciples came up to him to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2 But he answered and said to them, “You see all these, don’t you? Amen, I say to you, not one stone will be left here upon another, that will not be thrown down.” 1

Matthew has omitted Mark 12:41– 44, which enables him to connect 24:1–2 directly to the saying about Jerusalem in 23:37–39. Since Jesus is the Immanuel (1:23), his departure symbolizes that God himself has withdrawn from the temple (cf. on 23:38–39). After the announcement in 23:38, the disciples conduct themselves in v. 1b as though they did not understand it. Obviously filled with admiration, they point out the buildings of the temple, as though they have never heard 23:38. Matthew’s opening words of Jesus’ response, “You see all these, don’t you?” refer to this lack of insight. “See” means here the ability to recognize what is coming on the basis of what is happening now. The temple, which as a domain of the Jewish authorities has degenerated to a den of robbers

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

355

(21:13) and has been abandoned by God (23:38), no longer has a future. This announcement of the complete destruction of the temple buildings—in analogy to prophetic texts such as Jeremiah 7:14; 26:6, 18; Micah 3:2—appears in this Matthean context as an explanation supporting the saying in 23:38 in response to the disciples’ behavior in 24:1. V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment (24:3–25:46) The compositional location of the discourse, characterized by 26:1 as the last of the five great discourses characteristic of Matthew, has been taken from Mark 13. The discourse, which is elicited by the disciples’ question in v. 3, is divided into three main sections. The presentation of the events up to Jesus’ parousia in 24:4–31 is continued in the Last Judgment scene in 25:31– 46. In between, there stands a large, parenetic, middle section devoted to parables, in which the exhortation to remain alert emerges as the primary motif. While the first main section is essentially based on the Markan source (Mark 13:3–27), this applies in the second main section only to the opening in 24:32–36 (par. Mark 13:28–32), while Matthew draws on various texts from the Sayings Source and his special materials for the rest of this section in 24:37–25:30, which takes the place of Mark’s conclusion (Mark 13:33–37), which is used only partially. In this expansion of his Markan source, a specific interest of Matthew comes to the fore, as his ethical admonitions emerge as his primary concern. The portrayal of the Last Judgment in 25:31–46, which also comes from his special materials, takes up this thematic thread. V.6.1 The Eschatological Events and the End (24:3–31)

Now, as Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came up to him by themselves, and said, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Beware that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name and say ‘I am the Christ!’ And they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See to it that you don’t let this strike terror in your hearts! For this must take place, but it is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 But all this is just the beginning of the birthpangs. 9 “Then they will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you; and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. 10 And then many will be caused to stumble, and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because 3

356

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

lawlessness will prevail, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come. 15 “So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel—whoever reads this, note carefully—16 then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the roof must not go down to take their things out of the house! 18 And whoever is in the field must not turn back to get their coat! 19 Woe to those who are pregnant and to nursing mothers in those days! 20 Pray that your flight may not be in stormy weather or on a Sabbath! 21 “For at that time there will be great suffering, the like of which has not happened from the beginning of the world until now, and never will be again. 22 And if those days had not been shortened, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘There he is!’—do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and do great signs and wonders, to lead astray, if (it were) possible, even the elect. 25 Look out, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the vultures will gather. 29 “Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven; and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” [3] The discourse about the final events is triggered by the disciples’ two-part question (cf. 18:1). The first question refers back to v. 2, so it is about the time when the temple will be destroyed. The connection with the question about the signs of the parousia—formulated differently from Mark 13:4—and the end of the world (cf., e.g., Dan 12:6; 4 Ezra 4.33, 51–52) opens up the option of a direct connection between the destruction of Jerusalem and the final events. The following discourse will reject this option. It should be noted that for the readers, the destruction of the temple already lies some years in the past, so that

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

357

it is urgent that Matthew separate it from the eschatological events. Taken in the larger context, the question of Jesus’ return picks up the announcements of the coming of the Son of Man in 10:23 and 16:27 (cf. also 13:41; 19:28), as well as the immediate context in 23:39; the end of the world has already been spoken of in 13:39– 40, 49 (cf. also 28:20). In Matthew, in contrast to Mark 13:3, those who now inquire of Jesus are not only the two pairs of brothers who were the first disciples to be called (Matt 4:18–22 par. Mark 1:16–20). Accordingly, the following instruction is spoken to all the disciples and applies to them all. [4–31] For the overall understanding of Jesus’ answer in vv. 4–31, it is crucial to see that we do not have one single chronological sequence pictured, but that, after the introduction in vv. 4–5, two perspectives on the course of events are to be distinguished (cf. Balabanski, Eschatology in the Making, 153– 62). The first, in vv. 6–14, pictures the events of the endtime from a comprehensive perspective that embraces the whole earth (v. 14), while vv. 15–28 view the events in Judea. In vv. 29–31, the final view then focuses on the coming of the Son of Man. [4–5] The opening warning against seduction is taken up by both lines of thought (vv. 11, 23–26) and is thus recognizable as a leitmotif. “In my name” does not limit the seducers to the followers of Jesus, but the “name” here is, as can be seen from the following, the title “Christ”—the seducers step forth with a messianic claim. The term thus includes the colorful palette of figures who emerged in the context of the tensions and conflicts with Rome, with their promises of deliverance or claims to leadership (see, e.g., Josephus, War 2.258–263, 433– 434; 6.285–287; Ant. 17.271–285; 20.97–99). [6–8] In two parallel formulations, v. 6 and vv. 7–8 point first to the coming time of troubles (cf. e.g., Dan 2:28–29; Rev 1:1; 4:1; 22:6) in good apocalyptic style that uses the divine “must” (v. 6; cf. 16:21; 17:10; 26:54) and locates them historically. These events are not yet the end (v. 6), but the beginning of the birthpangs (v. 8). With the reference to wars, famines, and earthquakes, the text takes up the standard repertoire of apocalyptic scenarios (e.g., 4 Ezra 9:3; 13:31; 2 Bar. 70:8). [9–14] Matthew has already edited the passage that follows in his Markan source (Mark 13:9, 11–13) into the mission discourse in 10:17–22. In v. 9a, he now picks up Mark 13:9a again, in vv. 9b and 13 uses Mark 13:13 again, and works Mark 13:10, which he omitted in Matthew 10, as 24:14 into this discourse. In place of the statements in Mark 13:9–13 he has already used in chapter 10 he has added 24:10–12. After the general characterization of the troubles of the endtime, in vv. 9–14 Matthew deals with how these will affect the disciples and how they will fare. The afflictions that characterize the mission to Israel in 10:16–23 are now also set forth as describing the universal mission. While

358

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

in 10:22, the disciples are hated by “all,” here the Markan source (Mark 13:13) is supplemented with by all “the nations.” While according to 10:17 the disciples have to reckon with being handed over to sanhedrins, i.e., local Jewish courts, so now in 24:9 they are told that people in general will hand them over to tribulation and death. Again, persecution will even include the danger of losing one’s life (cf. 10:21, 28, 38–39; as well as 22:6; 23:34). Such affliction carries with it the danger of apostasy (cf. 13:21; 18:6–9). So regarded, the insertion in vv. 10–12 involves being rejected even by those within the community (cf. Did. 16.3– 4), while the view in 10:21 is focused on disruptions within the family (see also 10:34–36). For now it is said that the many who take offense will betray and hate each other. Especially in view of the fact that this passage derives from Matthew himself, it can be assumed that real experiences stand behind it, and that apostate church members are denouncing others. Previously, 7:15 has already spoken of false prophets (24:11) as a danger coming from within the community itself (cf. 7:22). Verse 11 thus takes up the warning of seducers from vv. 4–5, in line with the internal perspective of v. 10. So also lawlessness, manifesting itself in the cooling off of love—which is the central core of the Law (cf. 22:34– 40)—was already discussed in Matthew 7 as a theme connected with the advent of false prophets (7:23). For Matthew, the problem is not only with the scribes and Pharisees (23:28), but is also found within the ranks of the church itself. Thus Matthew is not here sketching a picture of a radiant church solidly united within, which stands resolutely against the storms that endanger it from outside. Rather, in addition to the dangers that threaten the church from without, he also points to internal discords as part of the eschatological distress. It is all the more important for the individual to stand firm until the end, for the promise of salvation depends on this (v. 13). This assurance from Mark 13:13b is important for Matthew, as shown by his repetition of the identical words already used in 10:22b. In the context of v. 12, the endurance of v. 13 includes continuing to live by the law of love. Finally, the elaboration of Mark 13:10 in v. 14 looks forward to the universal mission and thus anticipates the narrative flow that leads to 28:18–20. The concretization of Mark’s “gospel” to “this gospel of the kingdom” signals, for one thing, the continuity of Jesus’ message with that of the disciples (cf. 4:23; 9:35). This involves content such as the announcement of the nearness of the kingdom of heaven (4:17), instruction in the commandments Jesus has given them (cf. 28:20a), etc. This also involves the fact that the proclamation after Easter includes the narrative of Jesus’ ministry, so that the clear tendency emerges for the Matthean Jesus-story itself to become the basis for the proclamation of the kingdom (cf. on 26:13). The geographical horizon is specifically designated as the whole “oikoumenē,” i.e., the whole inhabited earth. Analogous to the mission to Israel, the experience of

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

359

massive rejection and hatred (v. 9) does not mean that the missionary task can be abandoned. This aspect has already emerged in the Sermon on the Mount: it is precisely to those who suffer persecution (5:11–12) that the task of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world is assigned (5:13–16). The concluding sentence Matthew adds in v. 14 refers back to v. 6: the wars they will hear about are not yet the end. This will not come, according to Matthew, until all the nations of the earth have heard the testimony about the gospel of the kingdom. [15] However, Jesus does not directly proceed to portray the end, but begins afresh to picture the events before the end, this time with a special focus on Judea. With this in view, the evangelist first turns to something that, from his point of view, has already happened in the past: “In the holy place” refers to the Jerusalem temple—already destroyed by the time the Gospel was written. The saying about the “desolating sacrilege” takes up Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11, where it refers to the altar in the Jerusalem temple erected to Zeus Olympios in 168 or 167 BCE by the Seleucids (cf. 1 Macc 1:54; 6:7). Matthew, like Mark, understands the “desolating sacrilege” to refer to the events during the Jewish-Roman war in 66–70 CE described in Josephus’ Jewish War that could imply a profanation of the temple, without allowing us to identify one particular event that could be identified as the “desolating sacrilege” (see, e.g., War 2.422ff; 4.138–157, 162–192, 238–269; 5.5–38). Matthew makes the reference to the book of Daniel explicit; the narrator’s comment taken over from Mark 13:14, “whoever reads this, note carefully,” thus becomes a command to the reader to be aware of the recent past when studying the book of Daniel. In the literary context of Matthew, the saying about the “desolating sacrilege” recalls the announcement in 23:38. The sacrilege can thus be seen as an expression of the abandonment of the temple that occurs with Jesus’ departure in 24:1, and reaches its last stage when the temple is destroyed. In view of v. 3, one can connect v. 15 with the question about when the temple would be destroyed, even if this neither becomes the subject nor is conclusively answered. But with “desolating sacrilege,” Matthew points to the time immediately before the destruction of the temple. In the narrative flow of the speech it thus becomes clear that the destruction of the temple certainly does not mean the end of the world, nor does it immediately precede the eschatological events. [16–20] When the sacrilege in the temple is seen, “those in Judea” should flee to the surrounding mountains (cf. Gen 19:17; 1 Macc 2:28). The saying about “your flight” in v. 20 makes clear that the groups that believe in Christ are specifically in view. Verses 17–19 underscore the urgency that is commanded and the difficult circumstances that will afflict particularly pregnant women and nursing mothers. In view of this situation, the disciples should pray no worse conditions will be added, such as the stormy weather

360

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

of winter. Matthew’s addition of the Sabbath reference points to the problem of flight that would violate what is permitted for a Sabbath journey (cf. Exod 16:29; Jub. 50:12; CD 10.21). To be sure, it is clear from Matthew’s understanding of the Sabbath that mortal danger suspends the Sabbath command (cf. 1 Macc 2:41), which would mean that flight would have the priority over observance of the Sabbath. But even in this case that deals with a legitimate transgression of the Sabbath, it is still not something desirable in and of itself, so that the prayer is understandable as expressing fundamental respect for the Sabbath commandment. It is possible or even probable that some of those who fled found refuge in the area of the Matthean churches, which reinforced their Jewish-Christian character. In this case, vv. 16–19 would also then be a reflex of their own history. In any case, it may be that the literary constellation in which Matthew here has Jesus announce something that already lies in the past for the evangelist and his addressees, and thus a prophecy of something that has already happened, serves to reinforce their confidence in the announcement of the events that have not yet happened. [21–22] Verses 21–22 again take up the reference to the sufferings of v. 9. New here is the reference to the greatness of the tribulation—probably connected to Daniel 12:1 Theod.—that surpasses all previous and future sufferings (cf. also e.g., 1QM 1.11–12; T. Mos. 8.1), and the idea of shortening the days (cf. 4Q385 frag. 3; LAB [Ps.-Philo] 19:13; 2 Bar. 20:1–2; 83:1) for the sake of the elect, which in turn points to the severity of the suffering. What vv. 21–22 refer to cannot be precisely established, but even this blurred or open-ended imagery may be intentional. On the one hand, the connection with vv. 15–20 suggests that vv. 21–22 also point to the suffering connected with the Jewish-Roman war; “those days” (v. 22) pick up on v. 19, and also that there will never again be such suffering (v. 21) could point to an interval between these troubles and the final end. On the other hand, the saying about the suffering (v. 21) and “those days” (v. 22) returns in v. 29, and the statement that the coming of the Son of Man will occur immediately after the tribulation of those days speaks in favor of seeing vv. 21–22, seen from the standpoint of the evangelist, as not just looking back, as in vv. 15–20, but (also) including the present and future. [23–26] In any case, the latter applies to the warning against the seducers (vv. 23–26) who claim to be the Messiah (cf. vv. 4–5) and against the false prophets (v. 11), whose appearance is again set forth as an essential characteristic of the eschatological tribulation. In comparison with vv. 4–5, 11, reference to the signs and wonders they will accomplish is added (v. 24; cf. 7:22), by which they seek to verify their claim (cf. Deut 13:2–3). Connected with this is the statement which resumes v. 22, declaring that the elect are also targeted by their

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

361

attempts to mislead. Since, according to 22:14 and 24:31, the elect are those who will participate in eschatological salvation, the insertion “if (it were) possible” is to be understood in the sense of an unreal possibility: the elect cannot be seduced. Of course, only God knows in advance who will be numbered among the elect. For those addressed by the discourse, this precisely does not mean that they can lean back and relax, but only underscores how great the danger is that is posed by the false Christs and false prophets. If they hold on, this is at least an indication that they belong to the elect. On the other hand, extending vv. 4–5 and 11, the hearers are admonished to sovereignly ignore the appearance of such figures (vv. 23, 26). As v. 23 follows Mark 13:21, so v. 26 is formed on the basis of Q 17:23. Matthew thus combines the two sources so that the admonition forms the framework around vv. 24–25. [27–28] Why such claims are not to be believed is explained in vv. 27–28, where Matthew follows further the Q passage he took up in v. 26 (par. Luke 17:24, 37): when the Son of Man comes, it will be like the flash of lightning that can be seen everywhere. So one does not have to follow any signs and go to a particular place. The logion about vultures and a carcass underscores this aspect of general perceptibility. [29–31] An answer to the question about signs in v. 3 is here suggested, which will be elaborated in vv. 29–31. Here Matthew takes up again the Markan thread he abandoned after v. 25 (cf. Mark 13:24–27). The coming of the Son of Man will be accompanied by cosmic phenomena and will be universally visible, without even a hint of ambiguity. The saying about the darkening of the sun and moon goes back to the characterization of the “Day of the Lord” in Isaiah 13:10. The motif of stars falling from heaven takes up Isaiah 34:4 (cf. also e.g., Joel 2:10; 3:4; 4:15; Ezek 32:7–8; T. Mos. 10:5; Rev 6:12–13). Verse 30 also makes use of biblical language: the Matthean insertion that all tribes of the earth will mourn—in view of the judgment coming on them (cf. 1 En. 62:3–5)—is reminiscent of Zechariah 12:10–14; the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds is based on Daniel 7:13–14 (cf. Matt 26:64). Since the combination of Zechariah 12 and Daniel 7 is also found in Revelation 1:7, Matthew may be influenced here by an early Christian tradition in addition to Mark 13. Matthew’s prefacing this with the saying about the appearance of the “sign of the Son of Man” in v. 30 contrasts the “signs and wonders” of the false Christs and false prophets in v. 24, while at the same time explicitly pointing back to the second part of the original question in v. 3. It is questionable whether this should be understood as a sort of military battlefield symbol that appears in the sky (cf. Isa 13:2; 49:22; 62:10; along with the trumpet [cf. v. 31], e.g., Isa 18:3; Jer 6:1; 1QM 2.15– 4.17), or, more likely, the Son of Man “coming with power and glory” is himself the sign, so that “Son of Man” would be an example of the Greek epexegetical genitive. Matthew has already set forth the motif of sending

362

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

the angels in 13:41, except that there the angels do not gather the elect, as they do here (and cf. 1 Thess 4:16–17), in order to bring them into eschatological salvation, but gather the sinners in order to cast them into the fiery furnace. With the “loud trumpet call” in 24:31, Matthew adds another traditional motif to the portrayal of the final events (cf. e.g., Isa 27:13; Joel 2:1; Zech 9:14; Apoc. Ab. 31:1; 4 Ezra 6:23; Rev 8:2ff). For everyone, the coming of the Son of Man will therefore be something that cannot be missed or mistaken, so the disciples should pay no attention to any other alleged signs. The “immediately” Matthew has added at the beginning of v. 29 indicates that Matthew expected the end to be near, as did his summary of the message of the Baptist, Jesus, and the disciples in the words “the kingdom of heaven has come near” (3:2; 4:17; 10:7). However, Matthew has not allowed himself to get involved in speculation about the time of the end, as made clear in what follows (v. 36). Moreover, the implied “no” to the question of signs that are supposed to occur just before the end (vv. 3–31) means that there will be no advance warnings. This is also elaborated in the following context (vv. 37– 41). V.6.2 The Unknown Time of the End and the Admonition to Be Alert (24:32–25:30) V.6.2.1 The Unknown Time of the Near End (24:32– 41)

“From the fig tree learn the analogy: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you recognize that summer is near. 33 So also you: when you see all these things, know that he is near, right at the door! 34 Amen I say to you: this kind of people will not pass away until all these things happen. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 36 “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, not even the Son, but only the Father. 37 For as the days of Noah (were), so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood: eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not recognize (it) until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. 41 Two (will be) grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left behind.” 32

In vv. 32–36, Matthew at first follows Mark 13:28–32 very closely, then in vv. 37–41 takes up material for the eschatological discourse found in the Sayings Source (cf. Luke 17:26–35), to which he has already had recourse in vv. 26–28. After teaching about the course of events that will lead up to the parousia (vv. 4–31), vv. 32–41 then switch over to exhortations to the disciples to be

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

363

vigilant. The guiding principle here is twofold: on the one hand, the end is near (vv. 32–35), but on the other hand, the exact time is unknown (v. 36), and the end will break in suddenly (vv. 37– 41). [32–33] Verses 32–33 illustrate the nearness of the end by comparing it to a fig tree: just as the nearness of summer can be detected by the growth of its new leaves, so “all these things,” i.e., everything pictured up through v. 28, refers to the nearness of the parousia (vv. 29–31 are to be bracketed out, since in v. 33 the Son of Man is still to come; on the door motif, cf. Jas 5:9; Rev 3:20). “When you see all these things” suggests especially “when you see the desolating sacrilege” in v. 15. [34] Verse 34 is difficult to understand. The Greek word rendered “kind of people” in the translation (genea) can also mean “generation,” as in 1:17. At first glance, this temporal meaning seems to be appropriate for v. 34. But if here “until all these things happen” includes the parousia, the problem emerges that “this generation,” if the composition of Matthew is to be dated in the 80s of the first century CE, must span a time of at least fifty years (the parousia has not yet happened!). Even if a few of Jesus’ contemporaries were still alive, satisfying the basic idea, it is not very likely that Matthew could still see it as an adequate claim that the parousia would take place within the lifetime of Jesus’ contemporaries (we are not talking about the “theological” problem of whether Jesus was in error here, but about the plausibility of v. 34 as a statement of the evangelist!). This problem would be at least a little alleviated if one considered that “all these things” in v. 34—in view of the reference of “when you see all these things” in v. 33 specifically back to v. 15—at least primarily referred to the events pictured in vv. 15–20 (or 15–22) in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. In addition, the appearance of false Christs and false prophets was not a particular characteristic of the time after 70 CE, and to this extent can also be included in vv. 23–26. Verse 34 then would mean “only” that the desolating sacrilege and the destruction of Jerusalem that follows will happen when advocates of this kind of people are still alive. According to v. 33, after that, the end is near. So also, the presence of “all these things” in the preceding context (v. 8) could be included here, for there “all these things,” namely the emergence of false Christs and hostile debates, are only “the beginning of the birthpangs.” In the light of the preceding reference to “this kind of people” (e.g., 11:16; 12:39– 45; 16:4), a further alternative might be considered in the light of the fact that in 24:34, too, the emphasis falls on the negative qualification of “this kind of people,” and the subject is those who threaten the disciples or false prophets who seek to seduce them. Such an understanding fits in well with the Matthean statement about the time given in v. 29: the tribulation and the seduction extend without a break to the parousia. On the other hand, the reference to the nearness of the end that immediately precedes suggests a corresponding

364

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

statement in v. 34. The interpretation of v. 34 continues to be difficult. [35] Verse 35 is joined to v. 34 by a key-word connection. The emphasis that the words of Jesus will endure refers concretely to the reliability of the preceding announcements. Whether this should be taken to surpass even the statement about the Torah in 5:18 is at least questionable, since in 5:18 it is by no means implied that when heaven and earth pass away, an iota and a single stroke of a letter will also pass away from the law. [36] The announcement of the nearness of the parousia refrains from giving an exact date. Against speculation about the date of the end, v. 36 is adamant that the Father alone knows this secret (cf. e.g., 2 Bar. 21:8; 54:1), which—in spite of 11:27—has not even been shared with the Son (“alone” is a Matthean addition!). Accordingly, it is all the more impossible that the disciples should know it. This means for them, that they must always be prepared for the expected moment. Verse 36 is thus the basis of the following instruction, in which the motif of the unknown day and hour recurs as the leitmotif (24:42, 44, 50; 25:13). [37–39] At v. 37, Matthew abandons his Markan source in order to incorporate appropriate material from Q (see above) that compares the coming of the Son of Man with the flood. Matthew formulates verse 37 and verses 38–39 in parallel; v. 37 merely introduces the comparison, vv. 38–39 make it explicit: Just as in the days of Noah people were busy with their everyday affairs and the flood took them by surprise, so the parousia of the Son of Man will come when people are not expecting it. Strictly speaking, this applies “only” for contemporaries who do not belong to the group of disciples, whereas for the disciples the case has become more complex by the instruction they have just received. For their situation is determined by the double aspect of knowing that the parousia is near, but not knowing its exact date. This is underscored by the statement introduced by Matthew in v. 39 that Noah’s contemporaries did not recognize it. This not only emphasizes the analogy of not-knowing in v. 36, but also links back to contrast with vv. 32–33. Differently from their contemporaries (and Noah’s), the disciples “know” (like Noah) about the coming events, or are even instructed about their nearness, so that it will not completely surprise them; but differently from Noah (Gen 7:4), they do not know the exact time when it will happen. It is important for Matthew that the followers of Jesus not only know, but use their knowledge that distinguishes them from their contemporaries. [40–41] In vv. 40– 41, Matthew illustrates the separation of people into those who are saved and those who are lost that will take place at the parousia, by using two examples in which people are going about their everyday business, blending seamlessly in the conduct of the flood generation in v. 38. Again, Matthew takes an example that involves men alongside one that involves women

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

365

(cf. on 13:33). The formulation that one will be taken is to be understood in the sense of v. 31. The separation goes right through the middle of human connections. The disciples should see to it that they belong to the group that will be taken. It is precisely this point that is developed in the form of admonitions to vigilance in 24:42–25:30. V.6.2.2 Parables of the Parousia and Being Alert (24:42–25:30)

Programmatically introduced by the exhortation to vigilance in v. 42, a sequence of four parables in 24:42–25:30 illustrates the necessity of constant readiness for the parousia by living one’s life according to the will of God. The four parables can be subdivided into two groups of two, the two shorter parables of 24:42– 44 and 45–51, and the more extensive parables in 25:1–13 and 14–30. The first and third parables each end with a parenetic final warning, which varies (24:44) or virtually repeats (25:13) 24:42; they are also connected by their setting during the night. In 24:45–51 and 25:14–30, the subject is the positive and negative conduct of slaves during the absence of their master. Both parables culminate in the judgment motif of weeping and gnashing of teeth. V.6.2.2.1 The Parable of the Thief (24:42– 44)

“So keep awake! For you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in which watch of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also be ready. For the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” 42 43

While Matthew takes the introductory admonition to vigilance in v. 42 from Mark 13:35, the parable of the thief (vv. 43– 44) comes from Q 12:39– 40. The exhortation to vigilance is also found outside the synoptic tradition as an element of the church’s instruction (Acts 20:31; 1 Cor 16:13; Col 4:2), even in conjunction with the saying about the thief (1 Thess 5:2, 6; Rev 3:2–3; 16:15; cf. also 2 Pet 3:10). These data indicate that the connection of exhortation to vigilance and the saying about the thief is pre-Matthean (cf. also Gos. Thom. 21), which prompted the evangelist to combine Mark 13:35 and Q 12:39– 40. There are various options, among which a preference can hardly be established with adequate plausibility. On the one hand, it is possible that the vigilance motif in v. 43 was not first introduced by Matthew, but already stood in Q (despite its absence in Luke 12:39); on the other hand, it cannot be excluded that Luke 12:36–38 also goes back to Q (Matthew would then have skipped over the passage in favor of 25:1–13), and that Matthew made

366

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

the connection from there (see Luke 12:37), or that the connection in Matthew was already familiar to him from early Christian tradition. [42] The admonition to vigilance in v. 42 precedes 24:42–25:30 as the leitmotif for this whole parable composition. Replacing Mark’s “when” with “on what day” clarifies the reference back to v. 36. Vigilance is meant here in the figurative sense of always conducting one’s life in a way that at any time one can stand with confidence before the Judge of the world (25:31– 46). For Matthew, the negative counterpart would be an ethical negligence, nourished by a waning of focus on the (near) world judgment. [43] The parable of the thief illustrates the significance of vigilance in averting harm. Corresponding to the difference between staying awake in the physical and figurative sense, such vigilance is possible for the disciples in a way that it is not for an owner of a house. [44] Accordingly, the application of the parable in v. 44 modifies v. 42 into an admonition to be always ready. The appended basis for this intentionally intensifies the idea of the unknown hour (v. 36) for a parenetic purpose. No one should think that there are times in which the coming of the Son of Man is less likely than in other times. V.6.2.2.2 The Parable of the Faithful and the Evil Slave (24:45–51)

“So who is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? 46 Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives! 47 Amen, I say to you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions. 48 But if that wicked slave says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’ 49 and he begins to beat his fellow slaves, and eats and drinks with drunkards, 50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know. 51 He will cut him in two and give him his place among the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 45

In vv. 45–51, Matthew continues with the passage he took from Q in vv. 43– 44 (cf. Luke 12:42– 46), and in the two halves of the parable—formally unequal—about a slave whom his master placed over the other slaves during a period of his own absence, Matthew illustrates appropriate and wrong behavior in view of the impending parousia. [45–47] The characterization of the faithful slave by his conscientious fulfilling of his obligation to take care of the other slaves reflects the disciples’ central ethical responsibility of loving care for one’s fellow human beings. Verse 45 has a striking dependence on Old Testament texts: The assignment of the slave with this responsibility is reminiscent of the example of Joseph in Genesis 39:4 and Psalm 105:21. The final clause at the end of v. 45 alludes to Psalms 104:27 and 145:15, and thereby includes an echo of

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

367

God’s own care as a model of human conduct. The narrative feature that the slave’s faithfulness is acknowledged by putting him in charge of all his master’s possessions (v. 47) is a pictorial expression for the reception of eschatological salvation. [48–49] In contrast to this, the problem with the other slave—explicitly described by Matthew as “evil,” differently from Luke 12:45 (= Q)—is that the expectation of the near parousia, or any idea of the coming Last Judgment, has disappeared from his consciousness, which leads him into debauched behavior (cf. 2 Pet 3:3– 4). It will hardly be mistaken to assume that there were such tendencies in Matthew’s own churches; how severe they were can only be a matter of speculation. In the parable, the slave abuses his superior position over his fellow slaves, supposing his master will be away for a longer time. Instead of their food ration, the fellow slaves get a beating, and the available supplies are not divided so as to take care of all, but diverted to his own use in self-indulgent feasting with other drunks. [50–51] His end is disastrous, for he receives a bad surprise when his lord unexpectedly returns. The doubled “on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know” again points back to v. 36 (cf. vv. 42, 44). The description of his horrible punishment (cf. e.g., 1 Sam 15:33; Sus 55, 59 LXX/Theod.; Liv. Pro. 1:1; 3 Bar. 16:3; Heb 11:37; Herodotus, Hist. 2.139) slides into a Last Judgment perspective. In that Matthew assigns him a place among the hypocrites (contra Luke 12:46, “unbelievers”), thus taking up a stereotyped category used for the Pharisaic opponents in 23:13–29 (cf. 15:7; 22:18), he makes it clear that church members who fail ethically will find themselves in the same position in the Last Judgment as the embittered opponents of Jesus. The designation also fits the subject matter, since here the confession of faith (the text is, after all, directed to disciples) and conduct go their separate ways (for “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” see on 8:12). V.6.2.2.3 The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (25:1–13)

“Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 When the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them; 4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, all of them became drowsy and slept. 6 But in the middle of the night there was a shout, ‘Look! Here is the bridegroom! Go out to meet him.’ 7 Then all those virgins got up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise replied, saying, ‘No, there will not be enough for you and for us; you had better go to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’ 10 And while they went to buy it, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went with 1

368

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

him into the wedding banquet; and the door was closed. 11 Later the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’ 12 But he answered and said, ‘Amen I say to you, I do not know you.’ 13 Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.” The parable of the ten virgins belongs to Matthew’s special material. Apart from the introductory v. 1 and the concluding admonition in v. 13, the parable can be divided into three subsections. Verses 2–5 introduce the story. In the second part (vv. 6–9), attention is focused on the problem of the foolish virgins. Verses 10–12 draw out the consequences: the wise go with the bridegroom into the wedding hall, and the foolish are not admitted. That the bridegroom represents the Christ who returns at the parousia is obvious in the light of 9:15 and 22:1, as well as from the context of the eschatological discourse itself. As in 22:1–14, the role of the bride remains unoccupied. The division of the virgins, who represent the community of disciples, into five wise and five foolish in v. 2 prepares for the double outcome of the story at the very beginning, transparent for the division into saved and lost at the Last Judgment. The double outcome of the story has analogies in the parables of the kingdom of heaven in 13:24–30, 36–43, and 13:47–50, as well as in the immediate context: 24:40-41, 45–51; 25:14–30. The reference to the parousia and the final judgment is further substantiated by the fact that, in the overall context of the Gospel, the wise and foolish virgins correspond to the wise and foolish housebuilders (7:24–27)—male and female narrative figures once again complement each other (cf. 6:26, 28; 24:40, 41; and 8:5–13 + 15:21–28). The connection with 7:24–27 is also underscored by the fact that the verbal form used in the introduction to the parable, “will be like” (25:1) occurs elsewhere in Matthew only in 7:24, 26. At the same time, the correspondence to 7:24–27 indicates the content of the forward-looking behavior of the wise virgins: in view of the parousia, what counts is to be always ready by living according to the words of Jesus. The reference back to 7:24–27 stands alongside references in vv. 11–12 to 7:21–23: the doubled address “Lord, lord” (v. 11) of the foolish virgins evokes the memory of the only other instance of this doubling in Matthew 7:21–22. The bridegroom’s reply, “I do not know you,” is reminiscent of 7:23. Finally, this evidence is also supported by redaction criticism: the motif of the closed door, in conjunction with the request to open (vv. 10–11) is also found in Q 13:25, and it is precisely Q 13:25–27 that is also reflected in 7:22–23. [1] This verse as a whole is not part of the following narrative, but functions as a kind of title. The parable is about ten virgins who, as part of the festive wedding ritual are waiting to go and meet the bridegroom. In view of the kind of illumination here presupposed, we should probably not think in terms of

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

369

oil lamps, but of vase-like torches, in which oil-soaked rags were burned as the means of illumination. In favor of this understanding is not only the usual meaning of the Greek word used here (lampas), but also the circumstance that oil lamps, in contrast to such torches, are not suitable for outdoor lighting. [2–5] Against this background, the foolishness of half of the women comes pointedly to the fore: oil is absolutely necessary if the rags are to burn during the time required for the torchlight procession, but the foolish virgins forget to take containers of oil along with their torches. The problem is thus not caused in the first place by the delay of the arrival of the bridegroom, because during this time the oil lamps supposedly continue to burn, and the foolish virgins have no oil with which to refill them. The opposite is rather the case: it is precisely the delay of the bridegroom—transparent to the return of Jesus—that gives them the opportunity to correct their mistake during this interval, but they do not take advantage of this opportunity, and go to sleep. They thus manifest a degree of folly that corresponds to the folly of the man in 7:26 who built his house on sand. For the five wise women, sleep (in the physical sense) is not the problem—they are adequately prepared for the coming of the bridegroom. The location where the women were overcome by sleep is not stated, so it is not said that this happens outside on the street. Whether it is the house of the groom or the house of the bride’s parents where the bridegroom picks up the bride must remain an open question, for the source situation does not make it possible to reconstruct the wedding ritual here presupposed with sufficient plausibility. [6–9] The five foolish virgins first notice their mistake when, in the middle of the night, the noise in the street announces the advent of the bridegroom, and they prepare their torches, which are only now being lit. It is understandable that the wise virgins reject the request of the foolish virgins to share the oil they have brought along, since the torchlight procession would then give the bridegroom anything but honor, since all the torches would go out before the procession was over. The foolish virgins thus have no other choice than—in the middle of the night—to hurry to the dealer, but there is no longer enough time. Their attempt to correct their foolish omission comes too late: [10–12] the bridegroom arrives while they are gone, and while the wise virgins, who were ready (cf. 24:44), accompany the bridegroom into the wedding hall, the foolish stand outside before the closed doors and—like those in 7:21–23 whose manner of life does not correspond to the will of God—ask to be admitted, but in vain. Whether they could actually have obtained the oil they lacked plays no role. The only thing that matters: when the bridegroom arrived, they were not ready. [13] Analogous to the parable of the thief in 24:44, the parable of the ten virgins in v. 13 also culminates in a warning. The renewed reference to the unknown day and hour again refers back to 24:36 (cf. 24:42, 44, 50). The call

370

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

to vigilance repeats the introductory warning to the parable sequence in 24:42, which was varied in 24:44. “Vigilance, wakefulness” (in the figurative sense) does not here function as the opposite of sleep (in the physical sense) in v. 5—for, of course, all go to sleep—but of the careless, inattentive behavior of the five foolish women who forgot the oil that was necessary. In the light of the above reference back to 7:21–27, one can say more specifically and positively: “vigilance” consists in doing the will of God. In the parable, one can find this symbolized by taking along the necessary supply of oil. The foolish, on the other hand, are correspondingly those who hear Jesus’ words and confess him as Lord, but who do not live in accord with their confession (cf. 7:26–27). The incline of the text leads from the cheerful picture of the bridegroom’s reception, to be attended by all ten of the virgins, to the foreboding statement, “I do not know you.” The scene is thus framed by the salvation that God has prepared, on the one side, to human foolishness that excludes from salvation, on the other. The emphasis rests on the warning: “Don’t let this happen to you.” V.6.2.2.4 The Parable of the Entrusted Talents (25:14–30)

“For (it is) as if a man who, as he departed for a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them. 15 And to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability, and he went away. Without delay, 16 the one who had received the five talents went off and traded with them, and made five more talents. 17 In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. 18 But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19 After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20 Then the one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, and said, ‘Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and trustworthy slave! You have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And the one with the two talents also came up and said, ‘Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and trustworthy slave! You have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 Then the one who had received the one talent also came up, and said, ‘Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed. 25 And because I was afraid, I went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered and said to him, ‘You evil and lazy slave! You knew that I reap where I did not sow, 14

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

371

and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the money changers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents. 29 For the one who has will be given more, and will have an abundance; but from the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 30 As for this good-for-nothing slave, throw him into the farthermost darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” Despite the generally sparse agreement in wording between Matthew 25:14–30 and Luke 19:11–27, the convergence in the narrative structure and the correspondence between vv. 24–29 and Luke 19:20–26 speak in favor of the assumption of a common source, which, of course, does not necessarily mean that this text derives from the Sayings Source; it could also be a matter of firm oral tradition. The opening of v. 14 is reminiscent of Mark 13:34, which suggests that Matthew has omitted the brief Markan parable in favor of the parable of the entrusted talents. The text can be roughly subdivided into three sections. The brief exposition in vv. 14–15 that succinctly presents the initial situation is followed by an equally concise statement of the conduct of the slaves (vv. 16–18). The emphasis lies clearly on the third part, the more extensive narration of the reckoning with the slaves, which is embellished with verbatim report of their speech (vv. 19–30), which is transparent to the Last Judgment. In the section vv. 19–30, the emphasis again falls on the third case, for in comparison to the first two slaves (vv. 20–21, 22–23), the reckoning with the third clearly is given more space (vv. 24–30), so that the warning against a negative outcome of the judgment is seen to be the central concern of the text. [14–15] If the parable goes back to Jesus, the master originally represented God. In the Matthean context, however, it is evident that the master stands for Jesus, and the trip symbolizes the time of his earthly absence. The theme of the options chosen by the slaves represents the conduct of the disciples. Entrusting the master’s property to the slaves evokes the commissioning of the disciples to continue the ministry of Jesus (cf. on 9:36; 10:7). In Matthew, the slaves are entrusted with varying amounts of capital (differently in Luke 19:13); the distribution is related to their respective abilities. This element, too, can be transferred to the commissioning of the disciples. The assignment each receives in the service of Jesus is appropriate to their individual competence. As an analogy, one can point to Paul’s teaching about the multiplicity of charismatic gifts in 1 Corinthians 12. As in Paul, so also in the Matthean context, it is evident that the differing abilities of the disciples do not establish differing evaluations,

372

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

and thus there is no basis for hierarchies here (cf. 20:20–28; 23:8–12). It is striking, especially in comparison with Luke 19:13, that the amount of money entrusted in each case is very high; a talent is six thousand denarii (a denarius was a standard daily wage; cf. on 20:2). Perhaps Matthew wanted to indicate the high value of the ministry to which the disciples of Jesus are called. [16–18] If the parable is to be read from the very beginning in terms of what it is really “about,” it is evident that the only appropriate response of the slaves to receiving the talents with which they are entrusted is to put them to work in the business world (in Luke 19:13, the slaves are explicitly given this commission)—just as the disciples have to work according to their commission. Two of the slaves act accordingly. It is a remarkable outcome that they each add to the capital entrusted to them exactly the same as the original amount. The third just goes out and buries the money in the ground. The story thus builds up a tension: How will the master respond to their different actions? [19] That it is a long time before the master returns reflects the time of the evangelist, an advanced phase of the earthly absence of Jesus, but there is also a certain logic in the parabolic narrative, for the profit gained by the first two slaves would take some time. With the return of the master and the reckoning with the slaves in vv. 19–30, the parousia and the Last Judgment again emerge in the scope of the parable’s field of vision. Matthew now intentionally works with repetition, in order to mark out the importance of this part of the story. [20–21] The slave with the five talents is the first to account for himself. The words that Matthew puts in his mouth only repeat what has been pictured in v. 16. The introductory address of the slave in his response to his master is reminiscent of 24:45, only now, instead of a faithful and wise slave, the text speaks of a good and faithful slave. The repeated use of the word “faithful” has the overtone that reminds the reader that an assignment was implicit in the original handing over of the talents; the good slave has faithfully carried out this assignment. The praise, that he has been faithful over a little is striking, in view of the large sum of money with which he was entrusted, but it is just in this way that the incomparable value of the reward becomes visible. With the concluding sentence in v. 21, the parable slides over into direct reference to eschatological salvation. The saying about the “ joy of your master” fits well into the picture of the wedding banquet in the preceding parable (25:1–13; cf. 22:1–14), as also in the broader context of the presentation of the eschatological banquet with the patriarchs in 8:11. [22–23] With the exception of the abbreviated introduction in v. 22 and the amount of the sum of money, vv. 22–23 repeat vv. 20–21 verbatim. The second slave is therefore esteemed just as much as the first; above all, his reward does not differ from that granted to the first slave.

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

373

[24–27] Last of all, the third slave steps up. In v. 18, his behavior that deviated from that of the first two slaves is only stated, but not explained. This only takes place in the dialogue between him and his master. Whether he only now becomes aware of the success of the other slaves remains open. In any case, he sees himself under some pressure to justify himself, for he does not simply give the talent back and tell what he has done with it, but he tries to explain his behavior in advance—in fact in a rather surprising way, in that he declares his assessment of his master as a hard man. The slave derives this judgment from the fact that the master harvests where he did not sow. The application of this “knowledge” to what the slave should have done at least on this basis, formulated in the master’s response in vv. 26–27, makes clear that the subject is not the master’s conduct toward some third party, but the slave’s “sowing” and the expectation that he would generate income with the money that was entrusted to him. That the master “reaps” this gain is, of course, his right. One can thus inquire further whether an overtone can be heard here in which the slave is making a protest against his status. For the saying about reaping where one has not sown is hardly appropriate in view of the relationship of master and slave, because here sowing and scattering seed is imagined as something done independently of the master. In fact, however, the master “reaps” what his slave has sown on his behalf and with his means. According to v. 25, the decisive failure of the slave, however, is to be seen in the fact that the mission entrusted to him by handing over the talent, in view of the picture he has constructed of his master, has called forth fear and thus paralysis: since he sees himself as under pressure to succeed, and—it must be said, fears the bitter consequences of failure—he chose the lesser evil out of fear of failure and resolved not to do anything with the money, but only to keep it safe. In the master’s response in vv. 26–27, the negative picture which the slave drew of the master comes back to haunt him. While the first two slaves were each addressed with “good and trustworthy slave” (vv. 21, 23), this now gives way to the address “You wicked and lazy slave” (cf. 24:48). The terminology of moral evaluation “good–evil,” also found in Luke 19:17, 22 (cf. Matt 7:17–18; 12:34–35), is accompanied here by the corresponding opposite pair “trustworthy–lazy,” which only occurs in Matthew and in which the terms mutually interpret each other: the slave’s sloth here provides the contrast to faithfully fulfilling the mission. In v. 26, the master then seizes on the slave’s “knowledge,” to show the consequence the slave should have drawn from his “knowledge”—he could at least have brought the money to the moneychangers, so that it would at least have yielded some interest (v. 27). While the sloth of the third slave is based on his fear of his master, it corresponds to this—transferred to the real situation—that the crucial point

374

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

here is ultimately the picture that the person represented by the slave makes of Jesus. In v. 26, the parable by no means implies that the master in the parable deems the characterization of him made by the slave to be correct. He cites this merely as the “knowledge” of the slave—and this in the form of a question. For one thing, it is to be remembered that the parabolic image does not really fit the relationship of slave and master and for that reason alone can be considered an inappropriate accusation. Moreover, it is evident from the whole context of Matthew that, in any case, the appraisal the slave has made of his master which derives from his claiming the harvest is to be considered false in the light of who Jesus actually is: Jesus is no “harsh man.” He is characterized rather by gentleness (11:29; 21:5), humility (11:29), and mercy (e.g., 9:36; 14:14), manifested in his merciful turning toward sinners (9:2–13). As their master, Jesus challenges his disciples to perform their assigned mission and demands a life that accords with what he has commanded (28:20). But as the disciples’ Lord, for Matthew Jesus is also the Son of God who saves the sinking Peter (14:28–33) and stills the storm (8:23–27), who gives his life “for the many” (20:28; 26:28), and promises his disciples his being-with them in the fulfillment of their task (28:20). Anxiety is therefore unfounded. Rather, all this should inspire trust to take up the job with confidence. In any case, inertia, as the parable pointedly teaches, is not an acceptable option. In the Last Judgment, such conduct will not be without consequences. [28–30] These consequences are now executed in vv. 28–30. Without this being indicated by a new introduction, as in Luke 19:24, the master now turns away from the third slave and orders others who are not specifically identified to carry out the judgment. The transfer of the one talent to the first slave illustrated by the saying in v. 29 is hardly appropriate after the reward he has already received in v. 21. The emphasis lies on the abundance of what the one receives who already has. The comparison with Luke 19:26 underscores this, for “will have in abundance” is added by Matthew, as in 13:12. Matthew obviously wanted to point out that the one who works diligently at the task appointed to him will be rewarded beyond all measure (cf. also 19:29). Analogous to the reward of the trustworthy slave in vv. 21 and 23, the portrayal of the punishment fades into a direct portrayal of the Last Judgment (on the judgment motif, see 8:12). In comparison to 24:48–51, the picture in 25:24–30 is an intensification. There, the slave was punished for the evil he had done; here, it becomes clear that the neglect of what has been positively commanded is sufficient cause to be thrown into the outermost darkness. Finally, it must be asked whether there is any significance in the fact that precisely the third slave, to whom—relatively speaking—the smallest amount was entrusted, who was assessed by his master from the beginning as the least

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

375

competent, fails because of his anxiety, or whether this is merely an insignificant feature of the narrative. In the former case, it can be seen as encouragement and admonition to those who may suppose they have little to contribute: they are nonetheless required to do what they can (cf. 1 Cor 12:15–16). V.6.3 The Judgment of the World (25:31– 46)

“But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world! 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 (I was) naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him saying, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and fed you, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave (you) clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and came to you?’ 40 And the king will answer and say to them, ‘Amen, I tell you, what you have done to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you have done to me.’ 41 Then he will also say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you that are accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels! 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not come to me.’ 44 Then they also will answer saying, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not serve you?’ 45 Then he will answer and say to them, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you have not done for one of the least of these, you have not done for me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” 31

The portrayal of the Last Judgment in 25:31–36, taken from Matthew’s special material, continues and brings to its climax the delineation of the final events that was interrupted by the extensive instructions of 24:32–25:30. While 24:30 spoke of the coming of the Son of Man in glory (cf. 16:27), so now he sits on the throne of his glory (cf. 19:28, as well as, e.g., 1 En. 55:3; 66:2, 5) to execute

376

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

judgment. The opening section in vv. 31–33 presents, in rudimentary fashion, the procedure of the Son of Man’s judgment: he divides the people assembled before him into two groups. This is followed in vv. 34– 40, 41– 45 by parallel dialogues, first with those who enter into salvation, then with those who are condemned. The verdict pronounced in vv. 34 and 41 is based in each case on what those addressed have done or not done to the Son of Man (vv. 35–36, 42– 43). In each case, this is followed by an amazed counterquestion (vv. 37–39, 44), and the solution of the “riddle” by the judge’s declaration of his own involvement in the way the very least have been treated. The latter is the punchline of the text. The short final notice in v. 46 reports the implementation of the judgment. The two exchanges clearly constitute the center and main point of the text. [31–33] While vv. 31–46 connects to 24:29–31, there is also a tension in regard to the underlying concept of judgment. In 24:29–31 the elect were gathered, which means a separation has already been made, but in 25:31–46 all nations are gathered before the Son of Man, and it is he who separates people into the righteous and the rejected. Placing different concepts of the judgment directly alongside each other is, however, not a peculiarity of Matthew, but was widespread in early Judaism (cf., e.g., 1 En. 92–104). We could add from the Gospel of Matthew itself that the angels in 13:41, in contrast to 24:31, do not gather the elect, but the opposite: they collect the lawless and all those who cause others to stumble. In any case, it may be concluded from 25:31–46 that the underlying idea of a universal judgment scene with a double outcome appears to be Matthew’s guiding principle (cf. Sib. Or. 4:181–191; T. Abr. A 12–14)—in contrast to the “one-sided” notion of a purely criminal court, that can also be associated with legal process (e.g., 1 En. 62). For the idea of a universal judgment with a double outcome is also reflected in the declaration about the judgment Matthew appends in 16:27, that the Son of Man will repay each one according to their deeds. The separation of those gathered into two groups is illustrated through a comparison with the activity of a shepherd. The background of this imagery is that young billy goats were chosen from the herd of sheep and goats to designate them as those to be slaughtered. This corresponds to the fact that the goats placed on the left stand for those who are accursed, and who end up having to go “into the eternal fire” (v. 41) or “eternal punishment” (v. 46). [32, 40, 45] It is of decisive importance for interpreting the whole to determine who is meant by the expression “all the nations” (v. 32), and who are represented by “the least brothers or sisters” (v. 40) or simply “the least” (v. 45). The expression “all nations” poses not only the question of whether Israel is included or only Gentiles are intended (in which case one would have to see the case of Israel dealt with in 19:28), but also the question whether, in the first case, Christians are included alongside Israel; “all nations” would

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

377

then be understood in the universal sense as “all people.” A different interpretation of “all nations” would emerge if the least brothers and sisters were to be understood to mean not suffering fellow human beings in general, but, as often assumed in more recent Matthean studies, only (suffering) Christians, or—even more specifically—wandering missionaries. In this case, 25:31– 46 would contain the criterion by which the “nations,” in the sense of people who do not share Christian faith, would be judged, namely by how they had treated Christians or, in particular, their response to Christian missionaries. In support of this interpretation, one can point to the fact that in 12:48–50 and 28:10, Jesus refers to the disciples as his “brothers,” and that the “brother”terminology is also used in 18:15, 21, 35; 23:8 in an internal ecclesial sense for the followers of Jesus (cf. also 5:47). Alongside this, the identification of Jesus with the “least” (brothers and sisters) in vv. 40, 45 has a close relation in the broader Matthean context in 10:40– 42, where “little ones” refers to the disciples. On the other side, 10:40– 42 has a counterpart in 18:5, where the saying about receiving a little child cannot be limited to “Christian” children. Moreover, in 5:22–24 and 7:3–5 there is a more extended concept of “brother and sister,” in which, motivated by an ethical perspective, potentially every fellow human being is thought of as a brother or sister in one’s family. Furthermore, the closest parallels to the imagery of the line of argument in vv. 40 and 45 are found in Proverbs 14:31; 19:17 and 2 Enoch 44:1–2 (more details below) and have in view needy people in general. Finally, the contextual element needs to be considered, that after the exhortation to vigilance in 24:32–25:30 one can expect a judgment parenesis that concerns (or at least includes) the disciples, while a text intended to comfort (oppressed) disciples would undermine the parenetic thrust of the preceding pericopes. It is therefore preferable to interpret this text in a sense that understands “all nations” as referring to all of humanity—including Christians—and the “least of these” to refer to all needy people. The phrase “all nations” points to the universality of judgment, analogous to the universal horizon of the preaching referred to in 24:14, which includes the whole inhabited earth. This also corresponds to the cross-reference to 16:27, according to which the Son of Man, when he comes in the glory of his Father with his angels (cf. 25:31), will reward each one according to their deeds. Formulated the other way around: 25:31– 46 develops and elaborates what was already announced in 16:27. To clarify this, it is still important to add that the needy, in the saying about “all the nations,” are not to be ruled out in principle, for they do not form a statically defined group, and it is not to be ruled out that people who in one respect are needy, or are needy in a particular situation in life, in other respects or life situations might themselves be among those who can offer help. Thus 25:31–46

378

V. Jesus’ Final Controversy with His Opponents and the Last Judgment

outlines a judgment scenario in which all people are judged according to how they respond in situations in which they could offer help to those in need. Since this eschatological teaching is directed to the disciples (24:3), and, in any case, the Gospel of Matthew is (primarily) addressed to Christians, it is especially important to impress upon them that the decisive factor in the Last Judgment is their own conduct (cf. 7:13–27). The view that the failure to do good deeds leads to condemnation (cf. Luke 16:19–31; Jas 2:13) is in line with the preceding parable of vv. 14–30. [34–35] What is new in comparison with the preceding exhortations to vigilance is the content that concretizes the standard of judgment. That here compassionate turning to the needy is declared to be this criterion corresponds to the preceding emphasis on compassion and love for the neighbor as the very center of God’s will (5:43– 48; 12:7; 19:19; 22:34– 40; 23:23). From the point of view of the history of tradition, Matthew’s emphasis on such acts of mercy is entirely in line with the ethics of the Old Testament and early Judaism (cf. e.g., Job 22:5–10; Isa 58:5–10; T. Zeb. 6:1–7:4; 2 En. 9:1; Midr. Pss. on 118:17). The listing of the hungry, thirsty, strangers, those without (adequate) clothing, those sick and imprisoned, is illustrative, not exhaustive. Wherever people are needy and in distress, compassion and love for the neighbor are required; accordingly, the list of merciful acts must always be reformulated according to social conditions. [34, 41] Instructive differences in detail emerge if one compares the course of the dialogues in vv. 34– 40 and 41– 45. [34, 41] It is only in addressing the group of the righteous that the Son of Man is called “king” (vv. 34, 40). The righteous are called the “blessed of my Father” (v. 34), while the genitive of attribution, “of,” is lacking in the case of the accursed in v. 41. While the content of salvation is equated with entering the kingdom of God prepared for the righteous (cf. e.g., 5:3, 10, 20), even from the beginning of the world (v. 34), in v. 41 not only the counterpart to “ from the beginning of the world” is missing, but in addition the eternal fire is not actually prepared for human beings, but for the devil and his angels (cf. Rev 20:10). The accent thus rests theologically on God’s saving will. At the same time, it is insinuated that those who, contrary to the saving will of God, enter into eternal fire, have allowed the way they live their daily lives to be determined by the devil. [35–36, 42–43] The justification for the decisions in vv. 35–36 and 42– 43 differ—disregarding the continuing negation in vv. 42– 43—only in that in v. 43 the fifth and sixth members of the series are fused together, as this was already the case in the previous question of the righteous. [37–39, 44] There is a more substantial difference between the two counterquestions. While vv. 37–39, in which the question “When have we seen . . . ?” occurs three times,

V.6 The Discourse about the Eschatological Events and the Judgment

379

consist of a threefold construction, each with two parts (with the third term shortened in the aid description, see above), in v. 44 all six cases are fused into one, and the helpful actions are all combined into the common denominator “serve” (diakoneō): it is a matter of “diaconal” action in the service of the neighbor. The fourfold and therefore conspicuously emphasized listing of the needy situations, in clear contrast to the brevity of scenic details at the beginning and ending framework (vv. 31–33, 46), reflects the parenetic concern to inculcate acts of mercy. In addition to the arguments given above, this also speaks against the limitation of the “least brother or sister” to Jesus’ followers, not to mention only the wandering missionaries among them. [40, 45] The concern to inculcate acts of compassion becomes more intense in Matthew 25, in that helping those in need is judged to be something done for the Judge of the world himself (v. 40). This point of the text is a variation of an idea also found elsewhere in biblical tradition: “Those who oppress the poor insult their Maker, but those who are kind to the needy honor him” (Prov 14:31; cf. 19:17). In 2 Enoch 44:1–2 the idea is found that contempt for a human being is contempt for God, connected with the anthropological concept of humanity created in the image of God in Genesis 1:26–27. Since human beings are created in God’s image, this means that whatever is done to another human being is done to God. In Matthew 25, this line of thought oriented to the anthropological-theological concept of creation is transformed into an analogy with a christological direction. Whatever is done for or denied to a needy person counts as done for or denied to Jesus, Son of Man and Judge of the world. This saying is hardly to be understood as a (mystical) identification of Jesus with the needy, but as a close community of solidarity (cf. Brandenburger, “Taten der Barmherzigkeit als Dienst,” 315). The designation of the Judge who is the Son of Man as “king” (vv. 34, 40) becomes clearer in this context: the king and the lowest needy person are here set in such a relation to each other that the needy are ennobled by the solidarity of the king with them and lifted to a new status by this interpretation of reality. Their designation as “brothers and sisters” of Jesus fits in here. In the biblical context, this has the overtone that guarding the rights of the poor is one of the king’s primary responsibilities (cf. Ps 72). Above all, in the broader Matthean context, it is to be remembered that the earthly ministry of the royal Messiah Jesus placed compassionate devotion to human need at its very center (e.g., 9:13, 27, 36), which, among other things, included feeding the hungry (15:32; cf. 12:1–8). As the Judge, he operates by the same criterion by which he himself lived. [38–39, 44] The narrative motif that the righteous are themselves unaware that they have served Jesus himself is sometimes interpreted as showing the “purity” of their motivation. They do good for its own sake; their help of the

380

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

needy is not “contaminated” by a side-glance that squints in the direction of heavenly reward, but actually has in view the needy people themselves. However, the narrated world is not to be confused with the plane of the evangelist’s own communication. The ignorance motif is a literary means for the purpose of reinforcing the point made in vv. 40 and 45. On the other hand, the text inculcates in Matthew’s addressees that the required acts of compassion are “diaconal ministry” to Christ. The reference to the solidarity of Christ the King with the needy thereby makes clear that such “diaconal ministry” is not an optional duty of being a Christian, which might be neglected, but that this is what decides whether a person in fact “serves” Christ or not. The recourse to Matthew 25:31– 46 as one of the fundamental texts for diaconal ministry is therefore right. In 25:34, 40, Jesus speaks indirectly of himself as king, just as in 23:10 (and 24:5) he spoke of himself as the Christ. In the passion story that now follows, his kingship will once again become the theme (27:11, 29, 37, 42), and an object of mockery. When read in this context, the use of the royal title in 25:34, 40 underscores the reality that those who ridicule and execute Jesus (or have it done for them) do this to the one who will be their judge. VI. T P  R  J   C   D   U M (:–:) Corresponding to the passion predictions in 16:21; 17:22–23; and 20:18–19, the passion and resurrection constitute one integrated narrative unit. The joining of Good Friday and Easter is strongly strengthened in the Matthean composition by expanding the story of the empty tomb in 27:62– 66 and 28:11–15. With regard to the way the composition is structured, we must confine ourselves to grouping the individual pericopes into subunits, as is done below, without resulting in a continuous, uniform compositional scheme. (It has been suggested, for example, that the narrative be divided into three main parts, 26:1–56; 26:57–27:54; and 27:55–28:20, each with three subsections.) From a christological point of view, the first thing to be emphasized is the effort of the evangelist to portray that in the passion, too, it is Jesus who acts with sovereign authority (see especially on 26:2, 52–54, but also on 27:39–44). The fact that Jesus repeatedly announces what is to come (26:2, 11–12, 21–25, 32–33, 34, 45–46), which documents his miraculous knowledge of the future (cf. 11:27), gains definition in this context. Moreover, it is characteristic of Matthew that Jesus’ divine sonship stands out increasingly as a motif that shapes his Christology (see on 26:53, 63– 64; 27:40, 43, 54; 28:16–20). The focus here is concentrated on mediating the sovereignty of the Son of God who

VI.1 Introduction

381

participates in divine power (cf. on 14:33; 16:16) with his earthly experience of shameful death on the cross. In this context, central importance is attached to the obedience motif: Jesus is the suffering righteous one (cf. 27:19), who in his obedience to God’s will (cf. 26:39, 42) takes upon himself death “for the many,” “for forgiveness of sins” (26:28). It is also characteristic for Matthew 26–28 that the evangelist emphasizes the unscrupulousness of the Jewish authorities—for example, by the insertion of 27:3–10, as well as 27:62– 66 and 28:11–15, but also by such things as his reworking the account of the trial in 26:59– 66. The responsibility for Jesus’ death is shifted to the Jewish side—more precisely, to the authorities and the people of Jerusalem deceived by them (see on 27:25). Corresponding to the way he has expanded the Gospel by adding a prologue at the beginning (Matt 2), Matthew has also extended the conflict theme into the post-Easter period (27:62– 66; 28:11–15), and explicitly into his own present (28:15). The only recognizable written source is Mark 14:1–16:8, but at various points there are agreements of Matthew with Luke or John that point to the influence of oral tradition (see on 26:47–56, 67– 68, 69–75; 27:57– 61). Oral tradition is probably also the basis for the more extensive Matthean expansions of the Markan narrative thread in 27:3–10; 27:62– 66; 28:1l–15, as well as for the Easter narratives in 28:9–10, 16–20, but it is likely that the tradition has been elaborated by the evangelist (and his circle). This is no less true for the smaller expansions, as, for example, 26:1–2, 25; 27:19, 24–25, 51b–53; 28:2–4, some of which may derive entirely from the evangelist’s own pen. VI.1 Introduction (26:1–16) The section 26:1–16 forms a kind of introduction to the passion story. In vv. 1–5, Jesus’ announcement (vv. 1–2) and the authorities’ plan (vv. 3–5) are juxtaposed, like the two sides of a diptych. Then the anointing of Jesus (vv. 6–13) and the instigation of the betrayal by Judas (vv. 14–16) prepare for what is to come. Although v. 2 provides a chronological note, data that would fix the chronology such as we have from v. 17 on are missing in the episodes of vv. 6–13 and vv. 14–16. VI.1.1 Jesus’ Announcement of His Death and the Decision of His Opponents to Put Him to Death (26:1–5)

And it happened, that when Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2 “You know that after two days the Passover will be here, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” 3 Then the high priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4 and they conspired 1

382

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

together to arrest Jesus and kill him by stealth. 5 But they said, “Not during the festival, lest a tumult break out among the people.” [1–2] Matthew moves the narrative from the eschatological discourse to the passion narrative with the usual transitional phrase, “and it happened, when Jesus had finished . . . ,” except that here, in accordance with the situation, the object “all these things” indicates that Jesus’ teaching has come to an end. The reader is to hear an allusion to Deuteronomy 31:1 LXX (cf. also Deut 31:24; 32:45), with which Matthew seeks to strengthen the way in which he has painted the Jesus-story in biblical colors. A peculiarity of the Matthean passion story is that, even before the Jewish authorities meet and make their decision (v. 2), once again he has Jesus announce his coming death. As in 20:19, he now speaks specifically of “being crucified”—instead of more vaguely of “being killed” (16:21; 17:23). Furthermore, the reference to the imminent Passover festival now gives a specific determination of the time. Finally, unlike 16:21; 17:22–23; and 20:17–19, there is no concluding reference to the resurrection, pointedly contrasting the preceding discourse about the coming of the Son of Man “in his glory” (25:31). At the same time, however—in conjunction with the preceding announcements of the resurrection—this forms an advance signal before 26:2: the Son of Man, who is now going to be handed over to be crucified, is precisely the one who will be the judge of all humanity at the end of the world. In the context of 26:1–5, the focus of the announcement in v. 2 on being handed over and crucified corresponds to the account of the authorities’ plan that directly follows (v. 4: arrest and kill). The insertion of v. 2 thus illustrates an overall tendency of the Matthean passion narrative: Matthew emphasizes the sovereignty of Jesus, who knows in advance what is going to happen; he even has, theoretically, the power to escape suffering (26:52–54), but he takes this upon himself in obedience to the (saving) will of God (26:39, 42). The other side of the coin is that the authorities still only seem to have the reigns in their own hands. [3–5] Matthew has changed the exploratory session of the high priests and scribes he found in Mark 14:1–2 into a formal meeting of the high priests and elders of the people, that is, a meeting of the whole High Council (cf. John 11:47–53). As also in 26:57, Matthew here supplies the name of the officiating high priest, Caiaphas (cf. John 11:49; 18:13–14, 24, 28), which was missing in Mark. In the passion story, Matthew consistently presents the opponents of Jesus as the high priests and scribes, who first emerged together in 21:23–22:46, in the cycle of disputations between Jesus and the authorities. In 21:45– 46, the authorities were prevented from arresting Jesus by the high regard in which he was held by the people. Then, after the miserable failure of their attempt to “entrap him

VI.1 Introduction

383

in what he said” (22:15–46), their only remaining option was to seize him “by stealth” (in the sense of betrayal, intrigue). In this context, “by stealth” probably refers to the two verbs that follow, and in this sense v. 4b should be read as the major premise under which the rest of the following is to be read: the arrest of Jesus “by stealth” takes shape through the offer of Judas (vv. 14–16); the plan to kill Jesus “by stealth” foreshadows the procedure of the high priest in the trial of Jesus and his condemnation by Pilate (26:59–66; 27:11–26). As the place where this decision was made, Matthew explicitly names the palace of the high priest (v. 3), which underscores the connection between the decision made in v. 4 and the trial which occurs in the same place (cf. 26:57–58). The sympathy for Jesus among the people (21:46) thus no longer is a hindrance for the authorities, but does determine their intended procedure: the time during the feast is to be avoided, in view of the positive response Jesus found among the crowds who have come to Jerusalem for the festival, so that they would not cause any turmoil. Once again, the contrast between the (ordinary) people and the leadership class emerges. The designation of the elders as the “elders of the people” in v. 3 (cf. 21:23; 26:47; 27:1) thus does not lack a certain irony. However, the effort to avoid the festival as the time to take action against Jesus will fail, just as will their concern to prevent a tumult. Rather, Jesus, as he announced in v. 2, will be crucified on the day of the festival, and the authorities—again ironically—will themselves have to incite a tumult among the people in order to attain their goal in Pilate’s court (27:20, 24). The matter is not in their hands. VI.1.2 The Anointing of Jesus in Bethany (26:6–13)

Now while Jesus was at Bethany, in the house of Simon, the leper, 7 a woman came to him, who had an alabaster jar of very costly ointment. And she poured it on his head, as he reclined at the table. 8 But when the disciples saw (it), they were indignant and said, “Why this waste? 9 For this could have been sold for a large sum, and (the money) given to the poor.” 10 But when Jesus became aware (of this), he said to them, “Why are you giving the woman a hard time? She has performed a good work for me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. 12 For when she poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. 13 Amen, I say to you: Wherever this good news will be proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in remembrance of her.” 6

Matthew’s version of the anointing of Jesus follows the basic outline of Mark 14:3–9, but Matthew has made some modifications pertinent to the content, apart from purely linguistic changes and his usual tendency to tighten up the

384

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

narrative. [6–7] After the discourse in 24:3–25:46 located on the Mount of Olives, and the announcement of his coming death in 26:1–2, Jesus returns to Bethany (cf. 21:17). The Lukan variant (Luke 7:36–50) also takes place in the house of someone named Simon—this seems to belong to the bedrock of the tradition—but that Simon is a Pharisee (7:39– 40), while in Mark and Matthew he is a (former) leper (v. 6 par. Mark 14:3). In v. 7, Matthew recounts the anointing itself tersely, without any picturesque details. All attention is centered on the meaning, which is unfolded in Jesus’ dialogue with his disciples in vv. 8–13. To be sure, the few words in v. 7 are sufficient to reveal the extraordinary character of the event: Jesus is not merely anointed with a little oil, but the woman pours a whole jar of expensive oil on his head. She says not a word about why she does this—for example, supposing Jesus should be anointed as (messianic) king in connection with his entry into Jerusalem in 21:1–9 (cf., e.g., 1 Sam 10:1; 24:7, 11; 1 Kgs 1:39; 2 Kgs 9:12). The woman does not speak anywhere in the scene. The event is interpreted only by Jesus, in his response to the protest of his disciples. [8–9] The discontent of the disciples—not just “some,” as in Mark 14:4—is thoroughly understandable, for their objection is based on their insight into the will of God, as taught by Jesus himself: at the center is merciful concern for the needy neighbor. In their eyes, the woman’s act is thus an ethically questionable waste. The value of the oil given in Mark 14:5, more than three hundred denarii (one denarius is the equivalent of the daily wage of a worker [!]; cf. on 20:2), has been omitted by Matthew and replaced by a less specific indication (“very costly,” or “for much/many”), perhaps to make the negative response it triggers a bit softer. [10–12] Jesus defends the woman—who remains unnamed—from the angry disciples. He replaces their evaluation of the anointing as “waste” with his own evaluation: she has done a “good work” for him. The justification that follows in vv. 11–12 in no way calls in question the basic attitude of the disciples with regard to the diaconal use of one’s property. Matthew does not take over the comment of the Markan Jesus, subject to this kind of misunderstanding, namely, that the disciples can do good to the poor whenever or as often as they want (Mark 14:7; cf. John 12:8). For Matthew, helping the poor is by no means a matter at the discretion of the disciples; rather, this is a weighty command of God (cf. 6:19–24; 19:21; 25:35–36). That this command nevertheless recedes behind the particular care the woman gives to Jesus is based on the singular situation that Jesus makes the focus of his justification of the woman’s action with the “always—not always” contrast. The statement that they always have the poor with them, and thus always have the opportunity (and the duty!) to do good for the poor, takes up Deuteronomy 15:11. The contrasting statement

VI.1 Introduction

385

that they will not always have Jesus with them is, in the light of the immediately preceding announcement (v. 2), a (rhetorically effective) understatement. For, according to v. 2, it is evident that very soon there will no longer be an opportunity to do such a good work for Jesus. Exactly what this means is stated in v. 12: Jesus interprets the anointing as an anticipation of the anointing of his dead body, which, analogous to the works of mercy in 25:31– 46, can also be understood as loving service—Tobit 1:16–17 lists burial service alongside feeding of the hungry and clothing the naked as acts of compassion. In accord with his interpretation of the event as anointing for his burial, Jesus speaks of the oil as having been poured on his body, although according to v. 7 it was only poured on his head. Since Jesus has thereby already been prepared for his burial, in 28:1 Matthew has intentionally deleted the intention of the women to anoint his body from Mark 16:1. In the context of v. 2, Jesus’ interpretation of the anointing is to be understood as part of his insight into what is to come. Between crucifixion and burial, there will be no way to anoint the body of Jesus. The woman thus anticipates the funeral anointing, which cannot and will not happen later. With this service, she does exactly the good work that is commanded for this situation, so that this expression of devotion to Jesus justifies even the use of this expensive oil. [13] The concluding Amen-saying draws attention back to the announcement of the worldwide preaching of the gospel spoken of in 24:14 and assigns a place in it to the memory of this woman’s good work. As in 24:14, Matthew speaks in particular of “this gospel” (differently Mark 14:9). This word usage raises the question of the extent to which this “gospel” is to be identified with the “Gospel” of the (Matthean) Jesus-story, to which the Didache, written in the historical context of the Matthean congregations, testifies a little later (cf. Did. 8.2; 11.3; 15.3, 4). In any case, the integration of the anointing of Jesus into the (Matthean) Jesus-story reflects that wherever “this gospel (Gospel?) is proclaimed,” what this woman has done will also be included. VI.1.3 The Betrayal by Judas (26:14–16)

Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the high priests 15 and said, “What will you give me, and I will deliver him to you?” So they counted out thirty pieces of silver for him. 16 And from then on he began to look for an opportunity to hand him over. 14

The narrative of Jesus’ betrayal, heavily edited by Matthew in v. 15 (cf. Mark 14:10–11), continues the thread of vv. 1–5. [14] Through the initiative of Judas, already presented in 10:4 as the one who will betray Jesus, a surprising possibility is opened up for the high priests to realize their intention of arresting

386

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

Jesus “by stealth” (v. 4) in a way that the people would not notice (cf. v. 5). The designation of Judas as “one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot,” parallels “the high priest, who was called Caiaphas” in v. 3 and underscores the new alliance that is forming. At the same time, featuring the prominence of “one of the Twelve” highlights that the betrayal was an act from within the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples. [15] By placing the question in Judas’ mouth, “What will you give me?” Matthew points to the love of money as the motive of Judas’ betrayal (cf. also John 12:6). His offer to hand Jesus over to them points back to Jesus’ announcement in v. 2, which now begins to be fulfilled. Associated with Matthew’s insertion of Judas’ question is the high priest’s specific offer of thirty pieces of silver, which is not merely promised (cf. Mark 14:11), but immediately counted out to him. The amount of money named is an allusion to Zechariah 11:12 (LXX) and already prepares the way for the fulfillment-quotation in 27:9–10. The perceptive listener can also overhear a reference to Exodus 21:32, where thirty pieces of silver is named as damages paid to the owner of a slave who has been gored by an ox. Matthew thus subtly refers to the contempt the high priests have for Jesus, which stands in stark contrast to the anointing with expensive oil Jesus received in v. 7. [16] Verse 16 implies that Judas agrees to the “slave price” (cf. T. Gad 2:3) paid for delivering Jesus to them. Now all he needs is to find a good opportunity. This will already be available the following night (26:47–56). VI.2 The Last Passover Meal of Jesus (26:17–29) Now on the first (day of the festival) of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and said: “Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover (meal)?” 18 So he said: “Go into the city to ‘a certain man,’ and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is near; I want to celebrate the Passover at your house with my disciples.’” 19 And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover (meal). 20 When evening had come, he reclined at table with the Twelve. 21 And while they were eating, he said, “Amen I say to you: One of you will hand me over.” 22 And they became greatly distressed, and began to say to him one after another, “Surely not I, Lord?” 23 He answered and said, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will hand me over. 24 Indeed, the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is handed over! It would have been better for him not to have been born, that man.” 25 But Judas, who was handing him over, answered and said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said it.” 26 And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and pronounced the blessing, broke (it), and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is 17

VI.2 The Last Passover Meal of Jesus

387

my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks and he gave it (to them), and said, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I say to you: From now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus’ last Passover meal, reworked by him from Mark 14:12–25, is divided into the brief account of the preparation for the meal (vv. 17–19), the identification of the traitor (vv. 20–25), and finally, the meal itself with the words that interpret the meaning of the bread and the cup (vv. 26–29). [17–19] In the introductory scene, Matthew has reduced the account in Mark 14:12–16 by the elimination of some details of the narrative—such as the sending of the two disciples (v. 13), meeting someone carrying a water jar as a recognition signal (v. 13), or the description of the place where the Passover would be celebrated (v. 15)—which lets the main elements of the story line emerge more clearly. [17] The reference to the first day of Unleavened Bread reflects the combination of the Passover festival and the festival of Unleavened Bread, which actually begins one day later (cf. Lev 23:5– 6; Josephus, War 5.99; Ant. 18.29; 20.106, etc.). With their question of where the Passover is to be celebrated, the disciples take the initiative. In doing so, the emphasis is on preparing the meal for Jesus. [18] Jesus’ instruction in v. 18 picks up on this (“I want to celebrate the Passover . . .”). The person whom the disciples are to speak to in the city, i.e., in Jerusalem, is not named, nor is he identified by a special sign, as in the Markan story, but only referred to as “a certain man,” intentionally keeping his identity in the dark, for the matter does not depend on him, but on Jesus alone. The words that the disciples are to say have also been reformulated: instead of the question about the room (Mark 14:14), Matthew has the christologically loaded statement “my time is near” (cf. Matt 26:2, 45), which points to the predetermined time of Jesus’ death and the almost imperious announcement that he will celebrate the Passover at that man’s house. [19] Verse 19 succinctly states that the disciples carried out Jesus’ instructions. While Mark 14:16 explains that the disciples found everything just as Jesus had foretold, Matthew emphasizes, as in 21:6, their obedience (cf. 1:24, of Joseph). [20] No words are wasted on the preparations themselves. The brief note in v. 20 immediately sets the stage for the Passover meal in the evening, which provides the setting for the two “scenes” that follow in vv. 21–25 and 26–29, each of which is introduced with “And while they were eating . . .”: the identification of the traitor, and Jesus’ interpretation of his death. [21–25] Both Luke (22:21–23) and John (13:21–23) provide a variant account of the identification of the traitor from that found in Mark/Matthew, each with its own accent. In

388

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

Matthew, the traitor is disclosed in the course of a dialogue, extended by the evangelist’s addition of v. 25, which Jesus both opens (v. 21) and closes (v. 25). [21] While in 26:2, in contrast to the open formulation in 17:22 and 20:18, the time is determined but continues to leave open the acting subject, now Jesus speaks for the first time that it will be one of the circle of twelve disciples. The Markan addition, “one who eats with me” (an echo of Psalm 41:10), has fallen victim to Matthew’s tendency to tighten up the narrative, since he has already mentioned the common meal in v. 21. Also, preserving this reference here would disturb the gradual specification of who the “betrayer” is, found in Jesus’ three statements in vv. 21, 23, and 25. [22] In comparison with Mark 14:19, Matthew has intensified the distress with which the disciples respond: “they became greatly distressed.” Their question, both defensive and, at the same time, expressing some uncertainty, asked one after another (except for Judas?), “Surely not I, Lord?” has been supplemented by Matthew’s adding “Lord,” the disciples’ typical address to Jesus. The insertion of “Lord” gains additional intensity when the question is repeated by Judas in v. 25. [23–24] In Jesus’ reply in v. 23, the “one of you” becomes specific with Matthew’s use of the aorist participle—differently from Mark 14:20—which expresses a punctiliar aspect. Since this can refer to a previous time, but not necessarily so, there are two sub-variations. It can signify either “the one who just now dips his hand with me” (in the fruit purée; cf. m. Pesaḥ. 10.3), or “the one who has just now dipped his hand with me.” In the latter case, it would not necessarily be the case that not only the one described, but all the other disciples would also know whom he was talking about. In regard to Judas himself, however, it seems that Matthew has so constructed the scene that in this case, too, Judas would realize that he had been exposed. Verse 24 reveals the gravity of the offense. For Matthew, the statement that the death of the Son of Man has been foretold in the Scripture (see on 26:54) makes God’s saving will manifest in this event, but this changes nothing in regard to the responsibility and guilt of those who participate in it. [25] After being identified in v. 23, and in view of the background described in vv. 14–16, Judas’ response that Matthew has added in v. 25, echoing the disciples’ counterquestion in v. 22, functions as a clumsy, evasive, and hypocritical maneuver. When he sees himself unmasked by Jesus, he plays the role of someone surprised. His actual distance from Jesus is expressed in that he does not address Jesus as “Lord,” as a disciple would do (cf. v. 22), but with “Rabbi” (cf. v. 49), and thus in the same way that the hostile scribes and Pharisees like to be addressed by the people (23:7). Jesus’ curt reply confirms, with sober detachment, that none other than Judas will be the traitor. If in v. 23 Judas had not already been exposed to all, in v. 25 at the latest it is evident

VI.2 The Last Passover Meal of Jesus

389

that, for Matthew—differently from Luke 22:21–23 and John 13:21–30—all the disciples present know who will be the one to hand Jesus over. No further reaction from Judas is described. He will not appear again in the narrative until v. 47. Sometime in between, he must have left Jesus, but Matthew does not say whether this occurred immediately, on the way to the Mount of Olives (v. 30), or not until the prayer in Gethsemane (vv. 36– 44). This leaves open the possibility that he was still present in vv. 26–29. It may be difficult to imagine that he remained present after being exposed in v. 25 (or v. 23), but his departure is never explicitly mentioned. [26–29] With the repetition of the reference to the common meal in v. 26a (cf. v. 21a), Matthew sets up vv. 26–29 as a “scene” distinct from what has just been described. While the identification of the traitor with the woe in v. 24b thematized the side of human responsibility and guilt for the death of Jesus, this is juxtaposed to the soteriological interpretation of the event by the words that interpret the meaning of the bread and wine in vv. 26–29—in line with the reference to Scripture in v. 24a. Explanatory words about the individual elements of the meal—such as the Passover lamb (cf. Exod 12:26–27), the unleavened bread (cf. Exod 13:6–8), and the bitter herbs (Exod 12:8)—are an integral part of the Passover celebration (cf. m. Pesa ḥ. 10.3– 4). The interpretative words for the bread and wine fit in formally with the way Passover was celebrated but are not attached to specific elements of the meal. Rather, they introduce something new: alongside the memorial of the liberation from Egypt as the founding date for the history of the people of God, the death of Jesus “for the forgiveness of sins” (v. 28) comes in as a new soteriological founding date. The historical question of whether the Last Supper was in fact a Passover meal can be put aside here, since in any case Matthew clearly understands it as such, and thereby interprets the salvation from sins (1:21) effected by Jesus’ death against the background of deliverance from slavery. The eucharistic tradition can be roughly divided into the Markan version (Mark 14:22–25) and the version attested by Luke and Paul (Luke 22;19–20; 1 Cor 11:23–25). Matthew follows his Markan source, making only a few changes. [26] Like the father in a Jewish household, Jesus pronounces the praise to God for the bread (cf. 14:19) before he breaks it and distributes it to his disciples. In contrast to Mark 14:22, in the words about the bread the introductory imperative “take” is supplemented with “eat.” In “this is my body,” “this” does not refer to the bread (the demonstrative pronoun is neuter, the Greek word for “bread” [artos] is masculine), but to the procedure being portrayed: the breaking of the bread symbolizes Jesus’ death. An explicit soteriological interpretation of the event is then given—differently from 1 Corinthians 11:24 and Luke 22:19 (“my body which is given for you”)—only with the saying about

390

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

the cup. [27–28] The pronouncement of praise now corresponds to the thanksgiving prayer, with no observable difference in meaning (cp. 15:36 with 14:19). Matthew has reformulated Mark’s note that “they all drank from it” as an imperative sentence and incorporated it into the words over the cup, analogous to the introductory imperative in v. 26. To be sure, the command to repeat the act, “this do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:24, 25; Luke 22:19), is missing in Matthew as in Mark 14:22–25, but one can hardly be wrong to assume that Matthew’s reformulation of the words over the cup reflects the liturgical use in the Matthean congregations: church members perceive this not merely as a “historical” report about Jesus’ last meal, but read or hear about the event on which their own practice is grounded. “Drink of it, all of you” thus implies that—as an expression of the reality that the participants are in communion and fellowship with each other—they drink from one cup. Following the words “which is poured out for many,” Matthew has also added the words “for the forgiveness of sins.” It is precisely these words that he has omitted in his presentation of the Baptist in 3:2, in contrast to Mark 1:4; for Matthew, forgiveness of sins was not to be connected with the baptism of John, but with the death of Jesus (see on 3:4– 6). With the words “this is my blood . . . which is poured out . . . ,” the “chalice” is interpreted analogously to the bread as a symbolic expression of the (violent) death of Jesus, but this is followed by a compact soteriological interpretation. The words about the “blood of the covenant” take up Exodus 24:8 (cf. also Zech 9:11), and thus the covenant made at Sinai. Moreover, the connection of the motif of forgiveness of sins with words about “(the) many” suggests Isaiah 53:11–12 as a reference text, i.e., a hint at the righteous servant who “bore the sins of many” (Isa 53:12). Finally, the connection of forgiveness of sins and covenant also links up with Jeremiah 31:31–34. There is no need to see these options as mutually exclusive: Matthew operates with a network of allusions to Scripture that convey the theological depth dimension of the interpretation of Jesus’ death. Considered in light of the connection of 26:28 to 1:21, with his saving death Jesus fulfills his mission, initially focused on Israel, “to save his people from their sins.” At the same time, however, with the expression “for many” (cf. 20:28), he signals that the Gentiles are henceforth included in the salvation that Jesus has fulfilled in his mission to Israel, since the expression “for (the) many” is to be understood in the universalistic sense of “for all.” In the words over the cup, the death of Jesus is set forth as the new soteriological founding date, which, together with the resurrection and ascension as lord of the universe, is now the foundation that underlies the mission of the disciples to all nations in 28:18–20. In the preceding narrative, the forgiveness of sins plays an essential

VI.2 The Last Passover Meal of Jesus

391

role, in perfect correspondence with 1:21 (see on 9:2–8 and 9:9–13); forgiveness of sins happens here in the concrete encounter with Jesus. On the other hand, for the post-Easter community celebrating the Lord’s Supper, a church now open to people from all nations, the interpretation of the death of Jesus given in the words over the cup as the forgiveness of sins speaks into a context that is now separated from the pre-Easter earthly form of the Lord’s presence. Christologically, this corresponds to the fact that the earthly ministry of Jesus directed to Israel (see, e.g., 4:23; 15:24) is placed by Matthew under the leitmotif of the Davidic Messiahship of Jesus, while with the passion, resurrection, and exaltation, his identity as Son of God becomes the object of his public proclamation beyond the circle of Jesus’ disciples (14:33; 16:16; 17:5). The universal extension of God’s saving act is linked by Matthew with the death, resurrection, and exaltation of the Son of God. For the overall understanding of Matthew, it is important that 26:28 does not imply a narrow ecclesiological rereading of 1:21, as though the concept of the people of God is now transferred from Israel to the church. On the contrary, here one must distinguish between the “objective” realization of salvation for “the many” and its “subjective” appropriation by the disciples. Through Jesus’ death “for the forgiveness of sins,” salvation is accomplished and available to all. The promise of salvation for the people of God is thereby “objectively” fulfilled—independently of how many there may be in Israel (or in the Gentile world) who accept it. The statement of 1:21 is to be understood in this sense that the “objective” foundation and thereby the possibility of access to salvation is a reality already given. Matthew’s words that interpret the meaning of the bread and wine follow in the wake of the claim in Mark 14:22, 24 that the salvific meaning of Jesus’ gift of life is that it happened for “the many,” not, as in Paul and Luke, where the phrase “for you” is applied to those gathered around the table (Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor 11:24). Not until v. 29 are these words applied personally to the circle of disciples. Accordingly, v. 28 does not refer to a “new” covenant made with the church that replaces the “old” covenant with Israel. Rather, the connection of v. 28 with 1:21 refers precisely to the integration of the saving death of Jesus into God’s covenant history with Israel, so that it is more appropriate to speak of a renewal of the one covenant. This corresponds to the Old Testament’s theology of the covenant and to Matthew’s Jesus-story itself, suggested by the motif of continuity that permeates the Gospel throughout. It must only be added that for Matthew this renewal of the covenant involves its expansion—rather, its universalization, since the saving death of the Son of God has a universal meaning. [29] In v. 29, the horizon expands beyond the death of Jesus to the reunion of Jesus with the disciples at the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of

392

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

heaven. Matthew has made various minor, but significant, changes that further illuminate the meaning of Jesus’ divine sonship in the interpretation of his death and post-Easter role. By again taking up the expression from 23:39, “from now on,” Matthew emphasizes the temporal break, at the same time making a cross-reference to the third insertion of this expression in 26:63– 64, where Jesus responds to the high priest’s question whether he is “the Christ, the Son of God,” by declaring his exaltation to “the right hand of Power.” At the end of v. 29, Matthew also lets the reader hear an echo of the Immanuel motif in 1:23; thus not only does the connection of forgiveness of sins and the Immanuel motif of 1:21–23 recur in 26:28–29, but at the same time it must be remembered that the Immanuel motif in 1:23 is connected with Jesus’ divine sonship. In addition, Matthew has Jesus speak of the “kingdom of my Father” instead of the kingdom of God (as in Mark 14:25). This expression occurs only here in Matthew; it, too, points to Jesus’ divine sonship. All this underscores that Matthew connects the death of Jesus for forgiveness of sins with the christological motif of Jesus as Son of God. For the disciples, Jesus’ statement in v. 29 conveys both the assurance that their separation from him will only be temporary and the promise that they will participate in eschatological salvation (19:28–29). The fundamental affirmation here, however, is that Jesus’ death “for many” does not mean the end, and that God’s rule will prevail. In vv. 26–28 on the one hand and v. 29 on the other, the church’s sacramental meal stands in a double referential context: It is performed in memory of the salvific death of Jesus, whose ministry of forgiving sins is made present to the participants and granted to them when the meal is celebrated in the life of the church. And it looks forward to the eschatological banquet and thus on the fullness of eschatological salvation. Then the being-with, promised by the Risen One to his disciples in 28:20, will be transformed into a renewed and immediate communion with him. VI.3 The Announcement of the Scattering of the Disciples and Peter’s Denial (26:30–35) And after they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. There Jesus says to them, “You will all be caused to stumble because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ 32 But after I am raised up, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.” 33 Peter answered and said to him, “Though all are caused to stumble because of you, I will never be caused to stumble because of you.” 34 Jesus said to him, “Amen, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” 35 Peter says to him, “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And so said all the disciples. 30 31

VI.3 The Announcement of the Scattering of the Disciples

393

Between the portrayal of Jesus’ Last Supper in 26:17–19 and the events located in Gethsemane in 26:36–46, 47–56, the conversation on the way to the Mount of Olives in 26:30–35 (par. Mark 14:26–31) provides a kind of interlude. The text is clearly structured: after the transitional note in v. 30, the two announcements of Jesus about the actions of the disciples “in this night” (v. 31–32, 34) are contrasted with the protestations of Peter (vv. 33, 35), in which—probably referring to v. 31 (“all”!)—the rest of the disciples are included in the final note in v. 35. [30] While no explicit references to the Passover meal are found in vv. 21–25, 26–29, these are again heard in v. 30. The singing of a hymn refers to the Hallel psalms (Pss 113–118) which were part of the Passover liturgy (already mentioned in Philo, Spec. Laws 2.148, as belonging the Passover celebration). More precisely, according to m. Pesa ḥim 10.6–7, this hymn was from the latter part of this group, beginning with Psalm 114 or 115. [31] On the way to the Mount of Olives, Jesus looks ahead to the actions of the disciples in the events that are to immediately follow. The first announcement is directed to all the disciples: all, in the face of the coming trouble and distress (cf. 13:21), will be caused to stumble, which can here mean nothing less than their (temporary) desertion of Jesus. Matthew has added “because of me” to Mark 14:27 (cf. the analogous insertion of “because of you” in v. 33) and thus illustrates the reference back to 11:6 (see also 13:57). The disciples are therefore—at least temporarily—no longer praised as those numbered among the blessed. In 26:56b, the announcement of v. 31 will be fulfilled: all the disciples will abandon Jesus and flee; no one stays by his side. Jesus supports his announcement in v. 31 with a quotation from Zechariah 13:7, which continues the shepherd/flock imagery important throughout the whole Gospel. In the first line, the imperative of the Old Testament text is changed to the first-person singular, which here represents God. Again, the shepherd is Jesus (cf. 2:6; 9:36; 15:24). With this word from Scripture, God is explicitly named as the acting subject in the death destined for Jesus (cf. 26:39, 42). Differently from Mark 14:27, Matthew speaks—perhaps influenced by the LXX version he knew (cf. the text of Zech 13:7 in Codex Alexandrinus)—of the “sheep of the flock.” The sheep metaphor here—taken up again after 18:12–14—refers to the disciples: As the part of the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6; 15:24) that have already been gathered, they form the flock of Jesus in the narrower sense. [32] However, according to v. 32, their scattering will only last for a short time. The announcement in v. 32 will be reflected in the message of the angels at the empty tomb in 28:7 and fulfilled through the story of the appearance of the Risen One in 28:16–20. The circle of disciples, reduced by Judas, is now together again, as Matthew makes clear

394

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

by explicitly speaking of the eleven disciples in 28:16. Thus Jesus speaks for the first time—in accordance with what has now become the theme of the passion story, the conduct of the disciples—not only of his resurrection, but that he, as the Risen One, will meet the disciples in Galilee (on Galilee, see at 28:16). To those who have been caused to stumble because of him, a new beginning will be given at Easter (cf. on 9:13). Only in this way can the promise just given in 26:29 become reality. [33] This promise applies especially to Peter. He resolutely rejects Jesus’ words as applying to him personally. Analogous to the first prediction of Jesus’ passion and resurrection in 16:21, his reaction refers only to the first half of the announcement, i.e., to v. 31, while paying no attention to v. 32. [34] Jesus responds with a second announcement, which now applies specifically to Peter. Jesus counters Peter’s vehement “Never!” with words that pick up and specify the time designation “in this very night” which Matthew inserted in v. 31: “in this very night, before the cock crows.” And Peter, who thinks of himself as more courageous than all the others (“though all are caused to stumble because of you . . .”), will not only flee along with the others, but will even deny Jesus, and that not just once, but three times. In 10:33 Jesus spoke of the consequences of denial—to be sure, the Greek text there has only the basic form arneomai instead of the prefixed form aparneomai found in 26:34, but the use of the basic form in 26:70, 72 shows that Matthew does not strictly differentiate these. The prefixed form has been met previously in 16:24, where the subject is self-denial in the context of following Jesus. There, in the preceding context, Peter opposed Jesus’ announcement of his suffering (16:22). [35] Now, however, Peter announces his willingness to even take up the cross, if it comes to that. Matthew and his congregations now know that Peter had later actually become a martyr (cf. John 13:36; 21:18–19; 1 Clem. 5.4). However, in the course of the proceedings of the High Council against Jesus, Peter could not maintain his high words; there, he fails to take up the cross, and, instead, denies Jesus. Jesus does not respond any further to Peter’s disputing his announcement. The coming events will confirm it, and then Peter will remember Jesus’ words (v. 75). VI.4 Jesus in Gethsemane (26:36–56) VI.4.1 Jesus’ Prayer in Gethsemane (26:36– 46)

Then Jesus comes with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he says to the disciples, “Sit here until I go over there and pray.” 37 He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be distressed and filled with anxiety. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is deeply distressed, even to 36

VI.4 Jesus in Gethsemane

395

death; stay here, and stay awake with me.” 39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you (want).” 40 Then he comes to the disciples and finds them sleeping; and he says to Peter, “So, could you not stay awake with me one hour? 41 Stay awake and pray that you may not come into the time of testing; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 42 Again he went away for the second time and prayed, “My Father, if this (cup) cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” 43 Again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. 44 So leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, in which he said the same words. 45 Then he came to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? See, the hour has come near, and the Son of Man is handed over into the hands of sinners. 46 Get up, let’s go. See, the one who is handing me over has come near.” In the passion narrative, the figure we have met up to this point is a sovereign Jesus, who knows all coming events in advance. With Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane in 26:36– 46 (par. Mark 14:32– 42), his way to the cross receives the human traits of struggling with the fate of death. To be sure, Matthew has not placed the emphasis on Jesus’ quarreling with the path marked out for him; rather, at the center stands his prayer in which he submits to the will of God. Matthew has carefully structured the narrative. The narrative exposition in vv. 36–37 is followed by three analogously formed prayer episodes, each framed by words or encounters with the disciples (vv. 38– 40, 41– 44aα, 44aβ– 45a): Jesus leaves the disciples behind, with the assignment to stay awake with him (v. 38); in v. 41, this assignment is renewed in a variation of this form; as a consequence of Jesus’ giving up on the disciples after they sleep through his second prayer, this element drops out of the third part. The second and third elements are Jesus’ prayer (vv. 39, 42, 44) and his return to the disciples (vv. 40a, 43, 45a). Each episode is concluded by Jesus’ reaction to the failure of the disciples (vv. 40b, 44aα, 45b). With the announcement of the near approach of the hour of his deliverance, Jesus’ speech in vv. 45c– 46 leads into the following scene, his arrest. [36–37] When Jesus and his group reached Gethsemane (“oil press”) on the Mount of Olives, he leaves the other disciples by themselves, in order to withdraw with Peter, as well as John and James, the two sons of Zebedee (4:21), for a time of private prayer. The distinction between the threesome consisting of Peter and the two sons of Zebedee and the rest of the disciples has no recognizable function in the narrative itself, so its meaning can only be discerned from the broader context. In Matthew, this threesome is found elsewhere only in the

396

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

story of the transfiguration of Jesus in 17:1–13 (cf. on 17:12). The vision there of the heavenly glory of the Son of God has its counterpart here, in that they accompany Jesus in his struggle to accept his death. Matthew thus concentrates the constellation of figures on two core christological texts that radiate with the sovereignty of the Messiah, on the one side, and his humanity on the other, emphasizing that these two poles belong together. At the same time, the selection of Peter and the two sons of Zebedee consists of the three disciples who have previously claimed that their discipleship means they are even ready and willing to accept death (20:22; 26:35). In the context of Jesus’ passion, however, they do not succeed in doing justice to their claim of solidarity with him. [38] Jesus expresses the distress and anxiety that overcomes him at the end of v. 37 in the familiar words of the Psalms of lamentation (Pss 42:6, 12; 43:5), strengthened by the addition of “to death” (cf. Jonah 4:9 LXX; Sir 37:2 LXX). When he follows this by asking the three disciples to stay awake, Matthew adds “with me” (also in v. 40) and thus emphasizes the aspect of solidarity with him (v. 29), only now the direction of the relationship is reversed: Jesus, who was with his disciples (17:17) and who as the Risen One will again promise to be with them (28:20), now in the hour of his severe distress asks his disciples to stay awake with him. [39] Jesus goes apart from them only a short distance to pray by himself (cf. 14:23, as well as 6:6); this setting of the scene thus combines the solitude of prayer with the—at least spatial—nearness of the disciples. The changing of the Markan prayer’s address to God, “Abba, Father,” to the personal “my Father” fits in with the other reminiscences of the Lord’s Prayer (6:9–13) that follow. Jesus’ petition is made from the outset with the qualification, “if possible,” explained and strengthened by the concluding clause, “yet not what I want but what you (want).” The “if possible” follows Mark 14:35, where Jesus’ prayer—in a curious doubling omitted by Matthew—is anticipated in indirect discourse, while the Markan Jesus himself prays to be spared, appealing to God’s omnipotence (Mark 14:36, “all things are possible for you,” cf. 10:27). As in 20:22–23, the cup metaphorically stands for a deadly fate (cf. 26:27–28). Hence a link to the cup filled with the wrath of God (in judgment; cf. e.g., Isa 51:17; Jer 25:15; Rev 16:19), and thereby an interpretation in which God’s wrath is inflicted on Jesus as a substitute, is difficult to read into this text. [40] In the passion narrative, when Jesus returns and finds the disciples asleep, this begins—after Judas’ unholy alliance with Jesus’ opponents—the failure of the other disciples. Their sleep symbolizes that they could not remain faithful to Jesus in his hard hour. That Jesus—despite the plurals in the actual wording (differently Mark 14:37)—turns specifically to Peter, builds on the previous dialogue with him (vv. 31–35). His self-confident assurance gets a first damper. He confidently claimed he was even ready to die with Jesus (v. 35)

VI.4 Jesus in Gethsemane

397

and cannot even stay awake one hour with him (v. 40)—the “with me” is again Matthew’s own addition (cf. Mark 14:37). [41] The following strengthening of the appeal of v. 38 to the disciples to stay awake, with the addition of the command to pray (cf. Col 4:2) and the added clauses, transcends the situation and becomes an admonition that is always valid for the disciples (cf. Polycarp’s use of the passage in Pol. Phil. 7.2). Thus in v. 41, “stay awake” (“with me” is now lacking) has the expanded meaning “be alert,” which determines the instruction in 24:42–25:30 (cf. 24:42; 25:13). Moreover, the final clause is an echo of the sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer. Alertness and prayer appear as the tried-and-true means of being armed against the temptations that are always lurking. The concluding sentence of v. 41 underpins the admonition with an aphoristically formulated anthropological insight: the willing spirit is opposed by the weakness of the flesh. The decision is there, but there is no strength to carry it through. This is why strengthening by prayer and alertness are necessary. [42] After this renewed exhortation to the disciples, Jesus again withdraws. While Mark merely notes that Jesus prayed with the same words, Matthew again reproduces the words of Jesus’ prayer. The deviations from the first prayer are instructive: The petition “if it is possible, let this cup pass from me” now gives way to the insight “if this (cup) cannot pass unless I drink it . . .” In addition, the subordination to God’s will (cf. on 6:10) is now formulated in the words of the third petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done.” The Son of God subordinates himself obediently to the (saving) will of the Father. [43] When Jesus returns to the disciples, he again finds them sleeping. Their exhaustion, expressed in the comment about their heavy eyes, points to the weakness of their flesh. There is no renewed challenge to the disciples, for it has already proven to be useless. [44] So—with resignation—Jesus leaves them. The third prayer scene, not pictured by Mark, is presented by taking up an abbreviated form of Mark 14:39. It is only stated that Jesus once again prays the same words, which in Matthew refers to the second prayer. The subordination to God’s will is thus reaffirmed. [45a] The statement that the disciples are again asleep when Jesus comes back the third time has now been shifted from the narrator’s commentary to Jesus’ direct speech. Regardless of whether the Greek sentence is to be read as an imperative or as a statement or question, which is more likely in view of the imperative “Get up” that follows in v. 46 (the oldest manuscripts have no punctuation marks), Jesus’ words are to be read as an ironic commentary, connected with a shake of the head. The disciples have left Jesus in the lurch. Their flight in v. 56 only continues what is already manifested here. [45b–46] The conclusion in vv. 45b–46, framed by the doubled “see, . . . has come near,” sets the failures of the disciples in sharp profile—they sleep, even

398

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

though the hour when Jesus is handed over is directly before them—and at the same time leads into the following scene. After Jesus has joined his will to God’s in prayer, he now goes in the way determined for him. Again, he announces what is coming (cf. 26:2, 24). The saying about the approaching hour is attached to Jesus’ word in 26:18 that his time is near. The words that the Son of Man is being delivered into the hands of sinners is a variation of 17:22 (“into human hands”). For the three disciples who accompany him, it is time to get up and walk with Jesus on the way ahead of them. For Judas is already on the way. VI.4.2 Jesus’ Arrest (26:47–56)

While he was still speaking, behold, there came Judas, one of the Twelve, and with him was a large crowd with swords and clubs, from the high priests and the elders of the people. 48 Now the one who was handing him over gave them a sign, and said, “The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him.” 49 And he immediately came up to Jesus and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him. 50 Then Jesus said to him, “Friend, this is what you are here to do.” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and arrested him. 51 Then behold, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 Then Jesus says to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will die by the sword. 53 Or don’t you know that I can appeal to my Father, and he will at once put more than twelve legions of angels at my disposal? 54 (But) how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?” 55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple and taught, and you did not arrest me.” 56 But all this has taken place, so that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled. Then all the disciples deserted him and fled. 47

Matthew has not only stamped his own intentions on the scene of Jesus’ arrest by changes in the details of his Markan source (Mark 14:43–52), but has altered the whole structure of the text by insertions of Jesus’ reactions to both Judas (v. 50a) and the sword incident (vv. 52–54). The exposition in vv. 47– 48 is followed in vv. 49–50a by Judas’ act and Jesus’ reaction to him, and in vv. 50b and 55 by the arrest of Jesus and his response. In the second scene, the sword stroke and Jesus’ detailed reaction to it are inserted (vv. 51–54). In Matthew, Jesus thus reacts to all the actors—not with armed force, but by his word alone. Responses by Jesus to both Judas and the sword stroke are also found in Luke (Luke 22:48, 51) but in each case in a different form from that found in Matthew. Here, one must reckon with the influence of oral tradition; so also, the agreement

VI.4 Jesus in Gethsemane

399

between v. 52 and John 18:11 could be explained in this way. The conclusion to the scene is provided by the narrator’s commentary about the fulfillment of Scripture (v. 56a) and the note about the flight of the disciples (v. 56b), which both Matthew and Luke have shortened by omitting the episode of the flight of the naked young man (Mark 14:51–52). [47–48] Analogous to 12:46, the expression “while he was still speaking” (cf. 17:5) creates a fluid transition to what follows. Once again, Judas is introduced as “one of the Twelve” (cf. 26:14), in order to underscore, in connection with v. 21 (“one of you”), the enormity of his betrayal. The masses, or crowds from the people, met previously in the narrative have been positively inclined toward Jesus (see, e.g., 4:25; 12:23; 21:8–9). Matthew does not now say that they have switched sides (see below on v. 55), but by their appearance, equipped with swords and clubs and with an arrest warrant, he introduces a very different crowd, commissioned by the high priests and elders. In this indication of their origin, Matthew has here deleted the scribes from Mark 14:43 and expanded “the elders” to “the elders of the people,” so that the configuration corresponds exactly to the ensemble of figures in 26:3–5. This corresponds to the way “arrest” (v. 4) functions as a key word in vv. 47–56 (vv. 48, 50, 55; cf. further v. 57). The first part of the plot of v. 4, to arrest Jesus with cunning, will now be implemented. No certain decision can be made as to whether the crowd should be described more strictly as deputies of the temple police or merely as a mob of people hired by the High Council. Considered in the light of 21:1–17, 46 and 26:5 on the one side, and 21:10 and 23:37–39 on the other, it can in any case be assumed that here, the crowd consists of people from Jerusalem. The participation of the “slave of the high priest” (v. 51) underscores this. The designation of a sign to identify Jesus also indicates that the squad sent to arrest Jesus did not know him by sight. [49–50a] Judas immediately goes into action. That he renews his address to Jesus with “Rabbi” (par. Mark 14:45) again indicates (cf. v. 25) that he no longer belongs to the group of disciples. Conversely, Jesus’ salutation to Judas reflects the distance that has come between them, for “friend/comrade,” in the light of the two preceding instances in 20:13 and 22:12, is by no means to be considered as friendly or indicating closeness. Jesus’ statement “This is what you are here to do” catches Judas in the act: Jesus sees through Judas; his kiss functions as betrayal. [50b] It is only after Jesus’ statement that Matthew has the arresting squad approach. Jesus is arrested by his opponents and yet appears as the one who is sovereign in the proceedings. The narration that they laid “hands” on him points back to Jesus’ announcement in v. 45 (“into the hands of sinners”) and 17:22 (“into human hands”).

400

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

[51] Jesus’ sovereignty and authority are then underscored by the scene of the sword stroke (vv. 51–54) as Matthew has shaped it. The disciple continues to be anonymous (only John 18:10 gives a name: Peter). [52] The Matthean Jesus explicitly rejects the attempt at a violent resistance to the arrest squad—entirely in line with 5:39. The direction to put the sword back in its place (cf. John 18:11; also Jos. Asen. 29:4) is supported by a fundamental insight: violence provokes counterviolence. In its context, the generalizing subject “all” allows the command to be heard at the same time as a subtle threat to those have come out against Jesus with “swords and clubs”: they will die by the sword. The connection that Matthew has seen between the death of Jesus (as well as the persecution of his disciples) and the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. on 27:25 as well as 22:7; 23:37–39) fits in here. [53] With the continuation of Jesus’ speech in v. 53, Matthew indicates that, at his arrest, Jesus made an intentional renunciation of the use of his authority/power, for he could have called more than twelve legions of angels to help and so could have avoided being arrested. As shown by the fact that Jesus here speaks of God as his Father, the christological point has to do with the authority Jesus has as Son of God (cf. 14:22–33): Jesus abstains from proving his power, because it would not correspond to the will of God, of which he has just assured himself (26:39, 42). This repeats here what was already contained in the prelude in 4:1–11, whereby the angel motif recalls especially the second scene of the temptation story in 4:5–7: Jesus renounces any demonstrations of his power that are not commanded by God. Here comes into view a fundamental element of Matthew’s concept of the Son of God: as Son of God, Jesus participates in divine power, but strict adherence to the will of God also belongs to divine sonship—including recourse to the use of his divine power. The way in which this conception is manifest in 26:53 is thus guided by the effort to mediate the reality of Jesus’ human, earthly life with the believers’ faith in Jesus as God’s Son who participates in divine power. In the explication of the crucifixion scene in 27:39– 43, this will again become clear. [54] Matthew concludes his insertion with an anticipatory reference or—redactionally considered—duplication of Mark 14:49 to the fulfillment of Scripture and connects it with the divine “must” from the first passion prediction in 16:21. As previously in 26:24, the reference to the Scripture is not specified (cf. 1 Cor 15:3). Leaving this open may be intentional, for it allows the readers to think comprehensively of the quotations from and allusions to Scripture in the passion story and its wider context. Thus reference is made not only to the explicit citations in 26:31 and 27:9–10 (both from Zechariah), but, e.g., also to the violent destiny of the prophets (cf. on 5:12) alluded to in 21:11 and 23:37, or to the motif of the suffering righteous persons (e.g.,

VI.4 Jesus in Gethsemane

401

Ps 37:32; Wis 2:10–20) and to the “suffering servant” song in Isaiah 52:13–53:12, whose influence in 20:28 and 26:28 is to be supposed (see also 26:63a, as well as the references to the servant of God in Isa 50:6 in 26:67– 68), to the several references to Psalm 22 in the passion narrative (see on 27:35, 39, 46) or Psalm 69:22 (see on 27:34, 48), or to the use of Jeremiah for the interpretation and formation of the accounts of Jesus’ conflict with the authorities (see on 16:14, as well as 23:35 and 27:9–10). If one takes into consideration the significance of Jesus’ death as the soteriological basis for the extension of salvation to the Gentiles (see on 26:28), the explicit promises of salvation for the Gentiles must be included. Matthew had these in view when he included Isaiah 42:1– 4 in Matthew 12:18–21, and for which he could find a basis in the blessing of the nations promised to Abraham (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; see on 1:1).

[55] Only after Jesus has rejected the violent intervention of one of those present does he turn to the arresting squad itself. After the lengthy insertion of vv. 51–54, with the expression “in that hour” Matthew creates a new transition back to the main plot, which evokes a memory of the “hour” motif in Jesus’ announcement in v. 45b. The statement that they have come out against him “as though I were a bandit” anticipates that Jesus will be crucified between two bandits (27:38, 44) but that he does not belong in this company; the righteous one (cf. 27:19) is placed on the level of criminals. Jesus’ word to the arresting squad is also once again a reminder of the fear the high priests and Pharisees had of arresting Jesus during his public teaching in the temple, since they had to take into account the protests of the crowd (21:45– 46). A detail in the Matthean form of Jesus’ words should be noted here: While the Markan Jesus in 14:49 says, “I was with you daily in the temple,” Matthew has Jesus say, “Day after day I sat in the temple and taught.” Matthew not only assigns the usual posture of the teacher to Jesus (cf., e.g., 5:1), but at the same time avoids linking the arresting squad to the crowds that pursued his teaching in the temple (21:23) and got very excited about it—in the positive sense (22:33). [56] After Jesus himself refers to the fulfillment of the Scriptures, Matthew has the narrator reinforce this aspect. The introduction in v. 56 is formulated in the style of the fulfillment-quotations. The first words of v. 56 correspond verbally to the introduction to the first fulfillment-quotation in 1:22; the events at the beginning and end of the way of Jesus on this earth are comprehensively (“all this”) referred back to the Scripture. “The Scriptures” (Mark 14:49) is supplemented with “of the prophets,” which is also in line with the fulfillmentquotations. The flight of the disciples is only stated, without elaborating any details. Just as Jesus announced with the quotation from Zechariah 13:7, “the sheep of the flock are scattered” (26:31).

402

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

VI.5 Jesus’ Trial before the Sanhedrin and Peter’s Denial (26:57–27:2) Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, in whose house the scribes and the elders gathered. 58 But Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the palace of the high priest, and went inside, and sat with the servants, to see the outcome. 59 Now the high priests and the whole sanhedrin were looking for false testimony against Jesus so that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to (re)build it in three days.’” 62 And the high priest stood up and said to him, “Are you not going to respond to what these people are testifying against you?” 63 But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus says to him, “You have said so. But I say to you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has committed blasphemy! What need do we still have for witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy. 66 What is your verdict?” They answered and said, “He deserves death.” 67 Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists; and others boxed him on the ears, 68 and said, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?” 69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. A servant-girl came to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” 70 But he denied it before all of them, and said, “I do not know what you are talking about.” 71 When he went out to the gatehouse, another (servant-girl) saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus the Nazorean.” 72 Again he denied it under oath, “I do not know the man.” 73 After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you are also one of them, for the way you speak betrays you.” 74 Then he began to curse, and he swore an oath, “I do not know the man!” At that moment the cock crowed. 75 Then Peter remembered the word of Jesus, who had said: “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly. 27:1 Now when it had become morning, all the high priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus in order to kill him. 2 And after they had bound him, they led him away, and handed him over to Pilate the governor. 26:57

In the description of the trial before the High Council (26:59– 68) and the denial of Peter (vv. 69–75), Matthew follows the compositional arrangement in Mark 14:53–72, in which both of the following scenes are introduced at the

VI.5 Jesus’ Trial before the Sanhedrin and Peter’s Denial

403

beginning with Jesus being taken away to the high priest (Matt 26:57) and the note about Peter (v. 58). Along with these, the two verses 27:1–2 are also to be included, for the passage does not describe a second meeting, but the description of the trial in vv. 59– 68 here finds its continuation; not until here is a formal decision reached. Matthew does not make explicit how the trial and Peter’s denial are temporally related to each other. It is clear, however, that the sequence of the presentation is not necessarily chronological. For one thing, the direct connection of v. 69a to v. 58 as well as the continuation of 26:59– 68 in 27:1–2 point to Matthew’s first relating the events inside; then those that happen in parallel in the court outside. In the very moment that Jesus is being beaten inside, the spotlight shifts outside to Peter, who will deny Jesus. [26:57] When Jesus was taken by the arresting squad to the high priest Caiaphas—already named in 26:3—the scribes, here mentioned again (cf. Mark 14:53), assemble with the elders (v. 58) in the palace, already mentioned in 26:3–5 as the location of the gathering. The rest of the high priests are not mentioned until v. 59; the reader should presumably picture them as already present in the palace of Caiaphas. After Jesus has been arrested, the second part of the plan decided on in 26:4 is now to be implemented: Jesus is to be condemned to death. [58] Before this plan is carried out in vv. 59– 66, the focus is still on Peter, as preparation for the scene in vv. 69–75. After Peter, like the other disciples, flees from the scene of Jesus’ arrest to escape his possible capture, he follows Jesus at a safe distance into the palace of the high priest and sits down there along with the servants. Matthew adds an indication of Peter’s intention: he wants to see how it turns out. Matthew is hardly picturing Peter here as merely curious. The reader should rather think of genuine concern for Jesus. Nevertheless, Peter will deny him. [59–61] It is characteristic of Matthew’s representation of the trial—as for his characterization of Jesus’ opponents in general—that the High Council, in contrast to the Markan presentation, seeks false testimony against Jesus from the very beginning. In the Matthean context, this is to be read against the background of the failed attempts in 22:15– 40 to trap Jesus with a trick question. Since then, it has become clear to the authorities that they can get Jesus out of the way only by unfair means, “with (deceptive) stealth” (26:4). Alongside the fulfillment of the prophetic predictions (cf. on 26:54), Matthew’s image of Jesus as the Messiah promised to Israel also includes that no charge can be made against him on the basis of the Torah. Moreover, from the perspective of the history of tradition, it is to be considered that the motif of the appearance of false witnesses occurs several times in the portrayal of the suffering righteous one in the Psalter (Pss 27:12; 35:11–12; 109:2–3).

404

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

The trial is thus a sham from the very beginning, with the verdict long since decided (26:4, 59). Nevertheless, the High Council at first fails, but not as in Mark 14:56, because false witnesses appear whose testimony does not agree, but although their testimony is false. Finally, two witnesses step forward who accuse Jesus of claiming that he can destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days (vv. 60b– 61). Differently from Mark 14:58, the issue is not Jesus’ purported intention, but his ability (cf. 26:53) to destroy and rebuild the temple. Moreover, in Matthew the concern is not the replacement of the existing temple made by hands with another not made by hands (Mark 14:58), but entirely about the ability of rebuilding the temple within three days. The logion is thus entirely focused on Jesus’ authority. Matthew does not explicitly repeat, as in Mark 14:57, that these are false witnesses, but he need not do this after the introductory statement in v. 59, for in the flow of the text this sets the direction for the whole procedure. It could, of course, be argued that the testimony in v. 61 is correct to the extent that, according to Matthew, Jesus would indeed be able to accomplish what the witnesses brought forward—just as he calmed the raging sea (8:26; cf. 14:32) and could have changed stones to bread (4:3–4) and summoned twelve legions of angels to help (26:53). Furthermore, Jesus has in fact announced the coming destruction of the temple (23:38; 24:2). Nevertheless, this is also a false statement, for Jesus has not said a word that suggested he would destroy the temple, and he has certainly not “boasted” that he has the ability to do so. The factor that makes the claim in v. 61 useable as evidence against Jesus, as opposed to the preceding false testimony, may, for one thing, be that the charge is brought by two witnesses whose testimony agree, so that the rules of procedure are formally met (cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15; also Num 35:30; 11QT 61.6–7). Also, the authorities were able to see in this statement a “power fantasy” directed against the temple as nothing less than as directed against the Holy of Holies and therefore against God himself (cf. Jer 26:7–11!). So now there is a truly substantial charge on the table. [62–63] Since Jesus only responds to the false testimony with silence (cf. Isa 53:7), the high priest continues the trial by concentrating on the enormous claim to authority implied in the testimony of the witnesses and immediately gives it a messianic coloration: Jesus must himself now take a position as to whether or not he is the Messiah, the Son of God. On the narrative level, this question picks up on the title “Messiah” implicit in the acclamation Son of David and Jesus’ response to the protest of the authorities in 21:9, 15. Moreover, the question has in view the Son of God title in 21:37– 44, where Jesus for the first time publicly spoke of himself as Son of God, albeit indirectly. For Matthew’s readers, speaking of the “living God” in the adjuration evokes the memory of

VI.5 Jesus’ Trial before the Sanhedrin and Peter’s Denial

405

Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah in 16:16, where the title “Messiah” is also interpreted by the title “Son of God.” [64] Jesus now responds, but not, of course, with an oath, which would be against his own teaching in 5:33–37. Matthew has Jesus answer—looking ahead to having it correspond to the hearing before Pilate in 27:11—with the words “you have said so” (cf. Luke 22:70). Like Mark’s “I am” (Mark 14:62), this is evidently to be understood as affirmative as the Matthean parallel in 26:25 shows. With the indirect form of this response, the ball is now back in the high priest’s court, the implication being not only that he himself knows about Jesus’ claim, but also that it is not pretentious, but justified. In any case, the exposition of the conflict theme in 2:3– 6 has already given the direction in which the rest of the narrative is to be interpreted. There, too, Herod and the Jewish authorities who were involved knew of the birth of the Messiah on the basis of the Magis’ testimony (2:2, 4– 6). Matthew presents the rejection of Jesus as the high priest’s attempt to establish his own position, in spite of the fact that he knows better. Jesus does not conclude his response with this indirect affirmation of his messianic status, but points beyond this to his future role as universal Lord and judge, by which the efforts of the sanhedrin are doomed to failure. Jesus here combines Daniel 7:13 with a reference back to the citation of Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22:44. While “coming on the clouds of heaven” cannot refer to anything else but the parousia (cf. 24:30–31), the reference to “the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power” has in view the exaltation of Jesus after his death. Matthew has marked off this continuation from the preceding by the insertion of “but I say to you,” and also in the announcement itself, prefaced by “from now on,” which he already used in 23:39 and 26:29 to mark the time after Jesus’ death. The resulting statement in 26:64 is thus difficult in view of the parousia but understandable in view of the exaltation of Jesus to universal Lord, insofar as the events that accompany Jesus’ death (27:51–53) are eschatological signs that point to Jesus’ exaltation. Conversely, the insertion of “from now on” in 26:64, in view of 27:51–53, underscores that Matthew conceives the death and resurrection of Jesus as a single, united complex of events. Furthermore, the authorities will not only be witnesses of the events of Jesus’ death, but also of the empty tomb that points to his resurrection and exaltation (28:11–15). The coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven in 26:64 marks the conclusion of the era of salvation history that begins with Jesus’ exaltation and, on the basis of this connection, can be included in the event of which the authorities will be witnesses “from now on.” For the authorities, Jesus’ response implies a clear threat: According to the quotation from the psalm, he will sit at the right hand of God until God places his enemies under his feet (Ps 110:1;

406

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

cf. Matt 22:44), and when the Son of Man who sits at the right hand of God as judge of the world (25:31) comes “on the clouds of heaven,” he will condemn those who now condemn him. The signs of Jesus’ assuming his lordship, which the authorities will see “from now on,” are at the same time the signs that their own power has been overthrown—which, from God’s perspective, has already happened. [65–66] To the authorities, the extravagant claim that Jesus has made in 26:64—even if the claim was only indirect—presents the opportunity to accuse him of blasphemy (v. 65). The accusation is even further emphasized in Matthew by the fact that the charge of blasphemy is not only found in the question to the members of the council, as in Mark 14:64, but has been added to the introductory words of the high priest. Further witnesses are no longer needed, because Jesus has pronounced a blasphemy in the hearing of them all that, in their judgment, deserves the death penalty (cf. Lev 24:16). The high priest’s tearing of his clothes (cf. Num 14:6; 2 Kgs 19:1; Jer 36:24) in a case of blasphemy corresponds to the prescription in m. Sanhedrin 7.5. There, however, the offense is closely related to the pronouncement of the name of God, while here it is based on a broader definition of what constitutes blasphemy. Jesus has already been accused of blasphemy during his very first conflict scene in 9:3, there because of his claim to have the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins. As there, so also here, Jesus is accused of arrogance in trespassing on the domain of God’s own authority and power. In v. 66, Matthew has not taken over the Markan statement that “all condemned him as worthy of death.” In Matthew, the council members vote unanimously for imposing the death penalty, but the formal decision is only pronounced in 27:1. Before it comes to that, the hostility against Jesus breaks forth in mockery. [67–68] Matthew’s version of the mocking scene fits in seamlessly with the decidedly negative picture he draws of the Jewish authorities. For, unlike Mark 14:65 (“some”), he does not introduce the sentence with a new subject, so that the impression is given that precisely those who previously considered Jesus to deserve the death penalty, that is, all the members of the High Court, now participate in the abuse of Jesus. Matthew has deleted the covering of the face of Jesus (Mark 14:65, see also Luke 22:64) and replaced it with spitting in his face. Along with the mention of blows and slaps, an array of references to Isaiah 50:6 appears here: the mocking of Jesus is painted with the colors of the suffering servant of God (on spitting in the face, see also Num 12:14; Deut 25:9, Job 30:10). The concluding challenge to Jesus, that he should prophesy, links up with the address to Jesus regarding his christological claim in vv. 63– 64 and makes fun of Jesus’ “prophecy” in v. 64b: as the one who will even sit at God’s right hand and will come on the clouds of heaven, he surely knows the

VI.5 Jesus’ Trial before the Sanhedrin and Peter’s Denial

407

names of those who beat him. The question “Who is it that struck you?” also occurs in Luke 22:64 (but there in conjunction with the covering of the face in a different context) and is one of the most remarkable instances of Matthew’s and Luke’s agreements against Mark. This feature is again probably due to the influence of oral tradition (cf. on 13:11). [69–75] The depiction of Peter’s denial of Jesus that follows in vv. 69–75 is structured by the three dialogue scenes, except for the brief introduction in v. 69a and the important concluding passage in vv. 74b–75. While Matthew does indeed follow the basic structure of his Markan source, he has still made several changes in the details. Among these are some noticeable agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. In Matthew 26:71 and Luke 22:58, in the second scene Peter is recognized by another person, differently from Mark 14:69; only in Mark does the cock crow twice (Mark 14:68, 72; cf. 14:30); and above all, in Matthew 26:75 and Luke 22:62 the ending in which Peter goes out and weeps bitterly is verbally identical. Here again, such observations point to the fact that, alongside Mark, a firm oral tradition was available to the evangelist. [69a] Verse 69a connects this scene to that of v. 58: Peter sits outside, in the courtyard of the palace. This statement makes clear in retrospect that “went inside” in v. 58 did not mean that he went into the room where the proceedings against Jesus were taking place. [69b–70] In comparison to Mark 14:66, the introduction to the first dialogue scene is reduced to its basics: the maidservant is not specified as one of the servants of the high priest (perhaps Matthew presupposes this as obvious, given the location), nor is it reported that the woman noticed Peter among those warming themselves in the courtyard (Matthew already deleted this narrative element in v. 58 par. Mark 14:54). She just steps up and speaks to Peter. But Peter pretends not to know what she is talking about. In contrast to the maidservant’s statement, which focuses on Peter’s presence with Jesus (“you too were with Jesus”), the emphasis falls on Peter’s denial of any association with Jesus. In the introduction to the story of Peter’s denial, by inserting the phrase “before all,” Matthew has emphasized the public nature of Peter’s reaction, at the same time making a connection to 10:33 (“whoever denies me before human beings”). The concluding clause there, “I also will deny before my Father in heaven” points to the severity of Peter’s offense and the consequences in the Last Judgment. To those who deny him, Jesus will deny that they belong to him. [71–72] Peter begins to back off, but in the gatehouse is identified by another maidservant. That Peter is not able to remain unrecognized, but is immediately identified by several people as belonging to the group of Jesus’ followers, reflects the stir that Jesus caused by his appearance in Jerusalem. The second maidservant now does not speak directly to Peter, but rather draws

408

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

the bystanders’ attention to Peter, albeit in such a way that Peter becomes aware of this. Apart from the switch to the third person effected by the change of scene (“this man is . . .”), her words are like those of the first maidservant (differently Mark 14:69), except that Jesus is now more specifically identified not as a Galilean, but as a “Nazorean,” which, at the narrative level, validates the fulfillment-quotation of 2:23. While Mark 14:70 only states the renewed denial here, Matthew introduces direct speech—like Luke, who does this with different words—and thus preserves a consistent dialogue structure in all three scenes. In addition, Matthew already here has Peter confirm his statement with an oath. While Jesus does not use an oath in response to the high priest’s challenge to do so (vv. 63– 64), Peter not only violates Jesus’ teaching against taking oaths (5:33–37), but even swears falsely by an oath. The words Matthew places in Peter’s mouth take up a shortened form of the third Markan denial (Mark 14:71). Now Peter even denies knowing “the man,” as he almost disrespectfully says, without naming Jesus by name at all. [73–74a] When the second maidservant drew the attention of those present, these bystanders come up to Peter and confirm her identification. However, the issue is now no longer merely being-with Jesus, but—as in Mark 14:71, where this formula had already been used in the second scene (14:69)—whether he belongs to the group of Jesus’ followers. The verb changes to the present tense: “You too are (one) of them.” This variation is supplemented by the additional indication that Peter’s dialect makes his identity clear, i.e., proves him to be a Galilean (cf. b. Erub. 53b). This is consistent: not only is Jesus a Galilean (v. 69), but those who accompany him are identified by the Jerusalem residents as a Galilean group. Peter repeats the words he previously said in the gatehouse, but his denial becomes increasingly vehement. Following his use of an oath in v. 72, he now begins “to curse and to swear.” For the not infrequently advocated option that “Jesus” is to be supplied as the object of “curse,” one can point to the fact that Christians on trial were challenged to blaspheme or curse Jesus (Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96.5– 6; Mart. Pol. 9.3; Justin, Apol. 1.31.6), but this practice is not clearly documented until after Matthew’s time. In the interplay with “swearing,” it is much more likely that what is involved is substantiating the (supposed) truth of one’s own statement: Peter pronounces a curse upon himself if his words are not true. [74b–75] The cockcrow that sounds immediately after Peter’s third denial evokes the memory of Jesus’ prediction, which he decisively rejected a few hours earlier (vv. 34–35). He suddenly becomes aware of his failure. In v. 58 he went inside, to see what would happen to Jesus; now he goes out—he who claimed that he was willing to die with Jesus, if it should come to that—after denying that he even knew Jesus. His bitter weeping (cf. Isa 22:4; 33:7) reveals his repentance.

VI.6 The End of Judas and the Purchase of the Field of Blood

409

This is Peter’s final appearance in the passion narrative. In Galilee, according to Matthew 28:16–20, it is assumed—as a matter of course, with no comment from Matthew—that he is among the eleven disciples that remain of the circle of twelve, whom the Risen One charges with the universal mission. It is the same Peter who denied Jesus who will now become the rock of his church (cf. on 16:18). It deserves careful attention that the disgraceful act of Peter, despite his central role in the post-Easter Jesus movement, was in no way suppressed in the tradition. The disciples do not shine as ideal heroes, but are also pictured in their all-too-human failures. It is precisely this, however, that brings to light the central meaning of mercy and forgiveness as the church’s fundamental principle. In the figure of Peter, this finds an exemplary illustration (cf. on 18:21–35). [27:1] After shifting over to Peter’s denial in 26:69–75, the narrative shifts back to the portrayal of the trial of Jesus before the High Council. The cockcrow in 26:75 signals that in the meanwhile, it has now become early morning. After Jesus is found guilty by all the council members in 26:65– 66, and the sham trial reaches its peak by their freely venting their aggression against Jesus (26:67– 68), there now follows the formal decision against Jesus, referred to in 27:3 with the words “that Jesus had been condemned” (cf. the omission of the condemnation of Jesus in Mark 14:64 from Matthew 26:66). As in 26:3, 47, Matthew again names the high priests and elders of the people as the actors; “all” emphasizes the unanimity in their proceedings against Jesus. Differently from Mark 15:1, Matthew makes the content of their consultation explicit, and he takes up exactly the same words he used in 26:59 to designate the goal of the trial: they decide to kill him. [2] Since the jurisdiction in capital cases lay with the Roman governor, it is not in their power to carry out their decision (cf. John 18:31). The only thing they can do is hand Jesus over to Pilate. Their decision therefore certainly implies the accusation that they will bring against Jesus before Pilate. The charge of blasphemy would hardly have impressed Pilate; they will emphasize Jesus’ messianic claim (cf. v. 11). That he is now led away in bonds—differently from 26:57 (cf. Isa 3:1 LXX)—is supposed to make clear to the governor he is a source of public danger. The concluding sentence reinforces the reference back to the third passion prediction in 20:18–19: the high priests and elders have condemned Jesus to death, and now they are handing him over to the Gentiles. VI.6 The End of Judas and the Purchase of the Field of Blood (27:3–10) When Judas, who had handed him over, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the high priests and the elders 4 and said, “I have sinned by handing over 3

410

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? You see to it.” 5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple and left; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 But the high priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since they are the price of blood.” 7 They had a consultation and used the money to buy the potter’s field as a place to bury foreigners. 8 That is why that field has been called “Blood Field” to this day. 9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom they (i.e., some) of the people of Israel had set a price, 10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.” In the Markan narrative, Jesus’ pronouncement of woe against the betrayer stays put in the room, without experiencing any development in the following narrative (Mark 14:21 par. Matt 26:24). Matthew fills in this lacuna with the narrative of the end of Judas. The main focus, however, is not concentrated on Judas himself, but on the authorities. While their behavior toward Judas in v. 4 already casts them in a very negative light, the “report” about how they handled the returned “blood money” in vv. 6–8 adds still another scene to the Judas scene in vv. 3–5 that continues their negative characterization. The thirty pieces of silver serve as the connecting link between the two scenes. Finally, the fulfillment-quotation in vv. 9–10, the last one in Matthew, is still focused on the misconduct of the authorities. As evidenced by the parallel tradition in Acts 1:16–20, vv. 3–10 are not a free formation of the evangelist’s, but the common elements in the two texts are so small that nothing more than a fragile scaffolding can be reconstructed as the basis for this tradition. Except for the connection of the payment to Judas with the purchase of a field called “Blood Field,” the only other connection is the reference to Scripture—which, however, is understood and carried out differently. On the other side, however, there are several differences to be noted. Judas’ suicide in Matthew 27:5 stands over against the accidental death of Judas on the parcel of land he had purchased, understood as “divine judgment” and interpreted by the quotation of Psalm 69:26 (Acts 1:18). Acts 1:16–20 knows nothing of Judas’ regret—this motif would hardly be compatible with the concept of a divine punishment—and accordingly the high priests play no role. If one looks at the genesis of Matthew 27:3–10, the text appears to be the result of a creative process of interpretation in which the tradition about Judas was further developed in the light of reading Scripture, especially the books of Jeremiah and Zechariah. This suggests that Matthew himself, and the circle of scribes in which he worked, were responsible for

VI.6 The End of Judas and the Purchase of the Field of Blood

411

this process. In any case, it is evident that the pericope fits seamlessly into the Matthean concept of Jesus’ opponents and fits well into the context through the network of cross-references. [3–5] When Judas, who in v. 3 is once again introduced as the one who handed Jesus over, realizes the result of his alliance with the authorities, he seeks to express his regret by giving back the thirty pieces of silver. Finding a place for the episode in the narrative structure presents some difficulties in that v. 2, in conjunction with v. 12, suggests that the authorities are already making their approach to Pilate. In addition, the action in vv. 5– 6 has already moved to the temple. One can therefore hardly accommodate the events in vv. 3–8 between v. 2 and v. 11. Matthew, however, seems to have paid no attention to these tensions. On the contrary, it seems more important to him to further highlight the unscrupulousness of the authorities in their actions against Jesus with the narration in vv. 3–10. Accordingly, he would like to characterize the condemnation of Jesus, which triggers Judas’ remorse, as the result of the actions of the Jewish authorities in vv. 1–2, and not the work of the Roman governor (v. 26). Thus a location of the episode after 27:1–2 presents itself as a place for the insertion. The use of the widespread Old Testament phrase “innocent blood” (cf. e.g., 1 Sam 19:5; 1 Kgs 2:5; Jer 7:6; 19:4) allows the reader to think back to 23:35 in the Matthean context, and will later be echoed in Pilate’s words in 27:24. Furthermore, in the story itself, it prepares for v. 6 (“blood money”) and v. 8 (“Blood Field”). The authorities react to Judas’ confession of guilt with an ostentatious indifference, reflecting their lack of concern for a fair trial and revealing their unconditional will to put Jesus to death. That Jesus is innocent is nothing new to them. Their dismissive words to Judas, “You see to it,” with which Matthew has made another cross-reference to v. 24, indicate that the state of Judas’ conscience is no concern of theirs. Their unwillingness to repent is brought into sharp profile by the wider context in that, except for v. 3, the Greek word for “regret/repentance” (metamelesthai) only occurs in 21:29, 32, where the misconduct of precisely the high priests and elders is the subject. By the use of the same verb, Matthew has intentionally related these texts to each other. Neither by the repentance of the tax collectors and prostitutes nor through the remorse of Judas have the authorities allowed themselves to be dissuaded from their outrageous conduct. On the other hand, the choice of this word does not serve to disqualify Judas’ turning away from his wrongdoing as inadequate. But his guilt does weigh heavily on him. So he sees for himself, since the representatives of the High Council have rejected him and he cannot undo or reverse his act, that there is only one way out—to himself execute the judgment on himself that he deserves (cf. Deut 27:25). That Judas’ end in

412

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

v. 5 is portrayed as a suicide by hanging is inspired by Ahithophel’s suicide in 2 Samuel 17:23: Judas, disciple of the messianic Son of David, ended his life in the same way as David’s apostate counselor departed this life. However, since Judas has already disposed of the money by throwing it into the temple (cf. Zech 11:13), [6–8] the high priests now come back into play (the elders are now missing, as in 26:14–16). Though they refused to get involved with Judas and his confession, they cannot now avoid dealing with the money. Behind their hesitation to use the money in the service of the temple is their free application of Deuteronomy 23:19. In the light of the preceding events, however, their observance of the Law appears as something purely external, even as a farce, or at least the thinking of the high priests is not a matter of ethics, but determined entirely by ritual (cf. 1 Chr 22:8). By having the authorities speak of the “price of blood” or “blood money” (cf. T. Zeb. 3:3), the basis is prepared for the name of the field to be purchased by the thirty pieces of silver. Again, the authorities have a consultation (v. 7; cf. v. 1). The designation of the property they buy as the “potter’s field” anticipates the fulfillment-quotation in vv. 9–10. From an etiology of the name of the property (Acts 1:18–19) there has developed an etiology for its renaming; and differently from Acts 1:18–19, “Blood Field” does not refer to the blood of Judas, who is said to have died a cruel death in the field purchased by him, but to the blood of Jesus: the area is called Blood Field because the blood of Jesus adheres to its purchase price. [9–10] The fulfillment-quotation that concludes the narrative in vv. 9–10 takes up the motif of the purchase money and the acquisition of the field. The citation is a mixed quote, a somewhat free rendering of the primary reference text Zechariah 11:13, the same context from which Matthew has already taken the thirty pieces of silver mentioned in 26:15 (Zech 11:12; cf. Matt 27:3), with allusions that connect it to sayings about a potter and a field in Jeremiah 18:1–12 and 19:1–13, as well as Jeremiah 32. While in Zechariah 11:13 the actions of the rejected shepherd are named in the first-person singular, Matthew has facilitated the application to the actions of the authorities by shifting the grammar of the citation to the third-person plural (the point of contact is the ambiguity of the Greek verb form elabon with which the Matthean citation begins, which can mean either “I took” or “they took”). In the overloaded identification of the thirty pieces of silver at the end of v. 9, which reflects the important role of the silver pieces in the preceding narrative, the insertion of the phrase “by the sons of Israel” in the quotation is not a collective that incriminates Israel as a whole. Rather, in the Greek text the phrase is related to the subject in a partitive sense, so that the sense is to be translated as “the price . . . which some of the sons of Israel had set a price.” Here, too, the authorities are not lumped together with the people as a whole as a single unit; rather, Matthew

VI.7 The Trial before Pilate and the Mocking of Jesus

413

continues his sophisticated differentiation of the constellation of the figures in the narrative. The identification of the high priests as sons of Israel thus functions as a contrasting motif to their actual conduct, for it stands in blatant contradiction to their membership in the chosen people: the Messiah of Israel is—incredibly—opposed by (the leading) “sons of Israel.” Ascribing the quotation to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah is no accident, but is to be understood in the first place against the background of the connections which Matthew has established between the passion narrative and Matthew 2, where in 2:17–18 a fulfillment-quotation from Jeremiah also occurs (which there actually comes from Jeremiah). The two quotations have in common that they both are concerned with the opposition to Jesus rather than promises of salvation, and the saying from Scripture is accordingly merely introduced with “there was fulfilled” (instead of “in order that it might be fulfilled”). Thus Matthew can say that the event was indeed prophesied in the Scripture, but without saying that it was intended by God himself. In the second place, the naming of Jeremiah in v. 9 is to be understood as an appellative signal to the addressees that they should reflect on what is pictured in vv. 3–8 in the light of Jeremiah. In this regard, it is likely that for Matthew, Jeremiah 19 had become particularly significant. First, in Jeremiah 19 the elders of the people and the elders of the priests are addressed (v. 1; cf. the constellation of figures in Matt 27:3). Second, Jeremiah 19 includes the announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem, which, third, is grounded in the shedding of innocent blood (19:4; cf. Matt 27:4, 25). Fourth, Jeremiah 19, in the context of the destruction of the city symbolized by smashing the potter’s vessel, explicitly refers to the judgment of its inhabitants (v. 12; cf. already v. 3), described in v. 11 as “this people” (laos; cf. again Matt 27:25). Jeremiah is the prophet of the destruction of the first temple. Accordingly, Matthew’s efforts to shed light on the malpractice of Jesus’ opponents by allusions to Jeremiah is in step with his viewing the destruction of the second temple as punishment for the enemies of Jesus and his followers (on the reception of Jeremiah in ancient Judaism after 70 CE as the context for this, see on 16:14). VI.7 The Trial before Pilate and the Mocking of Jesus (27:11–31) VI.7.1 The Trial before Pilate (27:11–26)

Now Jesus was put before the governor. And the governor asked him and said, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus said, “You say so.” 12 And when he was accused by the high priests and elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how much they are testifying against 11

414

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

you?” 14 But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed. 15 Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release one prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. 16 At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. 17 So after they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” 18 For he knew that it was out of jealousy that they had handed him over. 19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for today I have suffered greatly in a dream because of him.” 20 But the high priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas, but to have Jesus killed. 21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Christ?” All of them said, “Let him be crucified!” 23 Then he said, “What evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Let him be crucified!” 24 So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but that even more tumult was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, and said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; you see to it.” 25 And the whole people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children!” 26 So he released Barabbas to them; but Jesus he had whipped, and he handed him over to be crucified. Matthew has placed his own stamp on his presentation of the trial before Pilate not only by the insertion of vv. 19, 24–25, but also by other significant changes in the content of his source (Mark 15:2–15). Especially characteristic is Matthew’s tendency to further burden the people gathered before Pilate as the ones responsible for the verdict. The ensemble of figures in the brief first section (vv. 11–14) consists of the authorities accusing Jesus, the defendant Jesus who has to answer, and Pilate as the judge, whose questions are addressed to Jesus (vv. 11, 13). The intervention of the Jewish authorities in v. 20 gives a direction Pilate does not intend to the dialogue between him and the people on the issue of the Passover amnesty that follows in vv. 15–25 (interrupted by vv. 19–20). Verse 26 barely states the outcome of the trial. [11] After the insertion of vv. 3–10, the new introduction composed by Matthew in v. 11a functions to establish the connection with v. 2. Pilate’s question to Jesus in v. 11b indicates that, of course, the religious motive of blasphemy (26:65– 66) would not work in Pilate’s court as the charge that the authorities might bring against Jesus, which must focus on his messianic claim (26:63– 64). To present the case to Pilate, however, the title “king,” which suggests a political

VI.7 The Trial before Pilate and the Mocking of Jesus

415

claim that opposes the established order, is used to increase their chances of success. Speaking of Jesus as “king of the Jews” points back to the initial display of the conflict theme in 2:1–12, where the question of the Magi about “the one born king of the Jews” (2:2) provokes the reigning King Herod to eliminate the “competition.” So now, Jesus is presented to the Roman governor as claiming to be king. As in 26:64, Jesus’ reply is essentially affirmative, but indirect, with the distancing words “You say so” having an overtone that rejects the political dimension of the charge. “King of the Jews” is, in any case, an expression that manifests the perspective of an outsider; Matthew contrasts this with the way Jews themselves speak of the “king of Israel” (27:42). [12–14] No direct reaction from Pilate is described. Instead, the evangelist focuses attention on the contrast between, on the one side, the high priests—as well as the elders, not found in Mark 15:3—who accuse Jesus and want to persuade Pilate to take action against him, and on the silent Jesus on other side (cf. 26:62– 63). The narrative leaves a lacuna here: the charges themselves are neither spelled out verbally nor is their content even named. It could be considered that the false statement of 26:61 has played a role, for this comes up again in the mockery of passersby in 27:40, so it must—along with Jesus’ claim to be Son of God—have been circulated among the public. The accusation before Pilate is a possible location for it, but alternatively (or in addition to it), the persuasion of the people by the high priests in v. 20 could also be considered. It must therefore remain an open question. Jesus remains silent even after Pilate’s intervention (v. 13). This results in a striking contrast in vv. 11–14: Jesus responds to the governor’s question, though indirectly; but he is unwilling to respond to the accusations of the Jewish authorities—which, in the evangelist’s view, were undoubtedly slanderous. So he says, as Matthew emphasizes, not a single word, which Pilate can only acknowledge with astonishment. [15–18] Matthew does not picture the initiative in regard to the Passover amnesty as originating from the people, as in Mark 15:8, but places Pilate as the actor on center stage. Matthew has transferred the efforts of the crowds from Mark 15:8 to the introduction of the policy in v. 15. In Matthew’s wording, that he (the governor) was accustomed to release a prisoner to the crowd, there is the overtone that Pilate sees in the amnesty a way of getting around the Jewish authorities. Pilate apparently supposes the crowds are on his side. His later assessment of the justification for his action, that the high priests and elders (v. 18; cf. vv. 1–2) delivered Jesus “out of envy,” underscores this: they envy his extremely positive response among the people. It thus seems to him that the use of the Passover amnesty is the fitting tactic that would let the efforts of the Jewish authorities dissipate into thin air. To be sure, the

416

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

narrative logic here suffers a rupture, for strictly speaking Jesus is not even a condemned prisoner of Rome who could be released only by the special means of a Passover amnesty. Pilate emphatically sets an alternative before the people (v. 17), by which he, of course, attempts to prejudice the decision of the people in favor of Jesus. First, the alternative Jesus is called a “notorious” prisoner. Secondly, since Matthew refers to Barabbas as Jesus Barabbas, an additional phrase is added to distinguish the Jesus of Matthew’s Gospel. Pilate designates this Jesus—in a way calculated to generate a positive response from the people—with a Jewish term as “Jesus who is called ‘the Christ’” (v. 17; cf. 1:16), instead as in the previous narrative, speaking in the pagan diction, “the king of the Jews” (cf. 27:11, 29, 37, and 2:2). [19] Before the people speak their decision, the proceedings are interrupted by Pilate’s wife, which illustrates another peculiarity of Matthew’s presentation: Pilate’s approach to the case before him is encouraged by his wife, who sends him a message. The motif of revelation through dreams again brings to mind the second chapter of Matthew (2:12, 13, 19, 22, further 1:20–21). The designation of Jesus as “righteous” again underscores that Jesus is not guilty of any crime against Rome (cf. v. 4). The woman’s concern, however, applies only to her husband, not to the “righteous man”: her husband should not get his own fingers burned in the case, while the corollary of Jesus’ innocence, that he should therefore be released, is not made explicit. [20] The interruption caused by the message gives the high priests and the elders—absent in Mark 15:11 but again added by Matthew, as in v. 12 (and cf. also v. 41 par. Mark 15:31)—the opportunity to adapt to the new situation created by Pilate’s recourse to the Passover amnesty. Differently from Mark 15:11, Matthew does not here speak about the authorities stirring up the crowd; rather, they mislead it. This change functions, as v. 24 makes clear, in no way to put a damper on the tumultuous character of the scene that follows. Rather, Matthew here brings in an additional factor in order to make the scene more transparent for his own present and thus to update the parenetic aspect: the misleading of the people gathered before Pilate becomes a model for any sort of misleading the people by authorities hostile to Jesus and a warning against trusting any form of such authority. As the content of the intervention, Matthew gives not only the release of Barabbas (cf. Mark 15:11), but adds explicitly that they should destroy Jesus, thus referring back to 12:14 (cf. also 2:13). Again, a lacuna remains: Matthew does not say how the authorities persuaded the people (cf. above on vv. 12–14). The result, in any case, is that it is not Pilate but the authorities who succeed in using the people to attain their own goal: [21–23] when Pilate repeats his question of v. 17—shortened by not naming the persons involved—the people ask for Barabbas to be released (v. 21). Pilate’s

VI.7 The Trial before Pilate and the Mocking of Jesus

417

next question, what he then should do with Jesus, whom he again—now virtually as an appeal to them—designates as “the one who is called ‘the Christ’” (v. 22), is to be read in as a further attempt to protect Jesus from the death penalty. That he responds to the cry “Let him be crucified” with yet another question underscores this. Thus after the decision of the people for Barabbas (v.21), Pilate makes two attempts to thwart the intentions of the Jerusalem officials (vv. 22–23), but his question, “What evil has he done?”—which again implies the innocence of Jesus—has no effect. The crowd only responds with the shout, louder and verging on riotous, “Let him be crucified!” A reason for their decision, which Pilate demands by his question, is a debt the people owe but do not pay. [24–25] While Mark only mentions that Pilate submitted to the will of the people (Mark 15:15a), Matthew has replaced this Markan note with another conversation, which forms the culmination of the trial. [24] When Pilate has to accept that he cannot get the crowd to change its mind and that his plan to undermine the intentions of the high priests and elders by using the Passover amnesty has failed, he seeks refuge in refusing to take any responsibility for the condemnation of Jesus. With the handwashing scene, Matthew brings in some biblical coloration. In addition to the rite described in Deuteronomy 21:1–9, which declares what is to be done when a victim of murder is found in open country between settlements (see esp. vv. 7–8), reference can be made to Psalms 26:6; 73:13 (see also Isa 1:15–16; Let. Arist. 305–306): Pilate washes his hands in innocence. Accompanying this rite, he pronounces himself free of any guilt and assigns responsibility to the people: “You see to it.” In the wider context, this expression, indeed, calls to mind the rejection of Judas by the high priests and elders (v. 4), and thus the ambivalence of the governor becomes apparent. For by referring back to v. 4, Matthew reveals that Pilate’s attempt to renounce his responsibility cannot stand—just as little as the authorities can slink away from their responsibility by their rejection of Judas, so little are the hands of Pilate really clean, even after he “in innocence has washed his hands.” Matthew’s portrayal by no means amounts to a straightforward removing of the burden of responsibility from the governor; rather, Matthew draws an ambivalent picture. On the one side, he emphasizes that Pilate considers Jesus to be innocent. The figure of Pilate thus serves to express the concern that from the Roman side there is no reason to move against Jesus’ disciples; they are not followers of a revolutionary. On the other side, Pilate must shoulder the burden of blame that he does not carry through on his knowledge and thus does not prevent the crucifixion of a man he knows is innocent. [25] While Pilate attempts to shirk his responsibility, the crowds, who have been misled by the high priests and elders, are all too willing to accept

418

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

their responsibility. “His blood be on us” takes up an expression widespread in the Old Testament (2 Sam 1:16; 1 Kgs 2:33, 37; Jer 51:35; Ezek 18:13; and elsewhere; for the New Testament, cf. Acts 18:6). Matthew uses it here in a new way, since the people call down the blood of another person on their own heads. Their declaration could be paraphrased, “We are ready to bet our life on the legitimacy of the verdict.” Since they thereby accept the responsibility for shedding innocent blood, punishment is inevitable (cf. 23:35). Up to this point, Matthew has followed Mark (see Mark 15:8, 11, 15) in calling the people gathered before Pilate as a “crowd” (ochlos, vv. 15, 20) and also uses this term in v. 24. In v. 25, however, he switches over to the ambiguous word laos, which can also mean simply “crowd” (as in Matt 26:5; 27:64) but in the Old Testament and early Judaism is also used in the theologically charged sense of Israel as the “people of God” (in Matt 1:21; 2:6; 4:16, 23). In regard to the debate ignited by this ambivalence, whether “the whole people” in 27:25 is merely an alternative term for the previous references to the crowd (for the possibility of such an alternation, see Luke 9:12–13!), or rather that the intention is to include the whole people of God in the blame for Jesus’ death, it is of fundamental importance to note that this alternative only has in view the two poles of the spectrum of options. Thus, in Luke/Acts for example, laos serves both to designate the people of God (Luke 1:68, 77; 7:16; Acts 3:23; and elsewhere) and generically crowds of people (Luke 6:17; 18:43; Acts 3:12; 4:1; and elsewhere), but the word is never used for non-Jewish crowds; laos, so to speak, refers to crowds that belong to the people of God. This is very similar to the use of the word in the LXX and early Jewish texts for both the people of Israel and for Jewish crowds, or for a part of the people of God (e.g., for the population of an area or city); in addition, the word can mean ordinary people as distinguished from the leadership class (for extensive documentation, see Konradt, Israel, 156–59). This widespread oscillation between the poles “people of God” and “crowd of people” is now to be brought into play for the interpretation of Matthew 27:25. The context clearly indicates that the expression “the whole people” is to be understood to refer to the crowd gathered before Pilate. The shift to “the whole people” in v. 25 does not make it refer symbolically to “all Israel” in some way that transcends the situation, but it is also not merely a stylistic variation. Rather, it points out that here an event happening in Israel is a link in the chain of resistance to God’s messengers that stretches through the whole history of Israel (cf. 21:33– 46). In accordance with the way the reader has been guided in 2:3; 16:21; 21:10–11; and 23:37, the people in v. 25 should be thought of specifically as the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus the reference to all the people not only takes the “all” in the immediate context from v. 22, serving to emphasize the tumultuous character

VI.7 The Trial before Pilate and the Mocking of Jesus

419

of the scene, but, at the same time, Matthew also makes a connection to 2:3 (“all Jerusalem”) and 21:10 (“the whole city”). The declaration of 27:25 is the completion of the arc begun in 2:3– 6. Not only is Jesus here “king of the Jews” as in Matthew 2 (2:2; 27:11; cf. 27:29, 37) who must be gotten out of the way, but the exposition of the conflict in Matthew 2 and the climax of the conflict in Matthew 27 also correspond in that the city of Jerusalem and its highest level of leadership have the same configuration of opposition to Jesus. To be sure, neither 2:3 nor 21:10–11 ascribe to Jerusalem any active role in the proceedings against Jesus, but the two texts are linked by the motif that the city is troubled by the report of the advent of Jesus the Messiah, which points to its premonition of conflicts with the existing authorities. Then, after the subtle allusion in 21:11, the saying in 23:37 looks on Jerusalem as the city that murders the prophets, thus anticipating its active role in the proceedings against Jesus. This chain comes to its end when the people gathered before Pilate allow themselves to be misled by the authorities. From the reference of 27:15–26 to the crowd of people, it follows that those who now demand “let him be crucified” are by no means the same people who called out “Hosanna” in 21:9. The identification of the “people” with a “crowd of Jerusalem people” is further supported by the judicial perspective established in 27:25b, for Matthew saw the due punishment having taken place in the destruction of Jerusalem, as indicated by the conspicuous addition of the children in v. 25b (on the crossreference to 2:18, see there). The inclusion of the next generation serves to bridge the approximately forty-year period between the crucifixion of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem. In the view of the evangelist, those who took the responsibility for Jesus’ blood on themselves must pay for it with their lives and/or those of their children. Matthew is not, however, postulating a guilt that applies to Israel. In the light of 21:9–11 it is evident that, in the Matthean narrative conception, Jerusalem does not represent Israel. Accordingly, neither can one equate the destruction of the city as merely an external sign of a more comprehensive judgment of Israel. Rather, Matthew understands the destruction of Jerusalem as a judgment of Jesus’ opponents, as well as on those who allow themselves to be misled by them (27:20). The real driving forces in this are the authorities. They drag those who have been misled by them into ruin (cf. the composition in 23:13–36 + 37–39). Matthew exploits the destruction of the city, understood as God’s judgment in 70 CE, as proof of who is on God’s side and who is not. The destruction of Jerusalem thus becomes a stern warning against listening to Jesus’ opponents. Finally, that 27:25 does not have the people of God as a whole in view is also finally confirmed by the other further instances of laos in the passion story (26:5; 27:64). In both 26:5 and 27:64, laos is found in the direct speech of the

420

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

authorities. That Matthew has them speak not of the ochlos, but of the laos, fits well into their understanding of themselves as Israel’s leaders, as Matthew expresses in the expression “elders of the people” (21:23; 26:3, 47; 27:1). It is obvious in 26:5 and 27:64 that the word does not refer to God’s people as a whole, but to a crowd or to ordinary folk as distinct from the authorities. This observation about 26:5 is especially important for the understanding of 27:25, for 26:5 and 27:24–25 are interconnected by the motif of tumult: Tumult among the people, i.e., among the crowds, which the authorities fear in 26:5, is ironically initiated by the authorities themselves, in view of Pilate’s potentially changing the course of the trial by the tactic of the Passover amnesty. At the same time, the reference back to 26:5 in 27:24–25 illustrates how little the authorities are in control of the event. [26] On the basis that the people have assumed responsibility for Jesus’ death in v. 25, Pilate gives in to their will, and sets Barabbas free. For Jesus, this is the final link in the chain of “deliveries”: as he was delivered by Judas to the Jewish authorities (e.g., 26:15–16, 46, 48), who handed him over to Pilate (27:2, 18), so he is now handed over to be crucified. VI.7.2 The Mocking of Jesus by Pilate’s Soldiers (27:27–31)

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus with them into the Praetorium, and gathered the whole cohort around him. 28 And they stripped him and put a deep scarlet robe on him. 29 And they twisted some thorns into a crown and put it on his head and a reed in his right hand. And they fell on their knees before him and mocked him and said: “Hail, King of the Jews!” 30 And they spat on him, took the reed, and struck him on the head. 31 And when they had mocked him, they took the robe off him and put his own clothes on him and led him away to crucify him. 27

Analogous to the sequence in 26:59– 66, 67– 68, the trial of Jesus before Pilate (27:1–26) is also followed by a mocking scene. As in 26:67– 68, with the challenge, “prophesy to us, Christ, . . .” reference was made to the preceding hearing, so here the mocking of Jesus as “king of the Jews” (v. 29) takes up v. 11. Compared to 26:67– 68, the mockery here takes up more space. At the same time, the setting for the scene receives an increased dimension, so that now, as portrayed in exaggerated terms, an entire cohort (about six hundred to a thousand soldiers; cf. Josephus, War 3.67) takes part. By making a variety of changes, Matthew has refashioned his source in such a way that a concentric structured narrative has emerged, with the middle element formed by the scoff in v. 29b, “Hail, King of the Jews!” The note at the beginning, that the soldiers led Jesus into the Praetorium, i.e., probably into the courtyard (v. 27),

VI.8 The Crucified Son of God

421

corresponds to the end, where he is led out (v. 31b). Verse 28 has its counterpart in v. 31a, v. 29a in v. 30. [27] After the brief introduction that sets the scene in v. 27, [28–31a] the mockery begins in vv. 28–29a with Jesus being fitted out with royal insignia. The expensive purple (royal) cloak of Mark 15:17 becomes a cheaper, scarlet short coat, a chlamys, which was also worn by soldiers. This corresponds to the parodying mockery also characteristic of the other two insignia: the braided crown of thorns takes the place of the golden crown worn by client kings (cf. 1 Macc 10:20); the reed, which Matthew mentions in correspondence to v. 30 (cf. Mark 15:19), differently from Mark already mentioned in the outfitting of the “king” in v. 29, takes the place of the scepter. The Matthean addition, that the crown was placed on his head (cf. John 19:2), is analogous not only to the scepter in his right hand, but is important in connection with v. 30 (see below). Falling on their knees imitates respectful submission, even worship. In reverse order to 26:67– 68, the verbal mockery is connected with Jesus being spat upon and beaten. Even more clearly than in 26:67, the evil of the mockers comes out in the form of wicked violence. The reed which in 27:29 served to mimic the king’s symbol of power is now used to beat Jesus on his head—the head wearing the crown of thorns, the symbol of the king’s power demonstrates his powerlessness. [31b] In the end, Jesus will be—for the third time after 26:57 and 27:2—led away. Matthew has not taken over the occurrence of the verb at the beginning of the scene in Mark 15:16; here, he introduces it redactionally. The repetition of the procedures of “handing over” (26:46, 48 + 27:2, 18 + 27:26) and “leading away” marks the stages of the action against Jesus. The last stage is now reached: Jesus is led away, to be crucified. VI.8 The Crucified Son of God (27:32–56) Now as they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon. They compelled this man to carry his cross. 33 And when they came to a place called Golgotha, the so-called “Skull Place,” 34 they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall. But when he tasted it, he would not drink it. 35 Now after they had crucified him, they divided his clothes among themselves by casting lots. 36 Then they sat down there and kept watch over him. 37 Over his head they put a title with the charge against him, which read, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” 38 Then two bandits were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39 The passersby blasphemed him, shook their heads 40 and said, “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, if you are the Son of God, and come down from the cross!” 41 In the same way the high priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking 32

422

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

him, and said, 42 “Others he saved, he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel! Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusted in God; let God deliver him now, if he is pleased with him; for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’” 44 In the same way, the bandits who were crucified with him also reviled him. 45 From the sixth hour on, darkness came over the whole earth until the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice and said, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 47 When some of the bystanders heard (it), they said, “This (guy) is calling for Elijah.” 48 At once one of them ran and got a sponge, filled it with sour wine, put it on a reed, and attempted to give him a drink. 49 But the others said, “Let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” 50 Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and gave out his breath/spirit. 51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was split from top to bottom in two pieces; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split 52 and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 And they came out of the tombs—after his resurrection—and entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54 Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and these events, they were terrified and said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!” 55 There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee and had served him. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. As in the preceding sections, so also in vv. 32–56, Matthew has not only reworked his Markan source (Mark 15:21– 41) stylistically, but also set his own accents on the content. Especially to be noticed is the prominence of Jesus’ divine sonship that emerges as the leitmotif of the mockery of Jesus as the Crucified One in vv. 39– 44 and the significant development of the events after Jesus’ death in vv. 51b–53. Verses 32–56 can be subdivided into five subsections. In a series of separate brief notes, vv. 32–38 describe the way to the site of the crucifixion, the crucifixion itself, and its related events. In three scenes, vv. 39– 44 recount the ridicule poured out on the crucified Son of God. This is followed in vv. 45–50 and 51–54 by the death of Jesus and the events that accompany it, including the reaction of the soldiers. The note about the women who followed Jesus as witnesses of the event (vv. 55–56) functions not only as the conclusion of the scene at Golgotha, but lead directly into the following narrative of the burial and resurrection.

VI.8 The Crucified Son of God

423

[32] The way from the Praetorium to the site of the crucifixion, usually located outside the city, is painted in very brief strokes; much remains implicit. Thus, on the basis of the usual procedure (cf. e.g., Plutarch, Mor. 554B; Artemidor, On. 2.56), the reader may infer from the fact that Jesus does not carry the cross himself (i.e., probably the cross piece, with the stake already fixed in the ground at the site of the execution) that he is already too weak from the previous mistreatment to carry it himself to the end. The soldiers force a certain Simon to some compulsory labor (cf. 5:41). Matthew says of him only that he is from Cyrene and is thus a Diaspora Jew who has either made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the festival or, more likely, has resettled in Jerusalem (cf. the synagogue of the Cyrenians in Acts 6:9). From his name and the name of his sons—the latter omitted by Matthew (cf. Mark 15:21)—it is probably to be presupposed that he joined the movement of Christ-believers (in Jerusalem). [33–34] According to Matthew, when they came to Golgotha, Jesus is not offered wine seasoned with myrrh (contrast Mark 15:23), which served as an anesthetic to alleviate the pain, but wine contaminated with bitter bile; again differently from Mark, Jesus does not refuse it immediately, but tastes it first, then rejects it. In Matthew, the mockery of Jesus is here continued. The verse from Psalm 69:22 influences the telling, as it will again in v. 48. [35] The crucifixion itself, regarded in Roman antiquity as the most disgraceful of deaths (Josephus, War 7.202–203; Justin, Dial. 131.2), is only stated with the uttermost restraint in v. 35; in the Greek text, it is expressed only by a participle in a subordinate clause, which already looks back on the event itself: “Now after they had crucified him . . .” Whether Jesus was tied or nailed (as in John 20:25; cf. Luke 24:39) is not clear in Matthew’s portrayal. Matthew’s emphasis falls on the fact that Psalm 22:19 is fulfilled by the dividing up of his clothes. What is important for Matthew is that the way of Jesus corresponds to Scripture (cf. on 26:54). The fact that Jesus is stripped of his clothing before the crucifixion is again among those elements of the narrative that are only implied, but not specifically elaborated. [36] The renewed reference to the time in Mark 15:25, “it was the third hour,” is passed over by Matthew (so also Luke); in its place, in order to prepare for v. 54, Matthew notes that Jesus is guarded by the soldiers. [37] The placarding of Jesus’ “guilt” over his head by the soldiers links up with their mockery in v. 29. The soldiers as yet have no clue that by their mockery they are saying something true. Matthew has expanded the inscription in two directions: the opening words “this is” find their counterpart in v. 54. The name “Jesus” is also added. In the light of 26:28, one can ponder whether there is here a subtle reference back to the interpretation of the name in 1:21—now, on the cross, Jesus completes his mission to save his people from their sins. [38] Following Mark 15:27, but differently from Luke

424

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

(23:32), Matthew now mentions for the first time the two men crucified with him. Their names are just as unknown as is the offense with which they were charged. “Bandit” can (not must) designate a revolutionary; from the Roman perspective, this would fit well with “king of the Jews.” In fact, however, Jesus does not fit into this group in any way, as underscored by the reference back to 26:55: the arresting squad was armed as though Jesus were a bandit they were dealing with, but of course he is not. Placing Jesus in the middle fits in with their mockery: the king has one at his right, one at his left (cf. 20:21). It is possible that Matthew has made a connection with the scene in Isaiah 53:12: the servant of God is numbered among the lawless. [39–44] While Pilate’s soldiers were the main actors in the preceding narrative, in the mockery in vv. 39–44 it is again those who shaped the events of vv. 11–26 who now reappear. First, Jerusalem passersby pour out their sarcastic taunts on the Crucified One (vv. 39– 40), followed by the Jewish authorities (vv. 41– 43). In the end, those crucified with him join in the taunts (v. 44). As in Mark 15:29–32, the taunts are described using three different verbs, which together form an overall picture: the passersby blaspheme (v. 39), the authorities mock (v. 41), and the two bandits revile Jesus (v. 44). The first two scenes are characterized by intertwining both the repetition of common elements (the challenge to “save yourself by coming down from the cross,” divine sonship) and by variation, which is accompanied by an intensification from the first to the second scene. [39–40] The introduction to the blaspheming of the passersby evokes the image of the headshaking in Psalm 22:8 (see also, e.g., Ps 109:25; Lam 2:15); in v. 43 Matthew will further strengthen this reference to Psalm 22. The passersby reach back to the false testimony in the trial before the High Council, that Jesus claimed to be able to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days (26:61). He is now challenged to prove his power by miraculously coming down from the cross, an option that Jesus must exclude, however, if only out of loyalty to his own word in 16:25. The reference back to the trial before the High Council is underscored not only by the initial characterization of their mocking words as blasphemy (26:65– 66), but also by taking up Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God (26:63). Matthew does not say where the passersby got their information (cf. on 27:12–14, 20). The formulation of the inserted “if you are the Son of God” also establishes a cross-reference to the temptation of Jesus in 4:1–11, where the same words are found in the mouth of the devil (4:3, 6). As there, Matthew here proceeds on the basis that Jesus does in fact have the authority to do what he has been challenged to do. Here, as there, Jesus does not yield, because as the Son of God he must follow only the will of the Father (26:39, 42).

VI.8 The Crucified Son of God

425

[41–43] In the scene in which Jesus is mocked by the Jewish authorities, Matthew has added the elders to the high priests and scribes, so that exactly the same group here steps forth that conducted the trial against Jesus (26:57, 59) and who were named in the first prediction of the passion (16:21). In contrast to v. 40, Jesus is no longer addressed, but is the object of their mockery. In place of the introductory characterization of Jesus by the reference to destroying and rebuilding the temple, they now point out that he is supposed to have saved others (cf. 8:25; 9:21–22; 14:30). The challenge of the passersby to save himself (v. 40) is now transformed into an assertion that this is something he cannot do (on Jesus’ “ability,” see on 8:2; 9:28; 26:53, 61). According to Matthew, however, others are saved by Jesus precisely by the fact that he now gives his life, for it is precisely by his death that he accomplishes the mission assigned to him in 1:21 (cf. 20:28; 26:28). After the hearing before the High Council lingered in v. 40, with the words “He is the king of Israel” the authorities now take up the charge by which he was accused before Pilate (v.11) and which continues the mockery of the soldiers (vv. 29, 37). In light of the conflict already set forth in 2:3– 6, the suggestion is near at hand that, according to Matthew, they know that this is who Jesus really is. For Matthew, their hostility against him expresses their unwillingness to submit to him. In line with this, the authorities also oppose the honoring of Jesus as Son of David among the people (12:24; 21:15–16). Now, they believe they have succeeded in getting rid of him, but they do not grasp the reality that Jesus, precisely by his death, fulfills his mission as “King of Israel,” as the Messianic Shepherd (2:6) of the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6; 15:24). The challenge to come down from the cross (v. 42) that takes up the words of the passersby (v. 40) is connected with an announcement in which Matthew has changed the Markan wording into a personal formulation: if Jesus could do it, they would “believe in him” (cf. 18:6). For Matthew, this is the final expression of their phoniness. In the wider context, this is illustrated by their demands for a sign (12:38– 42; 16:1– 4). These demands imply that, for them, the “works of the Messiah” (11:2) are not sufficient to identify Jesus as the Messiah. In the Matthean narrative conception, however, with the empty tomb the authorities will receive the “sign of Jonah” (see [on] 12:40; 27:62– 66; 28:11–15). Nevertheless, neither do they “believe” after receiving this sign. Finally, it is characteristic of Matthew that he has the authorities go on speaking in v. 43, putting the words of the godless scoffers of Psalm 22:9 in their mouths: Jesus trusted in God, so let God save him now, if he wants him. For Matthews’ addressees familiar with the psalm, characterizing the authorities as sacrilegious people is subtly underscored: like a roaring and ravenous lion, they have opened their jaws against the righteous (Ps 22:13). In terms of content, Matthew has the mockery of v. 43 move from the challenge to save

426

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

himself to speak of salvation from God, which is based on the claim to divine sonship Jesus made in 26:64. An allusion to Wisdom 2 (see esp. vv. 13, 16, 18) should also be heard here (alternatively, one could consider that this is traditional material that was also used in Wis 2). It should be noted in particular that also in Wisdom 2–3 (see also Wis 4:7–5:16) the motif of validating the son of God by his post-mortal experience is present. [44] Analogous to Mark 15:32, Matthew concludes the subsection by only noting that those who were crucified with him also revile him, without giving any of their words, though he does indicate that they mock Jesus in the same way as the others. According to the way the two preceding scenes were constructed, this means in particular that their mockery is directed at Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God. In any case, the insertion of “if you are the Son of God” in v. 40 and the addition of v. 43 makes clear that divine sonship is the christological center of the text. Matthew is here working through a central christological problem, namely, how the believers’ conviction of Jesus’ participation in divine power can be communicated along with his earthly experience. It is likely that on this point polemics against faith in Christ had flared up. Matthew reacts to this problematic issue by making the obedience of the Son of God the leitmotif of his Christology. The reality that Jesus suffered and was killed by his opponents, that is, that he was delivered over to the power of his enemies, and appeared to be subject to them, does not speak against his divine sonship. On the contrary, the suffering of the Son of God is based on Jesus’ intentional decision to renounce the possibility that he would escape suffering and instead would do the will of God. Indeed, it is precisely in this renunciation that he proves his divine sonship, because doing otherwise he would have violated the will of God, which he cannot do as the Son of God. But God will indeed save his Son, but through death, by raising him up and exalting him to his right hand (26:64). [45] Since Matthew has omitted Mark 15:25, v. 45 provides the first exact time in the Matthean delineation of the crucifixion: from the sixth to the ninth hour, that is, from noon to 3:00, darkness extends over the whole country. Otherwise, nothing seems to happen; the scene is motionless for three hours. In Amos 8:9, the sunset at midday and the resulting darkness points to God’s judgment (cf. Isa 13:10; Amos 5:18; Joel 2:2; and Matt 24:29), but the darkness here could also be understood as the sign of heavenly mourning (cf. Jer 4:27–28; LAE [Latin] 46.1). In any case, the supernatural event points to the significance of the Crucified One and the heavenly participation in his experience, and the darkness appears as appropriate commentary on the event. [46] During the mockery, Jesus—again—falls silent. Now at the ninth hour (whether during or after the darkness is unclear; the indication is only approximate), he speaks his last words—not to the people standing around,

VI.8 The Crucified Son of God

427

but to God. Some events that accompany the crucifixion already point to Psalm 22: the dividing of the clothes (v. 35), the headshaking by the mockers (v. 39), and the words of the authorities in v. 43 that identify them with the godless scoffers of Psalm 22. It corresponds to all this that Jesus now takes up the words of the suffering righteous man at the beginning of Psalm 22. The (transcribed) rendition of the Aramaic wording reflects the importance of the words; at the same time, the quotation of the Aramaic wording is necessary in order to make v. 47 understandable, whereby Matthew has improved the connection between v. 46 and v. 47 by writing Eli in v. 46 instead of Mark’s Eloi (Mark 15:34). It is disputed whether Psalm 22:2 is to be taken in isolation, which would then express that Jesus dies not only abandoned by human beings, but by God, or whether the whole psalm, which ends with praise to God as an expression of trust (Ps 22:23–32), is to be overheard in this context. The second option is supported by the fact that the other allusions to Psalm 22 mentioned above indicate that Matthew has the whole psalm in mind. Moreover, the events in 27:51–53 indicate that God remains present. On the other side, this cannot lead to completely undermining the weight of the words that are quoted here. The horror of death on the cross, under the mockery of the people, is not glossed over. All the external circumstances point to God’s hiddenness, just as the person in Psalm 22 who prays experiences the misery caused by his enemies as a time of God’s hiddenness. At the same time, however, it is to God that the person turns in prayer, the God he sees as having abandoned him in this moment, and his lamentation includes trust in the turning point that God will bring about. The abandonment is temporary and by no means the defining moment for the relationship between the worshiper and God from then on. The same is true for the understanding of Matthew 27:46. As he stares death in the eye, Jesus experiences himself as temporarily abandoned by God. But in this moment of his deepest need, it is to God that he turns—trusting that the second part of his proclamation will be true: the Son of Man will be raised on the third day (16:21; 17:23; 20:19). Lament, cry for help, and trust are all to be held together. If one keeps Matthew’s reception of Psalm 22 and the concluding passage of this psalm in mind, and at the same time considers that Matthew saw in the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus the ground for God’s merciful post-Easter devotion to all peoples, one can suppose that especially vv. 28–29 of the psalm are to be heard here: All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the L; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him For dominion belongs to the L, and he rules over the nations.

428

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

[47–49] Some of the bystanders respond to Jesus’ prayer-cry with further mockery, for their words “this (guy) is calling for Elijah” may be read as an intentional misunderstanding that deliberately spoofs Jesus prayer-cry: since he can’t save himself, and God does not care for him, he now calls—as the very last resort—for Elijah to be his helper in trouble. “This (guy)” underscores the disrespectful tone of the ridicule. In the following, Matthew has rearranged the Markan representation by having someone run in (v. 48), but the words in v. 49 are not assigned to the same person, but to “others.” That Jesus is given vinegar to drink also fulfills the second half of Psalm 69:22 (cf. on v. 34). Just as little as in v. 34 is this a benevolent act intended to prolong Jesus’ life to give Elijah time to come. Rather, here too Jesus is further mocked. Accordingly, the words of the “others” in v. 49 do not express a serious expectation, but they too are a continuation of the mockery, as underscored by the renewed talk of “saving” (instead of Mark’s “take him down,” Mark 15:36). He could not save himself (vv. 40, 42), just as little as God saved him (v. 43), and neither will Elijah hurry up and save him. [50] Jesus cries out a second time—and then dies. The phrase that he “gave out his breath/spirit” does not have in view the Holy Spirit, as in 1:18, 20, but merely means “he died” (cf. Ps 104:29; Eccl 12:7; Wis 16:14; Sir 38:23). Jesus’ cry, in the light of v. 46, is to be understood as a renewed call to God. Jesus dies in prayer, as one who turns to his God. [51–53] Jesus’ prayer does not remain unheard. The events pictured in vv. 51–53 are God’s response to the event: Just as in Matthew 4 Jesus did not submit to the temptations of the devil, so Jesus on the cross did not use his authority as son of God to save himself. Now, however, he will be shown by God himself to be his Son by the signs that accompany his death. We can here observe a sequence of events not only analogous to 4:1–10, 11, but especially to the baptismal pericope in 3:13–17, where Jesus’ demonstration of his obedience is followed by the proclamation of his sonship by God himself. The tearing of the temple curtain taken from Mark 15:38 points to the reality that the temple—which in any case has become a “robber’s cave” (21:13)—has become obsolete through the death of Jesus “for the forgiveness of sins” (26:28). At the same time, the event is to be understood as a sign of judgment that foreshadows the destruction of the temple (cf. 23:38; 24:2). The result is a subtle connection in the background: the Jewish authorities, whose domain is the temple, take the false testimony about Jesus’ alleged saying about the temple (26:61) as the basis for carrying out the crucifixion of Jesus, and thereby seal not only their own end, but that of the temple as well. On the question of whether the reference is to the curtain in front of the Holy of Holies (Exod 26:31–35), or the curtain between the Court of Israel and the temple building proper (Exod 26:36–37; 38:18), the second option can be supported by the fact that only this curtain

VI.8 The Crucified Son of God

429

was publicly visible. This question is secondary for the interpretation of this text, however, inasmuch as in either case the interpretative dimensions just mentioned must be taken into account. In Matthew’s expansion of Mark 15:38 to the form now found in vv. 51–53, he has drawn motifs from Ezekiel 37:7, 12–13 LXX (earthquake, opening of graves), as well as Zechariah 14:4–5 (splitting [of the Mount of Olives], earthquake, the coming of the saints). Whether Matthew himself composed the unit from motifs found in individual traditions or from a preformed traditional piece cannot be decided with the necessary certainty. Earthquakes are a widespread eschatological motif (Joel 2:10; 1 En. 1:6–7; 102:2–3; T. Mos. 10:4; 2 Bar. 70:8) but are also found elsewhere as phenomena that accompany theophanies (e.g., Judg 5:4; 2 Sam 22:8; Ps 68:9). Here, the earthquake is connected with the cleavage of the rocks that open the tombs (cf. 28:2). If one interprets the juxtaposition of the resurrection of the saints with speaking of “tombs” in the broader context of Matthew’s Gospel, this suggests that the saints are to be identified with the righteous and prophets in 23:29(–36) (cf. Herzer, “Auferstehung,” 131–41), whose tombs the scribes and Pharisees—in Matthew’s view, hypocritically—decorated, and whose blood will come on the scribes and Pharisees (23:35–36). As a by-product of the death of Jesus, their resurrection points to the fact that here too innocent blood was poured out (cf. 27:4, 24) and also serves as a sign of judgment against those who bear the responsibility for Jesus’ death. Once again, therefore, Jesus and the prophets are united (cf. 21:34–36, 37–39). While their resurrection points to God’s having bound himself to them, for Jerusalem and the authorities this means that they will be held to account. That resurrected righteous people enter the city that murdered the prophets means it is held accountable for its guilt; that they appear to many becomes a witness against both city and authorities. Alongside this juridical-theological dimension, it is to be noted that vv. 51–53 already look beyond the death of Jesus. It is not only that the opening of the tombs and the resurrection of the saints present a countermove to the mocking of Jesus that God should save him (v. 43), for it shows that God does act on behalf of the righteous, and that includes Jesus. But also, and above all, the remarkable insertion, from a narrative point of view, that the saints only come out of the tomb after the resurrection of Jesus, go into Jerusalem, and there appear to many, explicitly links Jesus’ own resurrection to the context of these events. The opening of the tombs of the saints thus appears as a kind of prelude for the “opening” of the tomb of Jesus, which is also connected with an earthquake (28:2). The lack of plausibility of the scene, in which those who have been resurrected remain in their tombs until Jesus’ own resurrection, seems to have bothered Matthew no more than the problem that he has the

430

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

soldiers beneath the cross react to events, some which have not yet happened. What is important for him is to bind Jesus’ resurrection as close as possible to one nexus of events that accompany the death of Jesus, as he has already affirmed by inserting the phrase “from now on” in 26:64. The remarkable sequence of events in 27:51–54 is to be acknowledged as a narrative attempt to present the death of Jesus in the colors of Easter. [54] Matthew has newly contextualized the confession that follows in v. 54 in three ways. First, by the reworking of vv. 39– 44, the confession is contrasted with the preceding mocking of Jesus as the Son of God. Second, and differently from Mark 15:39, the confession does not come forth in response to the death of Jesus, but as a reaction to the events in vv. 51–53 that accompany his death, which represent God’s answer to the death of Jesus: it is these that open up the soldiers to see Jesus’ divine sonship. The soldiers’ fear—a detail added by Matthew—is thus the appropriate response to the encounter with the divine (cf. 17:6!). Third, in the Matthean composition, “this one” (= “this guy”) in v. 54 refers back to the titulus crucis of v. 37, to which Matthew has added “this (one/ guy).” This reference to v. 37 is correlated with the fact that the confession in v. 54 is different from Mark 15:39 in that the confession is spoken not only by the centurion but also by the rest of the soldiers who stand guard with him, which is correlated to the note inserted by Matthew in v. 36. In the flow of the Matthean narrative, the soldiers of v. 54 are thus to be identified with those who have previously mocked him (vv. 27–31, 37), and who crucified him (vv. 35–36). In v. 54, the soldiers thus correct their own mockery (v. 37), taking up the title “Son of God” from vv. 39–44: the one they have mocked as king of the Jews was truly the Son of God. What they intended as mockery is now revealed to them as the truth. In the context, the confession in v. 54 appears as the expression of regret and repentance. Thereby, an even darker shadow falls on the Jewish authorities. They did not allow Judas to change their mind (27:3–5), and even now they cannot be dissuaded from their chosen path. In the conception of the Matthean narrative, the soldiers beneath the cross—again, differently from Mark 15:39—are not the first people to confess Jesus as the Son of God. Rather, v. 54 refers back to 14:33 and 16:16, and is, in fact, syntactically formulated in parallel to 14:33. The past-tense form in v. 54 thereby takes into account the fact that the earthly Jesus is looked back on, so does not function to identify the confession as inadequate. What is new in v. 54 is that suffering and death are now integrated into the confession. It is precisely this integration that was still missing in Peter’s confession in 16:16, for there the confession was still one-sidedly oriented to Jesus’ divine authority/ power (14:22–33). Now, however, in line with the exposition in the “diptych” in 16:13–20, 21–23, the connection between the authority and lordship of Jesus,

VI.9 The Burial of Jesus

431

on the one side, and his obedient walking the way of the cross for the salvation of “many” (26:28), on the other, has been unfolded in the passion narrative and has thereby come into view as the center of Matthew’s understanding of the divine sonship of Jesus. [55–56] As the scene closes, the narrative focus turns from the repentant confession of the soldiers to the women who have followed Jesus from Galilee on, and who now observe these events. To the extent that v. 54 implies a reference to the post-Easter inclusion of the Gentiles, in view of vv. 55–56 it must also be said that the Galilean women represent the Jewish members of the church. So also, Joseph of Arimathea (vv. 57– 60) is a Jew. In any case, it would be fundamentally false to stereotype the hostility against Jesus in Jerusalem and among the authorities as a “no” of all Israel (cf. on 27:25) and then, on the basis of v. 54, to try to contrast this with the future of the church in the Gentile world. Among the women, v. 56 specifically names three. The two Marys are also found in Mark 15:40; Salome is replaced by, or identified with, the mother of the sons of Zebedee, who has already been met in 20:20 among the followers of Jesus. The reference to her in v. 56 supports the connection between 20:20–23 and 27:38 (cf. on 20:22–23). The discipleship of the women is further specified by the fact that they served Jesus on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem (cf. 8:15; and 4:11; 25:44), which would include providing food and drink. While the male disciples have fled, the women remain faithful to Jesus. That they look on “from a distance” does not in any way diminish this; they maintain the distance required by the situation. In 27:61 and 28:1–10, the narrative thread woven in here will be continued. VI.9 The Burial of Jesus (27:57–61) When it had become evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also had become a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59 And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a large stone to the door of the tomb and went away. 61 But Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, and sat opposite the tomb. 57

With the narration of Jesus’ burial, the portrayal of the passion comes to its end; at the same time, it both prepares for the resurrection narrative and initiates it. The density of agreements in Matthew 27:57– 61 with Luke 23:50–56 against Mark 15:42– 47, as well as the contacts between Matthew and John (cf. below) may be taken as indications that, in addition to Mark 15, Matthew has been influenced by oral tradition.

432

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

[57] After Simon of Cyrene (v. 32), a second new person is introduced by name into the context of Jesus’ passion. In Matthew, he is no longer a member of the council, as in Mark 15:43, but a wealthy man, since “councilor” could be too readily understood as a member of the High Council (cf. Luke 23:51), which Matthew has portrayed in altogether dark colors (cf., e.g., 26:59, 67– 68). In addition, Matthew has made him a disciple (cf. John 19:38)—which links up with Mark’s characterization of him as waiting for the kingdom of God; in spite of Matthew 19:16–26, it is also possible for rich people to belong to the community of Jesus’ followers. [58] Since it is not self-evident that one who has been crucified can be buried, Joseph must ask Pilate for permission. That Matthew does not portray this as a risk, as in Mark 15:43, corresponds to the picture of Pilate Matthew has drawn in 27:11–26. The usual practice was—as a deterrent—that the bodies of those crucified would be left hanging, to decompose and be devoured by wild animals and birds (cf., e.g., Horace, Ep. 1.16.48; Petronius, Sat. 111.5– 6). Exceptions were made for festival days (cf. e.g., Philo, Flaccus 83), so that because of the Passover context, there is no reason to doubt the historicity of the account of Jesus’ burial—already mentioned in the formulaic tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:4 (cf. also Acts 13:29). Accordingly, a burial is also to be assumed for those crucified along with Jesus (cf. John 19:31–32). Josephus even states in general terms that “the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun” (War 4.317). Since Joseph of Arimathea is not met elsewhere in the New Testament, his role in the burial of Jesus is also to be taken as a true historical reminiscence. He acted as a pious Jew, for reasons of piety (cf. Tob 1:17–18; 2:3–8; 4:3– 4). He became a (pre-Easter) follower of Jesus only later, in the course of the development of the tradition.

The note about the astonishment of Pilate that the death of Jesus had already occurred, and, in accordance with this, his inquiring of the centurion whether this was true (Mark 15:44– 45a), is passed over by Matthew as an irrelevant detail (so also by Luke). [59–60] The burial is described with only a few words. It is not mentioned that the body of Jesus was washed, nor is there any reference to his being embalmed, the latter to be regarded in light of 26:6–13. Jesus is merely wrapped in a “clean” linen cloth (instead of a newly purchased cloth, as in Mark 15:46) and then buried. Joseph honors Jesus by using his own grave for Jesus’ burial (differently Mark 15:46, which merely states that he placed Jesus in [some] grave carved out of the rock). With the explicit statement that it was a new grave (cf. John 19:41, but also Luke 23:53) Matthew makes it clear that Jesus did not share the grave with others. The characterization of Joseph in v. 57 at least serves to also make the narrative plausible: a disciple makes his own grave available for Jesus.

VI.10 The Guarded Empty Tomb

433

After closing the grave, Matthew specifically notes that Joseph goes away. [61] The women remain behind, with the reference to them analogous to their portrayal in the events in Golgotha (vv. 55–56), which thus completes the narrative of the entombment. Of the three women specifically mentioned in v. 56, only the mother of the sons of Zebedee is missing here; she was important in v. 56 because of the reference back to 20:20–23. Matthew has deleted the Markan comment that the two Marys observe where Jesus was placed (Mark 15:47), because the knowledge of the location of the tomb no longer needs to be made plausible. Joseph himself is a disciple. As an anticipation of 28:1, Matthew alone states that they sat opposite the tomb. VI.10 The Guarded Empty Tomb (27:62–28:15) Matthew has framed the narration of the empty tomb in 28:1–8, based on Mark 16:1–8, by the episode of guarding the tomb in 27:62– 66 and 28:11–15 (cf. Gos. Pet. 8.28–11.49). This story is based on his special material (itself based on oral tradition) but is essentially his own composition, which is even manifest in 28:1–8 itself by the addition of vv. (2–)4. The starting point for the development of this story of the guards at the tomb, which is to be considered legendary, is the rumor about stealing the body that became virulent in the evangelist’s historical context (28:15; cf. Justin, Dial. 108.2). This is to be countered by the expansion of the story of the empty tomb. In so doing, Matthew goes on the attack by attributing the rumor to the high priests, who acted in the matter against their better knowledge and thus fraudulently. Apologetics is here paired with the polemics against the Jewish authorities characteristic of Matthew. VI.10.1 The Guard at the Tomb (27:62– 66)

Now on the next day, which follows the day of Preparation, the high priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, “Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples come, steal him, and say to the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead,’ and the last deception would be worse than the first.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You shall have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone, with the guard. 62

[62–64] The initiative of the Jewish authorities, to approach Pilate on the Sabbath (!) after Jesus’ crucifixion and ask him to place a guard at the tomb of Jesus to prevent the theft of Jesus’ body, has been prepared for in the preceding narrative by Matthew’s own interpretation of the sign of Jonah in 12:40.

434

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

That the evangelist does not have the high priests come on the narrative stage in v. 62 accompanied by the elders, as previously (cf., e.g., 26:3; 27:1), but pairs them with the Pharisees (cf. 21:23, 45) serves to underscore the reference back to 12:40, where it is precisely the Pharisees who, along with the scribes, appear in the role of Jesus’ adversaries: they now remember Jesus’ announcement of the sign of Jonah. The striking designation of the time, “after three days,” in v. 63—as opposed to “on the third day” (16:21; 17:23; 20:19)—corresponds to the three days and nights in 12:40. The disrespectful designation of Jesus as “that imposter,” which probably reflects the reproaches with which the Matthean congregations experienced themselves as confronted (cf. 28:15), will ultimately fall back on the authorities themselves. The irony with which Matthew here operates is no longer subtle, but obvious. The fraudsters warn against fraud. This ironic move is underscored by the reference back to 12:45 at the end of v. 64. There, Jesus explained that people from whom an unclean spirit had been driven out, when the authorities again regain control over them, are worse off than before. Here, the authorities now fear the further influence of Jesus’ disciples on the people—and copy Jesus’ own stance toward them. Their talk of the “first (deception)” need not necessarily be tied to the announcement of 12:40; rather, what is in view here is more likely Jesus’ previous ministry and the messianic claim it expresses as a whole. At the same time, v. 64 confirms that v. 25 is in no way to be read as the last word about the people’s decision against Jesus. While the hostility of the authorities continues even after the crucifixion, there is still room among the people for the openness toward Jesus they manifested during his ministry. The explicit quotation of the message feared by the authorities, who suspect the disciples could fraudulently spread that Jesus “has been raised from the dead,” is an anticipation of the Easter message (cf. 28:7). The fact that the authorities seek to ward off a positive resonance of this message among the people again reflects the current situation of conflict between the Matthean churches and the Pharisees. [65–66] Just as Pilate in vv. 24–26 joined in with the will of the people gathered before him, and as in v. 58 he granted the request of Joseph of Arimathea, so in v. 65 he also yields to the request of the high priests and gives them a guard to secure the tomb. In the light of v. 54, it seems reasonable to assume that these are different soldiers from those previously portrayed in vv. 27–54. With the addition of “as secure as you can” in v. 65, Matthew again includes a bit of irony. Against God’s intervention, the authorities will not be able to accomplish anything either by posting the guard or by sealing the tomb (with wax or soft clay?), which would be able to prove that the disciples opened the tomb. Rather, it is precisely the security measures provided by the authorities that (in Matthew’s perspective) testify to the resurrection of Jesus. If the sealing

VI.10 The Guarded Empty Tomb

435

is an allusion to Daniel 6:18, this intertextual reference will further emphasize the futility of the efforts of the authorities in the face of the power of God. VI.10.2 The Empty Tomb and the Encounter of the Two Marys with Jesus (28:1–10)

Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, came up, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards quaked and became like dead men. 5 But the angel spoke up and said to the women, “Don’t you be afraid! For I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay, 7 and go quickly and say to his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead! And behold, he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ Behold, I have said it to you.” 8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus says to them, “Do not be afraid! Go, tell my brothers to go to Galilee! And there they will see me.” 1

When compared with Mark 16:1–8, Matthew’s version of the story of the empty tomb manifests various distinctive features. The insertion in vv. 2– 4 is particularly noticeable, which is related to the surrounding framework formed by 27:62– 66 and 28:11–15. The narrative is further expanded by the encounter between the two Marys and the Risen One in vv. 9–10, which has a counterpart in John 20:14–18 (see below). [1] In accordance with 27:61, the cast of characters is reduced to the two Marys; Salome is missing (Mark 16:1; cf. Mark 15:40 par. Matt 27:56). That the women do not come to anoint Jesus (Mark 16:1), but only to “see the tomb” (v. 1) is for Matthew the consequence of 26:6–13 but at the same time takes the guarding of the sealed tomb into account. Accordingly, there is no conversation among the women about who could roll away the stone for them (Mark 16:3). [2–4] It is also the case that the women do not find the tomb already open, but Matthew pictures a divine intervention at the arrival of the women at the tomb (vv. 2–3). In connection with a powerful earthquake (cf. 27:51!), an “angel of the Lord” descends (cf. 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19)—Mark 16:5 speaks of a “young man.” Since the stone is not rolled away until the arrival of the angel, but the tomb is already empty—as is also the case elsewhere in the New Testament, the

436

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

resurrection itself is not pictured (on the Gospel of Peter, see after 28:15)—it is here implied that Jesus has already left the tomb even though the stone was still in place (cf. John 20:19, 26). Thus what is described here is a miracle; at the same time, one may perceive the suggestion that the bodily reality of the Risen One is a corporeality sui generis, which resists any more precise categorization. As an expression of his heavenly origin, the luminous figure of the angel (on the lightning, cf. Dan 10:6) and his white garment (cf. Dan 7:9) recall the transfiguration of Jesus in 17:2. In the wake of 27:62– 66, not only the women but also the guards witness this event, but the effect on each group is fundamentally different. While the women remain open to being addressed, and the angel proclaims the message of the resurrection to them, the soldiers “quake” for fear (cf. 21:10), as Matthew formulates in reference to the earthquake in v. 2, in order to make clear the connection with the theophany-like event. Since the guards then “became like dead men,” they miss out on the further events. What they have already seen, however, is enough to make them witnesses that the empty tomb was the result of divine intervention, not something like the theft of Jesus’ body by his disciples (cf. v. 11). [5–7] In contrast to Mark 16:5, Matthew does not say that the women enter the tomb. So also, the angel is not sitting in the tomb, but in front of it, on the stone that just recently closed the entrance (v. 2). The assurance “Don’t you be afraid” is a standard element in epiphany scenes (cf. 14:27; 17:6–7); the emphatic “you” underscores the contrast between the guards, who quake in fear, and the women. In v. 6, the declaration is preceded by “He is not here . . .” (cf. Luke 24:6). The message of the resurrection follows as the basis for this; it is also extended by a reference back to Jesus’ predictions (16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 26:32). Since the scene transpires outside the tomb, the women are specifically invited to “come” and see the place where he lay. That the stone has been rolled away by the angels now becomes significant, in that the women can now in fact look inside the (empty) tomb. It is still not said that they actually enter the tomb; perhaps the reader must imagine the Matthean sense of the scene as two Marys merely looking through the entrance of the open tomb (in v. 8 they go away, not, as in Mark 16:8, where they “went out”). Matthew has expanded the commission to tell the disciples that follows in v. 7 with the explicit citation of the resurrection message. (The separate naming of Peter [Mark 16:7] has been omitted as unnecessary; Peter is implied in 28:16.) “He has been raised from the dead” is verbally identical to 27:64. What the authorities feared as the lying proclamation of the disciples is thus now given to the women by the angel of the Lord as the true message to be given to the disciples. Verse 7b takes up Jesus’ announcement in 26:32, but in place of the explicit reference back to this in Mark 16:7 (“ just as he told you”) there

VI.10 The Guarded Empty Tomb

437

is the angel’s reassertion (“Behold, I have said it to you . . .”), which probably refers to his whole speech. The result of this substitution is that in Matthew 28 it is only the resurrection message (v. 6) which is associated with an explicit reference back to Jesus’ own announcement; this is where the emphasis lies. [8–10] Matthew has reformulated the conclusion of the story in a fundamentally new way. The women do not flee filled with terror and amazement, silent with fear, but fulfill the commission of the angel: they run to report to the disciples (cf. Luke 24:9[–11]), and alongside their fear—persisting because of their encounter with the divine—comes the great joy evoked by the angel’s message (previously seen in characters who play a role in the action of the narrative only in 2:10; cf. John 16:20–22; 20:20). Matthew has also expanded the scene to include the encounter of the two women with the Risen One. The narrative of the encounter of Jesus (only) with Mary Magdalene (directly in front of the tomb) in John 20:14–18, unless it is dependent on Matthew 28:9–10, indicates that the Matthean elaboration is based on oral tradition. In both Gospels, the story deals with the first appearance of the risen Jesus, while elsewhere this is attributed to Peter (1 Cor 15:5; Luke 24:34); Matthew, on the other hand, reports no appearance to Peter alone at all. From a historical point of view, nothing speaks against the suggestion that behind the tradition represented in vv. 9–10 and John 20:14–18 there is an authentic memory of a christophany to Mary Magdalene (or to several women?). The question of whether this was in fact a protophany is dependent on the historicity of the narrative of the empty tomb, which should be regarded with some skepticism. Conversely, however, it is only the time set by Matthew 28:9–10 and the location, but not the mere fact of the event itself of a resurrection experience of the women (or of Mary Magdalene) that are called into question. That Matthew and John describe the first appearance of Jesus as to women makes it clear that one cannot speak of a general repression of the role and experiences of women in the later decades of the formation of the first Christian communities.

In the brief Matthean account, Jesus is obviously recognized immediately by the women. Touching his feet in v. 9 points to the bodily nature of the resurrection. This, however, has to be put together with the fact that it is implied in v. 2 that the risen Lord could leave the tomb despite the stone. Touching the feet is also related to the typical Matthean motif of proskynese (adoration, worship; cf. especially 2:2, 11; 14:33; supplicants in 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; also 20:20); this will be repeated in 28:17 when Jesus appears to the disciples. It is noteworthy that the message of the Risen One to the women in v. 10 contains no additional information on the preceding, but only reinforces the message of the angel in v. 7b: the Risen One will meet the disciples in Galilee, not in Jerusalem. The theological agenda of the contrast between Galilee and Jerusalem is continued after Easter. The fact that as in 12:49–50 Jesus here calls the disciples “his

438

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

brothers” (cf. John 20:17), despite their flight (Matt 26:56) and Peter’s denial (26:69–75), already implies that Jesus does not hold their failures against them, but graciously passes over them. That the two women obey the command they are given is not plotted, but is presupposed in 28:16. VI.10.3 The Lie about the Theft of the Corpse (28:11–15)

Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city and told the high priests everything that had happened. 12 After the priests had assembled with the elders, they devised a plan to give the soldiers enough pieces of silver, 13 and said, “Say: ‘His disciples came by night and stole him, while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him and work it out, so that you (can be) without worry.” 15 So they took the pieces of silver and did as they were instructed. And this story is still spreading among Jews to this day. 11

[11] Verse 11 takes up again the narrative thread that was woven into the story of the empty tomb at 28:4 on the basis of 27:62– 66. In the meanwhile, the soldiers have regained consciousness, and some of them, which probably means a delegation authorized by them all, report the event, to the extent that they have perceived it, and thus they relay the events of vv. 2–3 and, as can be added, the fact that they subsequently found the tomb to be empty. The soldiers do not go to Pilate (as they do in Gos. Pet. 11.43– 49), but seek out the high priests. This assumes that Pilate has given them authority over the guards (27:65) but is also compelling in view of the intention of the Matthean narrative: the evangelist has to deal with Jewish opposition in his own historical context and accordingly would like to emphasize the fraudulent conduct of the Jewish authorities. Since the guards did not fail in their responsibilities, but were overcome by a higher power (vv. 2– 4), in the guards’ report the high priests have received a clear sign of the truthfulness of Jesus’ prediction of his resurrection. It is to them that the sign of Jonah (12:40) has in fact been given—and by the descent of the angel from heaven they have also received the “sign from heaven” they demanded (cf. 16:1). [12–14] But they do not respond to this by, for instance, acknowledging the truth of what has happened, but persist—even though they know better (cf. 2:1– 6)—in their hostile attitude and look for a solution to the problem they have caused by posting a guard at the tomb. The soldiers provide “objective” witnesses for a supernatural event at the tomb, witnesses who are ultimately accountable to Pilate and who do not come from the circle of Jesus’ followers. The security measures attempted by the high priests have become a boomerang. For the last time, Matthew speaks of the assembly of the high priests, who are now rejoined by the elders (cf. 26:3, [57]; 27:62), and come to a decision (cf. 12:14; 22:15;

VI.10 The Guarded Empty Tomb

439

27:1, 7; also 26:4): they bribe the soldiers with money to say that exactly what the authorities told Pilate about their fear of the deceptiveness of the disciples has now actually happened. “Pieces of silver” (argyria) was previously the key word in the cooperative arrangement between Judas and the authorities (26:15; 27:3, 5, 6, 9); again, money serves as the means by which they seek to reach their goal. The lie here is poorly constructed, since the soldiers have just been instructed to prevent the “deceptiveness of the disciples,” so admitting that they all went to sleep is a necessary part of the lie. So there is no way they could have seen that the disciples came and stole the body. But precisely this lack of logical plausibility is probably intentional: Matthew brings out, in an almost sarcastic way, the embarrassment the authorities, faced with the evidence for what really happened, have brought on themselves by their own attempts at security measures. Since this plan means that the soldiers must incriminate themselves, Pilate comes into play once again. The Jewish authorities have to assure the soldiers in advance that their failure to carry out their responsibilities will not bring them into any danger. Once again Pilate is pictured as a weak person who does not give directions, but is directed. The authorities are sure that their machinations have him under their control and attempt to reassure the soldiers accordingly. With “we will persuade him,” Matthew intentionally uses the same verb that he used pejoratively for the persuasion of the people in 27:20. By this repetition, Matthew makes clear that the fraudulent manipulation of people is a typical means of the authorities by which they seek to achieve their goals. [15] Verse 15a briefly describes that the agreement is carried out. The striking phrase “did as they were instructed” contrasts the dissemination of the rumor with the commission of the disciples in v. 20a: while the disciples, when they teach people, impart the instruction of Jesus to them and thus reveal the will of God, the “teaching” of the authorities (cf. 16:12) consists of spreading lies in the world. The saying in v. 15b about the spread of the rumor “to this day” makes clear that Matthew and his congregations in their Jewish environment are still confronted by this story. “Among Jews” sounds distancing. Verse 15, however, does not speak in general terms that Israel has become the Jews, nor is there anything at all said about “the Jews.” The definite article is missing! All that is said is that the story of the theft of the body has spread in Jewish circles because of the bribery of the soldiers by the high priests and elders. The expansion of the narrative of the empty tomb by the insertion of 27:62– 66 and 28:4, 11–15 is a response to this rumor. It is not only intended to provide assurance within the congregations, but at the same time—within the framework of the continuing task of devoting attention to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6) who have been victimized by the rumor—to

440

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

communicate the real background of the rumor and thus make it clear: it is the others who are the fraudsters. In view of the resurrection faith, the Matthean narrative in 27:62–28:15 involves a problematic theological tendency. On the apologetic front, there is a tendency to objectify the event, for which the “fact” of the empty tomb as the result of divine intervention, testified to by witnesses who were not believers in Christ, becomes the central proof. True enough, Matthew does not go as far as the Gospel of Peter 10:38– 42, where the soldiers even become witnesses of how the Risen One comes out of the tomb. Matthew’s tendency may be somewhat more understandable because of the apologetic stance he takes (28:15). Nevertheless, it also has to be said in regard to his elaboration of the story of the empty tomb, that apologetics is not theology’s best counselor. The Easter faith cannot be established historically, but it does not need this assurance, since faith itself implies that it dares to venture beyond what is provable in the strict sense (and critical faith should be all the more careful not to lose itself in fantasies). In regard to the story of the empty tomb, it is to be noted in particular: the reality of the resurrection does not depend on the empty tomb—not even with regard to its corporeality, when this is spoken of in the thought-out sense of 1 Corinthians 15:35–53. For resurrection does not mean merely a revival of the dead in the sense of a return to the old life, but a transformation into an imperishable “spiritual” corporeality (1 Cor 15:42– 44, 50–53). If the tomb was not empty, the Easter faith is in no way refuted. Incidentally, the identification of Jesus with the resurrected John the Baptist in Matthew 14:2 par. Mark 6:14 by Herod Antipas points to the fact that in the Jewish context, resurrection faith did not depend on an empty tomb (cf. the burial of the Baptist in Matt 14:12 par. Mark 6:29).

VI.11 The Commissioning of the Disciples for the Universal Mission (28:16–20) Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had commanded them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came up, spoke with them, and said, “To me all authority in heaven and on earth has been given. 19 Go therefore and make (people of) all nations into disciples, by baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and by teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the world.” 16

This concluding section, shaped largely by the evangelist himself on the basis of individual elements of tradition (such as the connection between mission and the promise of continuing assistance; cf. on v. 18b), is the culminating point of the whole Gospel, in which the individual threads of the preceding narrative all converge. As previously, in the brief scene in vv. 9–10, it is only Jesus who speaks. And what is more: the Gospel of Matthew does not end—as

VI.11 The Commissioning of the Disciples for the Universal Mission

441

do the other three canonical Gospels—with a comment by the narrator, but with a word of the Risen One, which reflects the significance that Matthew as a whole assigns to the word of Jesus. In addition to the encounter with the two women, Matthew pictures only this one appearance of Jesus to the eleven disciples that remain from the circle of the Twelve; there is no protophany to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5). Among the Easter narratives, the closest parallels are Luke 24:(36/)44– 49 and John 20:19–23, since there, too, the weight rests on the commission to the disciples. [16] The disciples follow the command of the Risen One (v. 10) and go to Galilee. There they receive the mandate to the universal mission, evoking the memory of “Galilee of the Gentiles” in the quotation from Isaiah 8:23–9:1 in Matthew 4:15. However, from 4:17 on, Jesus’ gracious turn to Israel has revealed the light for God’s people who sat in darkness (4:16). But speaking of “Galilee of the Gentiles,” a horizon of expectation was extended in the following narrative that reaches beyond Israel. This expectation is now fulfilled in 28:16–20. Galilee here stands in contrast to Jerusalem. Already in ch. 2, the resettlement in Nazareth resulted from the fact that the “king of the Jews” could not remain in Judea, so that Galilee became the beginning point and center of Jesus’ ministry in Israel. After the crucifixion of the “king of the Jews” in Jerusalem, this circumstance is repeated: now Galilee will also become the beginning point of the gracious turn that goes beyond Israel to all nations. The particular location of the meeting on a mountain—not prepared for by 26:32 or 28:7, 10, and thus all the more striking—which connotes in Matthew a place of revelation, refers back to the various preceding mountain scenes. It was on a mountain that Jesus taught (5:1; cf. 8:1), healed (15:29–31), and prayed (14:23). The reference in 5:1 to the mountain as a place of teaching is of particular importance, inasmuch as in 28:20a Jesus charges his disciples to teach all nations what he has commanded. Above all, however, v. 16 points back to the transfiguration scene in 17:1–9, located on a high mountain, in which the resurrection glory is anticipated, as well as to the “high mountain” that in Matthew was the scene of Jesus’ third temptation in which the devil offered him world domination (4:8–10). Now Jesus will announce that he has been given all authority not only on earth, but also in heaven—by God (28:18b). [17] The appearance of Jesus is stated in the Greek text with only a short participial phrase—undramatized by any ornate details—“and when they saw him.” As the women did in the preceding narrative (28:9), likewise the eleven remaining disciples respond to the Risen One with proskynesis (cf. 14:33), though with an admixture of doubt by some of them. In the only other occurrence in Matthew (14:31), the reference to doubt is associated with the motif of little-faith characteristic of the disciples (cf. on 8:26), hinted at also here. In

442

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

14:28–31, the little-faith of Peter doubted the power given him by Jesus, as he looked on the strong wind. In view of this back reference, one has to presuppose an analogous horizon of meaning for 28:17. The doubt here does not refer to whether or not it is Jesus who meets them, but to what Jesus’ resurrection now means, in regard to his status and for their discipleship, now burdened by their failure during his suffering. [18–20] The fact that Jesus came to them can, in this context, mean that he has overcome the separation created by the passion. At the same time, the motif underscores the connection with 17:1–9, for Jesus’ “coming to” them has been mentioned earlier in Matthew only in 17:7 (elsewhere, others always come to Jesus). At the transfiguration, the disciples were told by the heavenly voice to listen to Jesus, the Son of God (17:5). Now, the exalted Son of God himself speaks to them. The word of the Risen One is in three parts: the Great Commission in vv. 19–20a is framed by the saying about authority (v. 18b) and the promise of his continuing presence (v. 20b). [18b] The formulation in v. 18b suggests 11:27. The emphasis there on the unique communion of Jesus with the father and the authority derived from it no longer has to be repeated in 28:18b. Rather, the “all” left open in 11:27 is here made specific. Jesus’ authority has already been mentioned several times (7:29; [8:9]; 9:6; 21:23–27). What is new in 28:18b is the emphasis that Jesus—as the one exalted to be Lord of the universe (cf. Phil 2:9–11; Eph 1:20–23; and elsewhere) at the right hand of God (cf. 22:44; 26:64)—has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. As for the time of this transfer, Jesus’ resurrection would at first glance seem to be the obvious option. The preceding occurrences of “authority,” however, make clear that the statement in 28:18b connects with the earthly Jesus rather than separates the exalted Lord from him. The saying in 11:27 is virtually an anticipation of 28:18b, and 14:22–33 presents the earthly Lord as already participating in the divine power (cf. also 26:52–54). In 28:18b, therefore, one does not find the new element as authority per se, or the full measure of authority, but rather that now he is exalted to the right hand of God (26:64) and proclaims his authority as universal. He already possessed it earlier, but with his enthronement as Lord of the universe, he has been placed in a position to exercise this authority, while his earthly ministry was characterized by his mission only to Israel. Moreover, in the overall context, v. 18b recalls the concept of the kingdom of the Son of Man (13:41; 16:28; 20:21). The most significant intertextual connection is again with Daniel 7:(13)–14: The Son of Man has been given authority; all peoples serve him. Differently from the way Daniel 7:13(–14) is taken up in Matthew 24:30 and 26:64, 28:18b does not refer to the parousia, but to the present lordship of the Exalted One. Also, in comparison with

VI.11 The Commissioning of the Disciples for the Universal Mission

443

Daniel 7:14, in Matthew 28:18b the emphasis falls on the universality of his authority: Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. In vv. 19–20a this universal authority of Jesus forms the presupposition for the universal mission. Verse 18b thus has for vv. 19–20a an analogous function to that of 4:23–9:35 for the mission concentrated on Israel in 9:36–11:1; in both cases, the respective christological basis of the mission is stated. The fundamental meaning of 28:18b for vv. 19–20a is also made clear by a comparison with the words of the Risen One in Luke 24:47– 49 and John 20:21–23: There, too, the disciples are sent out, and the word of promised help in v. 20b corresponds to the promise or gift of the Spirit in Luke 24:49 and John 20:22. But the authorizing word that precedes the commissioning is a proprium of the Matthean appearance story; Matthew himself is probably responsible for its compositional formation and introductory location. [19a] In the commissioning saying in v. 19a, there is an echo of the “go” of 10:6. But now, the mission is no longer only to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” but to all peoples. In the whole literary complex of Matthew, this is not a surprisingly radical change; rather, the promise of the blessing of all peoples given to Abraham is here fulfilled (Gen 12:3; and elsewhere), which was already alluded to in the Abrahamic sonship of Jesus in 1:1 (cf. 3:9; 8:11). Other signals stand alongside this: the non-Jewish women in the genealogy (1:3–6); the magi who pay homage to the “King of the Jews” (2:1–12); the reference to “Galilee of the Gentiles” (4:15) and to the hope of the Gentiles (12:21) in the fulfillment-quotations of Isaiah 8:23– 9:1 and 42:1–4; the descriptions of the disciples as “salt of the earth” and “light of the world” (5:13, 14); the anticipation of 28:19 in 24:14 (see also 13:38); as well as, finally, the three narratives in 8:5–13, 28–34; and 15:21–28, which anticipate the post-Easter universal salvific significance of Jesus’ ministry. The basis for 28:19 is the universal salvific meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus and his exaltation to the right hand of God: The Son of God, in obedience to the will of the Father (26:39, 42), has given his life “for the many” (20:28; 26:28), and has been installed by God as Lord of the universe. With this comes the kairos (cf. 8:29) in which not only Israel receives salvation through the Davidic Messiah, but through the mission command of the exalted Son of God, all peoples are included in the saving act of God. The question of whether in v. 19 Israel is included or excluded, or whether all peoples including Israel or only the Gentiles are meant here, is an issue that continues to be debated. What must be fundamentally kept in mind, however, is that the continuing task of devoted care for Israel continues until the parousia, with the specific theological horizon of the restitution of the people of God which was already asserted with lasting validity in 10:6–8, 23 and is in no way up for discussion here; it does not require any further instruction. To connect

444

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

the interpretation of the phrase “all nations” in 28:19 (cf. previously 24:9, 14; 25:32) with the alternative of whether Israel is still one of the nations or is even excluded from the post-Easter saving action of God, simply bypasses the Matthean narrative conception. For Matthew, the question of whether Israel is still included is not even up for debate. His concern is rather the opposite, that now all (other) nations are included. In regard to this theological conception, it is to be added that 28:19 is not to be read as a response to the supposed rejection of Jesus by Israel, especially since there can be no thought of such a general declaration (cf. the differentiation between the crowds of common people and the authorities in, e.g., 9:33–34; 12:23–24; and the special role of Jerusalem in, e.g., 21:10–11; 23:37; see further on 27:25). Rather, the transition from the mission limited to Israel in 10:5– 6 to the universal mission in 28:19 is an integral part of the narrative conception with which Matthew unfolds the messianic identity of Jesus as Son of David and Son of God. While the concentration on Israel during Jesus’ earthly ministry is linked to the emphasis on his Davidic Messiahship, the extension of salvation to all peoples of the world of nations is connected with his saving death, resurrection, and exaltation of the Son of God. And just as the universality of salvation determined by the coming of Jesus is from 1:1 on signaled and given as a foreshadowing by the description of his ministry in Israel, but comes to fruition only at the end of his ministry by the sending out of his disciples by the Risen One, so Jesus is, from the very beginning, the Son of God (see on 1:18–25). His manifestation as Son of God, however, in the description of his ministry in Israel, is at first limited to his circle of disciples (14:33; 16:16), who must remain silent about it (16:20; 17:9). It is, then, only in connection with his death and exaltation that it becomes a christological leitmotif and advances beyond the circle of the disciples (cf. the introduction under 2.1). The different horizons of the mission in 10:5– 6 and 28:19 are therefore to be set in relation to the narrative Christology in Matthew: at the center of the Matthean narrative conception is that the evangelist focused the connection between God’s devotion to Israel and the mission to the nations in terms of the development of the messianic identity of Jesus as Son of David and as the Son of God. [19b] The challenge in v. 19b is developed by two participial clauses: People become disciples through baptism and instruction. The baptismal formula “in the name of . . .” points to the frame of reference of the rite into which the baptismal candidate is placed. Here, for the first time in early Christian literature, we find the expansion of the christological reference (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:16) to the triadic formula (cf. Did. 7.1, 3), which probably reflects the liturgical practice of the Matthean church. It may have seemed appropriate that the name of God be specifically used, since for non-Jewish candidates for baptism not only

VI.11 The Commissioning of the Disciples for the Universal Mission

445

the reference to Christ but also reference to the one God of Israel signified the break with their earlier life. But also, in the case of Jews who have come to faith in Christ, this is not meaningless, inasmuch as the reference is to the God who has revealed himself in the mission of Jesus. The phrase “in the name of . . . the Son,” may include overtones of the context of Matthew 12:21 (the Gentiles hope “in his name”). It is implied here, in any case, that the divine sonship of Jesus is now a matter of public proclamation and that the command to silence in 16:20 and 17:9—in accord with the temporal limit set by 17:9 itself—is no longer in effect. The Holy Spirit is also christologically linked with the divine sonship of Jesus (1:18, 20; 3:16–17; 12:18). In the light of 3:11, it can also be assumed that Matthew combined baptism with the conferral of the Spirit. The forgiveness of sins (cf. e.g., Acts 2:38) is not specifically mentioned here, but, in view of its prominent role in Matthew (e.g., 6:14–15; 9:2–13; 18:21–35), is probably implied in the rite designated by this triadic formula. It is hardly the case that circumcision is not mentioned because it is assumed to be practiced—on the basis of the fundamental validity of every iota of the Torah (5:18)—but because, in Matthew’s view, the circumcision commandment (Gen 17) does not apply to believers in Christ from the (other, Gentile) nations. The Matthean Gentile Christians are thus not proselytes in the traditional sense; they do not formally convert to Judaism. This is supported, in the first place, by the fact that the mission to the nations emanates from the circle of the Twelve—now reduced by Judas—where Peter, as primus inter pares (first among equals), supported the agreement in CE 48 between Jerusalem and Antioch for the Gentile mission that did not require circumcision (Acts 15; Gal 2:1–10). In the second place, it must be remembered that, for Matthew, the universal soteriological significance of the death of Jesus brought into being a new situation in salvation history, and the church’s own rites, baptism and the Eucharist, to which Matthew’s Gospel itself testifies (cf. 26:26–28; 28:19), relate believers in Christ to this saving event. Furthermore, the importance which Matthew has placed on the program of active missionary devotion to all peoples, based on the universal authority of the exalted Lord, could hardly be understood if the Matthean church had merely continued the Jewish practice of conversion to Judaism. For believers in Christ from among the Gentiles, baptism is thus the only initiation rite. Ecclesiologically, this is to be related to the fact that, in Matthew’s understanding, the building of the church “first” begins with the post-Easter mission (see on 16:18), that is, this is a “work” of the Risen One, while the circle of the Eleven, instructed by Jesus’ pre-Easter ministry and now commissioned with a universal mission, can now be thought of as the nucleus of the church. The church is thus conceived in universal terms from the very beginning, not “merely” as a special messianic group within Israel. The gathering

446

VI. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus

of Israel continues to be the missionary task of Jesus’ disciples, but this takes place in a community which accepts non-Jews as non-Jews into its membership. [20a] It is characteristic of Matthean theology that the gracious opening of salvation must not remain without practical consequences, but must be manifest in doing the will of God. Baptism is thus accompanied by ethical instruction. It is thus significant that already in 16:18–19 the promise of building the church was joined with the teaching authority of Peter; this connection is here reproduced afresh. For the post-Easter proclamation, the teaching of the earthly Jesus continues to be of fundamental importance. The sequence of baptism and instruction (in Did. 7.1, by way of contrast, the teaching precedes baptism) may indicate that v. 20a designates a continuing didactic process beyond the act of conversion. A central though not exclusive element in “everything that I have commanded you” is the great exposition of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5–7. Verse 20a does not thereby imply that Jesus’ commands replace the Torah; rather, the revelation and unfolding of the will of God formulated in Torah and Prophets constitute an important part of Jesus’ teaching (see on 5:17–48). According to Matthew, the universal mission includes the expectation that believers in Christ from among the Gentiles commit themselves to the Torah, as interpreted by Jesus with authority. In conjunction with v. 18b, v. 20a indicates how the Risen Lord, exalted to the right hand of God, exercises his lordship over the world: not by enslaving those placed under his authority, like this-worldly rulers (20:25), but by teaching them a way of life, in which, according to his commands, love and mercy are at the center. [20b] While the death, resurrection, and installation of Jesus as universal Lord are for Matthew the saving event that grounds the universal mission of the disciples and thus sets in motion the formation of the church (cf. 16:18–19), all this happens under the promise of Jesus’ being-with his disciples (v. 20b; cf. 18:20), which, in conjunction with 1:23, functions to frame the entire narrative (see on 1:23). Everything Matthew has written, including that which has been formulated as ethical instruction, stands within this framework. For that reason alone, it is far too narrow a view to denigrate Matthew’s insistence on the active dimension of being a Christian in v. 20a as “works righteousness.” Read intertextually, Jesus’ promise evokes the broad stream of promises of God’s being-with us (Gen 26:24; 28:15; Exod 3:12; Josh 1:5; Isa 41:10; 43:5; Hag 1:13; and elsewhere). Since Jesus is Immanuel (see on l:23), the presence of Jesus among his own, as promised in v. 20, implies that God himself is with them. Jesus promises his helpful presence “to the end of the world” (cf. 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3), when he will come on the clouds of heaven (24:30; 26:64). The arc Matthew has stretched from 1:1 to 28:20 thus spans from the beginning of the history of election with Abraham or—in view of the allusion to Gen 2:4

VI.11 The Commissioning of the Disciples for the Universal Mission

447

and 5:1 in the phrase “The Book of the Origin” in 1:1—even from the creation to the end of the world. As a promise valid until the parousia, v. 20b speaks directly to the present in which the church lives. A concluding note about the reaction of the disciples or the disappearance of Jesus would only spoil this scene. Thus this encouraging promise to the church sets the emphatic conclusion. With this, the Gospel can end.

This page intentionally left blank

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. L R   C Allison, Dale C. “Who Will Come from East and West? Observations on Matt. 8.11-12 - Luke 13.28-29.” IBS 11 (1989): 158–70. Backhaus, Knut. “Entgrenzte Himmelsherrschaft: Zur Entdeckung der paganen Welt im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 75–103 in “Dies ist das Buch . . .”: Das Matthäusevangelium. Interpretation—Rezeption—Rezeptionsgeschichte. Festschrift für Hubert Frankemölle. Edited by R. Kampling. Paderborn et al.: Schöningh, 2004. Balabanski, Vicky. Eschatology in the Making: Mark, Matthew and the Didache. SNTSMS 97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Blanton, Thomas R. “Saved by Obedience: Matthew 1:21 in Light of Jesus’ Teaching on the Torah.” JBL 132 (2013): 393– 413. Brandenburger, Egon. “Taten der Barmherzigkeit als Dienst gegenüber dem königlichen Herrn (Mt 25,31-46).” Pages 297–326 in Diakonie—biblische Grundlagen und Orientierungen. Edited by G. K. Schäfer and Th. Strohm. 2nd ed. Veröffentlichungen des Diakoniewissenschaftlichen Instituts an der Universität Heidelberg 2. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1994. Burchard, Christoph. “Versuch, das Thema der Bergpredigt zu finden.” Pages 27–50 in Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. WUNT 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ———. “Zu Matthäus 8,5-13.” Pages 65–76 in Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. WUNT 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. 449

450

Bibliography

Doering, Lutz. Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum. TSAJ 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Gielen, Marlis. Der Konflikt Jesu mit den religiösen und politischen Autoritäten seines Volkes im Spiegel der matthäischen Jesusgeschichte. BBB 115. Bodenheim: Philo, 1998. Herzer, Jens. “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; Festschrift für Christoph Kähler zum 65. Edited by Christfried Böttrich et al. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2009. Konradt, Matthias. Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew. Translated by Kathleen Ess. Baylor–Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014. ———. “Matthäus und Markus: Überlegungen zur matthäischen Stellung zum Markusevangelium.” Pages 211–35 in Jesus—Gestalt und Gestaltungen: Rezeptionen des Galiläers in Wissenschaft, Kirche und Gesellschaft. Edited by P. von Gemünden et al. NTOA 100. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Küchler, Max. “‘Wir haben seinen Stern gesehen . . .’ (Mt 2,2).” BK 44 (1989): 179–86. Lau, Markus. “Geweißte Grabmäler: Motivkritische Anmerkungen zu Mt 23.27–28.” NTS 58 (2012): 463–80. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew: A Commentary. Edited by H. Koester. Translated by J. E. Crouch. 3 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001–2007. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich. “Der Stammbaum des Verheißenen: Theologische Implikationen der Namen und Zahlen in Mt 1.1–17.” NTS 46 (2000): 175–92. Theissen, Gerd. “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; Festschrift für Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn zum 65. AGJU 44. Leiden et al.: Brill, 1999. ———. “Die Goldene Regel (Matthäus 7:12//Lukas 6:31): Über den Sitz im Leben ihrer positiven und negativen Form.” BibInt 11 (2003): 386–99. B. C   G R Allen, O. Wesley. Matthew. Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Boring, M. Eugene. The Gospel of Matthew. NIB 8. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.

Bibliography

451

Brown, Jeannine K., and Kyle Roberts. Matthew. The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Evans, Craig A. Matthew. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Hare, Douglas R. A. Matthew. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew. Proclamation Commentaries: The New Testament Witnesses for Preaching. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Powell, Mark Allan. God with Us: A Pastoral Theology of Matthew’s Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Riches, John. Matthew. T&T Clark Study Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1996. Reprint London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel of Matthew. Translated by Robert R. Barr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Schweizer, Eduard. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. NTD 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. 4th ed. 1986. English translation: The Good News according to Matthew. Translated from the 1st ed. by David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975. Senior, Donald. Matthew. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Talbert, Charles H. Matthew. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. C. T A C Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins. A Socio-political and Religious Reading. JSNTSup 204. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997. Fiedler, Peter. Das Matthäusevangelium. THKNT 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006. France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Matthäusevangelium. 2nd ed. 2 vols. HThKNT 1. Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1988/1992. Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Hagner, Donald. Matthew. WBC 33. 2 vols. Dallas: Word, 1993/1995. Harrington, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew. SP 1. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids et al.: Eerdmans, 2005. Turner, David L. Matthew. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

452

Bibliography

D. H  R Gurtner, Daniel M. “The Gospel of Matthew from Stanton to Present: A Survey of Some Recent Developments.” Pages 23–38 in Jesus, Matthew’s Gospel and Early Christianity. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner et al. LNTS 435. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Stanton, Graham. “The Origin and Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980.” ANRW II.25.3 (1985): 1889–951. Senior, Donald. “Directions in Matthean Studies.” Pages 5–21 in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by David E. Aune. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Sim, David C. “Matthew: The Current State of Research.” Pages 33–51 in Mark and Matthew I. Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Settings. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson. WUNT 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. E. S L Aune, David E., ed. The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Baasland, Ernst. Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount: New Approaches to a Classical Text. WUNT 351. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Bauer, David R. The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. JSNTSup 31. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988. Bauer, David R., and Mark Allan Powell, eds. Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Blumenthal, Christian. Basileia im Matthäusevangelium. WUNT 416. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Carlston, Charles E., and Craig A. Evans. From Synagogue to Ecclesia: Matthew’s Community at the Crossroads. WUNT 334. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Carter, Warren. Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. Cousland, J. R. C. The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew. NovTSup 102. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2002. Davies, W. D. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: University Press, 1964. Reprint, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Deines, Roland. Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5,13–20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie. WUNT 177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Foster, Paul. Community, Law and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel. WUNT 2/177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

Bibliography

453

France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. Gurtner, Daniel M., and John Nolland, eds. Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Heil, John Paul. “Ezekiel 34 and the Narrative Strategy of the Shepherd and the Sheep Metaphor in Matthew.” CBQ 55 (1993): 698–708. Kampen, John. Matthew within Sectarian Judaism. AYBLR. New Haven, Conn./ London: Yale University Press, 2019. Kingsbury, Jack D. Matthew as Story. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1996. Konradt, Matthias. Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Edited by A. Euler. WUNT 358. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. ———. “‘Nehmt auf euch mein Joch und lernt von mir!’ (Mt 11,29): Mt 11,28– 30 und die christologische Dimension der matthäischen Ethik.” ZNW (2018): 1–31. Kupp, David D. Matthew’s Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God’s People in the First Gospel. SNTSMS 90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Luomanen, Petri. Entering the Kingdom of Heaven: A Study on the Structure of Matthew’s View of Salvation. WUNT 2/101. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Luz, Ulrich. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. ———. Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. ———. Studies in Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Mayordomo-Marín, Moisés. Den Anfang hören: Leserorientierte Evangelienexegese am Beispiel von Matthäus 1–2. FRLANT 180. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Menken, Maarten J. J. Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. BETL 173. Leuven et al.: Leuven University Press, 2004. Meier, John P. The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel. Theological Inquiries: Studies in Contemporary Biblical and Theological Problems. New York et al.: Paulist Press, 1979. Novakovic, Lidija. Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT 2/170. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Overman, J. Andrew. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Poplutz, Uta. Erzählte Welt: Narratologische Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 100. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008.

454

Bibliography

Repschinski, Boris. 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, 2000. Runesson, Anders. Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew. The Narrative World of the First Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. Saldarini, Anthony J. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community. CSHJ. Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Senior, Donald, ed. The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. BETL 243. Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2011. Sim, David C. The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Stanton, Graham N. A Gospel for a New People. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992. Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. ASNU 20. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1954. Reprint Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Vahrenhorst, Martin. “Ihr sollt überhaupt nicht schwören”: Matthäus im halachischen Diskurs. WMANT 95. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002. Wilk, Florian. Jesus und die Völker in der Sicht der Synoptiker. BZNW 109. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2002. Willitts, Joel. Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd King: In Search of “The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.” BZNW 147. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2007. Wilson, Walter T. Healing in the Gospel of Matthew: Reflections on Method and Ministry. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Ziethe, Carolin. Auf seinen Namen werden die Völker hoffen: Die matthäische Rezeption der Schriften Israels zur Begründung des universalen Heils. BZNW 233. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2018.

SUBJECT INDEX

Abraham, 26, 28–29, 133, 253, 334, 352; children of, 48–49, 133, 168; promise to, 401, 443, 446 Abrahamic sonship of Jesus: see Jesus addressees, 2, 17–18, 134, 143, 161, 163, 166, 232, 306, 321, 343, 354, 360, 380, 425 adoption, 35, 339 adultery, 34, 76, 84–89, 97, 238, 287, 293 affliction, 62, 68–71, 96, 121, 154, 161–66, 209, 349–52, 357–59, 400 angels, 9, 32–34, 43, 55–56, 216, 276, 334, 362, 376–78, 393, 400, 404, 435–38 antitheses, 16, 73, 76–98, 109, 127, 237, 346 apocalyptic, 66, 139, 275, 294, 345, 357 apologetic, 26, 433, 440 apostles, 156; see also twelve disciples Archelaus, 44, 190 authorities, 2–4, 6, 19, 47–49, 171, 181–82, 197–99, 258, 308, 312–19, 321–25, 328, 350–52, 381–83, 406, 455

410–12, 414–17, 419–20, 424–25, 433–35, 439; failure of, 6–7, 13, 155, 234–35, 319, 322; lack of understanding, 16, 75–76, 78, 88, 92, 151, 313, 339–41, 345–46; replacement of, 155, 158, 323; wickedness, 164, 176–78, 209, 215, 340 authority of Jesus: see Jesus, authority of baptism, 9, 117, 191, 254, 290, 346, 444–46; John’s, 46–50, 316, 319, 390; see also Jesus, baptism of beatitude, 63, 65–71, 92, 96, 120 Beelzebul/Beelzebul accusation, 164–65, 184, 192–95, 197, 246, 338 Bethlehem, 33, 39–41, 44, 312 birth of Jesus: see Jesus, birth of blasphemy, 143–44, 195–96, 237, 406, 408–9, 414, 424 blind/blindness, 7, 150–51, 173, 193, 243, 306–8, 312–13; of the Pharisees, 74, 236, 193, 346 blood/blood curse, 9, 44, 349, 351–52, 390, 409–13, 418–19, 429 bread, 54, 102, 105, 114, 117–18, 186,

456

Subject Index

213, 226–27, 240–41, 244, 247–48, 387, 389–91, 404 brood of vipers, 48–49, 196, 199 Canaanite woman, 10, 39, 132, 151, 239–42 Capernaum, 4, 27, 56–58, 63, 128–29, 142, 153, 179–80, 270 chief priests: see high priests child/children, 32, 44, 117, 168, 177–78, 181–82, 227, 240–41, 244–45, 272–75, 289–90, 313; of God, 102, 117, 269–71, 343 children of Abraham: see Abraham Christ/Christ-title, 30, 36, 40, 172, 249–52, 255, 337–38, 343, 357, 368, 380, 392, 416–17; see also Messiah/ messiahship Christ believers/Christians/Christianity: see church; Jewish Christians; Gentile Christians Christology, 3–4, 6–11, 21, 25, 28, 33–36, 38, 50, 127, 188, 229–30, 274–75, 311, 326, 338–39, 392, 396, 426, 443–45 church, 2–4, 10–15, 17–19, 71, 73–74, 122–23, 140, 146–48, 153, 162, 207–8, 216, 248, 252–55, 269–85, 293, 299–300, 305, 327–29, 343, 358, 390–92, 445–47 circumcision, 19, 346, 445 commands/commandments, 16–18, 74–79, 89–90, 90–92, 95–97, 185–88, 233, 235, 238, 290–93, 299, 333–37, 347; see also Decalogue; Torah commands to silence, 8, 129, 151, 190, 255, 264, 307, 445 commission of the disciples, 4, 11, 65, 157–60, 163, 255, 263, 371–72, 440–46 community: see church compassion, 16–17, 68–69, 116–17, 159, 186–89, 277, 283–84, 289, 336, 378–80, 384–85, 409, 446; of God,

15, 106, 151, 279, 283–85, 294, 298, 427; see also Jesus, compassion of confession: of the Messiah, 4, 8, 122–23, 154, 165, 167, 173, 249, 259–60, 370, 405; of sins, 47–48, 411–12; of the Son of God, 3, 8–9, 11, 13, 36, 55, 139, 171, 219, 230–31, 249–53, 311, 430 conflicts/confrontations, 4, 6, 16, 40–41, 45, 142–47, 152, 164, 167–68, 184–89, 191, 231–37, 246, 256, 308, 313–40, 352, 419, 425; between church and Pharisees, 2, 18–19, 23, 78, 247, 270–71, 335, 351–52, 434; withdrawal from, 184, 190–91, 225, 239 congregation: see church cosmos: see world covenant, 14, 390–91 creation (and new creation), 25, 97–98, 103, 111–14, 178, 181, 286–88, 295, 303, 379, 447 cross: Jesus’ way to the, 9, 55, 168, 259–60, 274, 304, 381, 395, 423–25, 427–28, 431; to take up one’s, 12, 168, 174, 260, 271, 305, 394 crowds, 6–7, 62–65, 127, 132–33, 137, 144, 152, 155, 171, 174–82, 193–94, 200–208, 210–11, 213–14, 223–27, 235, 242–45, 256, 286, 310–12, 325, 328, 334, 343, 415–20 crucifixion of Jesus: see Jesus, crucifixion of David, 28–31, 155, 186–87, 313, 324 Davidic sonship of Jesus: see Jesus, as Son of David death of Jesus: see Jesus, death of Decalogue, 16, 76–77, 80–83, 85–87, 97, 234–35, 237–38, 291–92 Decapolis, 62, 141, 243, 245 demands for a sign, 196–98, 245–47 demons, 193, 198–200, 267; expulsion of, 61, 123, 125, 140–42, 159, 194–95, 198, 275, 277

Subject Index

desert: see wilderness destruction of Jerusalem: see Jerusalem devil, 27, 52–56, 106, 141–42, 152, 194–95, 209, 215–16, 247, 259, 262, 378, 424, 428, 441 Diaspora, 23, 133, 162–63, 423 dietary commandments: see food laws disciples, 11, 59–60, 63–64, 69–72, 78, 105–14, 147, 153–71, 186–87, 199–200, 205–10, 214, 218–19, 225–31, 244–48, 251–56, 266–68, 273, 289, 300, 308, 324, 342–43, 392–94, 409; see also commission of the disciples; twelve disciples discipleship, 3–5, 12–15, 38, 59–60, 62–63, 136–39, 145–46, 153–54, 200, 208–9, 230, 256–57, 260, 277–78, 292–96, 306, 431 disputes: see conflict divorce, 34, 86–89, 269, 285–89, 293 double commandment of love, 16, 34, 119, 291, 335–37, 339, 358; see also love, of God; love, of neighbor/enemy doubt, 140, 172, 198, 205, 230, 314, 441–42 dreams, 32, 34, 42–44 Early Judaism, 7, 32, 35, 38, 52, 69, 75, 83, 89–90, 93, 95, 109, 119, 168, 173, 183, 188, 335, 376, 378, 418 Easter, 4, 245, 264, 380–81, 394, 430, 434, 440–41; post-, 9, 12–14, 140, 158, 163, 242, 253–55, 262, 303–4, 326–28, 358, 391–92, 427, 443–46 ecclesia: see church ecclesiology, 3–4, 12, 31, 58, 128, 134, 136, 142, 153, 249, 256, 300, 445 Edom, 62 elders, 48, 233–35, 311, 315–16, 318–19, 321, 323, 330, 382–83, 399, 403, 409, 411–17, 420, 425, 434, 438–39 election, 5, 134, 181, 236, 329, 360–62, 376, 413 Elijah, 47, 54, 149, 250, 263, 265–66, 428

457

Elijah redivivus, 47, 167, 176–77, 250 enemies of Jesus: see opponents of Jesus enthronement of Jesus: see Jesus eschatological banquet, 105, 133, 227, 317, 325–29, 372, 391–92 eschatology, 7, 11, 65–69, 96, 103–5, 107, 115, 120–27, 133–34, 155–56, 163, 166–68, 174–77, 216, 260, 274, 295–96, 299–300, 343, 355–80, 405, 429 Eucharist, 9, 37, 117, 143, 226–27, 389, 391, 445 exile, 28–30, 133 exodus, 44, 65, 183 exorcism: see demons faith, 19, 33, 59, 131–34, 275, 313–14, 347, 440; and healings, 143–44, 149, 151, 221, 241–42, 260; see also little faith false messiahs, 360–61, 363 false prophets, 122–25, 358, 360–61, 363 family of Jesus: see Jesus fasting, 53–54, 99–100, 107–8, 146–47, 187 feast (eschatological): see eschatological banquet feeding miracles, 55, 224–27, 242–45 festival, 268, 270, 312, 382–83, 387, 423, 432 final judgment: see judgment fire, 50, 81–82, 124, 216, 276, 378 following, 132, 150, 305, 307, 343, 422; crowds, 6, 62, 129, 225, 286; as disciple: see discipleship food laws, 16, 18, 74, 237–38, 245 forgiveness of sins, 9–10, 14–15, 37–38, 46–48, 105–7, 136, 142–46, 167, 195, 255, 270–72, 281–85, 294, 389–92, 409, 445 fulfillment (quotations), 1–2, 6, 27, 31, 37, 42–45, 56–57, 74, 77, 135–36, 190–92, 206, 214, 310, 400–401, 412–13

458

Subject Index

Galilee, 23, 44–45, 53, 56–57, 61, 153, 158, 179–80, 213, 223, 245, 268, 271, 394, 431, 437, 441, 443 genealogy, 6, 25–31, 34, 39, 443 Gentile Christians, 17–19, 445–46 Gentiles, 5–6, 9–10, 14, 26, 30–31, 39, 49, 57, 97, 131, 133–34, 158, 160–63, 189–92, 240–42, 245, 376, 390, 401, 441, 443; negative, 22, 97, 102, 113–14, 180, 280, 301–2 gentleness, 67, 69; of Jesus, 181–85, 310, 374 Great Commission, 440–46 Hades, 179, 253 healings, 7–8, 60–62, 127–36, 139–45, 147–53, 172–73, 188–95, 216, 221, 225, 231, 238–43, 266–67, 286, 306–14, 353; of the disciples, 156, 159 hell, 81, 166, 276, 346, 354 Herod Antipas, 131, 222–25, 250, 303, 440 Herod (the Great), 8, 31–32, 39–44, 190, 321, 405, 415 Herodians, 330–31 High Council, 81, 382, 394, 399, 402–4, 409, 411, 424–25, 432; see also sanhedrin high priests, 31–32, 39–40, 48, 198, 223, 301–2, 309, 313, 315, 317–21, 323, 328, 382–83, 385–86, 399, 401, 403–17, 425, 433–34, 438–39 Holy Spirit, 8–9, 33–35, 38, 46, 49–50, 52–54, 56, 162, 165, 190–91, 194–95, 221, 254, 338–39, 443, 445 humility, 4, 66–67, 69–70, 131, 182–83, 271–74, 285, 340, 343, 374 hypocrisy/hypocrites, 100–101, 116, 235, 316, 331–32, 341–42, 345, 349–50, 367, 388, 429 Immanuel, 13–15, 26, 37–38, 42, 191, 231, 353–54, 392, 446 irony, 41, 48, 134, 316, 333, 341, 383, 397, 420, 434

Isaac, 49, 133, 334 Isaiah, 47, 52, 57, 173, 235, 243, 306 Israel, 5–11, 13, 25–26, 31, 57, 131–34, 150–53, 155–59, 161–63, 208, 238–43, 254, 321–24, 390–91, 412–13, 418–20, 441–46; land of, 32, 44, 62, 163, 249; lost sheep of the house of, 6–7, 9, 47, 57, 143, 151, 158–59, 240–41, 250, 393, 425 Jeremiah, 2, 44, 250, 401, 410, 413 Jerusalem, 6–7, 32–33, 39–42, 45, 200, 233, 258, 268, 303–4, 321, 325, 352–54, 418–19, 429, 441; destruction of, 23, 29, 250, 310, 327, 356, 363, 400, 413, 419; entry into, 307–12, 314, 384 Jesus: Abrahamic sonship of, 5, 10, 25–26, 57, 443; authority of, 8–9, 15, 56, 58, 127–30, 132, 135–36, 138–39, 142–44, 149, 224, 229–30, 272, 315–16, 380, 400, 404, 441–44 (see also Jesus: power of ); baptism of, 3–4, 27, 36, 50–53, 428; birth of, 11, 27, 31–41, 43–45, 405, 415 (see also virgin birth); compassion of, 62, 144–46, 151, 155, 159, 225, 240, 244, 259, 277, 286, 306–7; condemnation of, 301, 383, 403, 409, 411, 417; crucifixion of, 258, 302, 304, 382, 417, 419, 421–32 (see also cross: Jesus’ way to the); death and resurrection (and exaltation) of, 9–10, 158, 191–92, 198, 215, 253, 380, 390–91, 405, 427, 430, 443–44, 446 (see also predictions of Jesus’ passion and resurrection); death of, 5, 7, 14, 272, 282, 306, 381–82, 388–92, 428–30, 445; enthronement of, 262–63, 265, 303, 442; exaltation of, 11, 14, 51, 55, 137, 144, 191, 216, 262, 274, 303, 326–27, 392, 405, 426, 442–46; family of, 35, 199–200, 220–22 (see also Joseph; Mary); identity of, 8–9, 11, 26, 36, 52,

Subject Index

54, 171–73, 182, 197, 249–52, 261, 264, 311, 316, 338, 391, 444; as judge, 50, 137, 178, 261, 379–80, 405–6; killing of, 189–90, 302, 321–22, 325–26, 351, 353, 382–83, 409; ministry of, 3, 7–8, 10–12, 56–63, 137, 143, 147, 151–53, 158, 167–68, 170–71, 173–74, 190, 308, 379, 392, 441–45; mockery of, 39, 44, 348, 380, 406, 415, 420–30; obedience of, 8–9, 43, 51, 53–56, 104, 381–82, 395–97, 400, 426, 428, 443; passion of, 3–4, 9, 43–45, 51–52, 55, 141, 144, 162, 189, 191, 256, 265–66, 304, 339, 380–82, 391, 394–96, 413, 430–32, 442 (see also predictions of Jesus’ passion and resurrection); power of, 8–9, 54, 127–29, 131–32, 139, 140–41, 149, 179–82, 194, 220–23, 229–31, 272, 381–82, 400, 421, 426, 442; as prophet, 221, 223, 250, 311–12, 325, 350, 353; rejection of, 5–7, 142, 177–78, 193, 201, 220–22, 248, 322, 324, 444; resurrection of, 11, 264, 322, 434, 436–37, 440, 442 (see also Jesus, death and resurrection of ); as the righteous one, 381, 400–401, 403, 416, 527; as shepherd, 7, 41, 57, 62, 135, 143, 151, 155, 158, 184, 240, 277–80, 311, 376, 393, 425; as Son of David, 3–5, 7–8, 10–11, 25–26, 29, 33–35, 38, 150–52, 193, 240–41, 251–52, 306–7, 310–13, 337–39, 444; as Son of God, 8–11, 33, 35–38, 43, 50–56, 141, 182, 190, 259, 261–65, 337–39, 374, 391–92, 400, 404–5, 424, 426, 430, 442–44 (see also confession, of the Son of God); sovereignty of, 129, 138–39, 149, 225–26, 230, 250, 265, 303, 332, 380, 382, 395–96, 399–400; superiority of, 51, 172, 334, 339–40; teaching of, 15, 58, 61, 63–65, 74, 78, 126–27, 137, 170, 203–4, 220, 255, 288, 308, 315–16,

459

330–31, 340–43, 441, 446; as universal Lord, 9, 14, 26, 191, 215–16, 261–63, 303, 361, 390, 405, 442–43, 445–46 (see also Lord); works of, 152, 172–75, 178–82, 194–95, 205–7, 213, 220–21, 264, 425 Jewish Christians, 11, 17–19, 21–22, 75, 134, 141, 200, 254, 270–71, 360 Jewish-Roman war, 18, 359–60 John the Baptist, 4, 45–53, 56, 59, 62, 107, 146, 171–72, 174–78, 196, 222–25, 246, 250, 266, 268–69, 303, 316–19, 325, 390, 440 Jonah/sign of Jonah, 28, 198, 247, 425, 433–34, 438 Joseph (father of Jesus), 7–8, 28, 31–35, 38, 43–44, 221, 339, 387 Judas, 156, 268, 383, 385–86, 388–89, 398–99, 409–12, 417, 420 Judea, 40, 44–47, 271, 285, 357, 359, 441 judgment, 4, 48–50, 79–81, 83, 87, 115–17, 120, 124–26, 155, 160, 166–68, 179–80, 196, 260, 284, 299, 324, 329, 349–51, 353–54, 367, 371–80, 411, 419, 428–29 keys to the kingdom, 254–55, 324, 346 killing of Jesus: see Jesus kingdom of heaven/of God, 13–14, 49, 58–59, 61, 67–68, 75–76, 104, 113, 124–25, 159, 176–77, 205–19, 254–55, 269, 273–74, 283, 289, 292–94, 322–24 king of the Jews, 7, 10, 39–41, 415–16, 419–21, 424, 430, 441, 443 Law: see Torah lawlessness, 37, 123, 125, 216–17, 349, 358 light, 12, 56–57, 62–63, 70–73, 99, 110, 113, 118, 153, 217, 263, 359, 441, 443 little faith, 2, 15, 111–12, 139–40, 225–26, 230, 244, 247–48, 266–68, 441–42

460

Subject Index

Lord, 15, 122–25, 129, 188, 230, 240–41, 338–39, 368, 370, 374, 388; see also Jesus, as universal Lord Lord’s Supper: see Eucharist love: of God, 98, 114, 335–37; God’s, 65, 96, 98, 180; of neighbor/enemy, 68–69, 76–77, 84, 92, 94–98, 116–19, 279, 288, 291–93, 336–37, 378 macarism: see Beatitude Mary (mother of Jesus), 31, 33–34, 36, 38, 221 meekness, 66–67, 183, 191, 307, 310–11 mercy: see compassion Messiah/messiahship, 4–10, 13, 25, 30–31, 33, 40–45, 150–52, 158, 168, 172–73, 240–41, 250–52, 255, 258–59, 264–66, 309–11, 313, 337–39, 403–5, 425, 443–44 messianic banquet: see eschatological banquet miracles/miracle stories, 125, 128, 136–40, 149, 151, 228–31, 436; see also demons, expulsion of; feeding miracles; healings mission to Israel, 5, 9–10, 29, 57, 132, 155–56, 161, 163, 180, 245, 324, 327–28, 390 mission to Israel and the Gentiles: see universalism mission to the Gentiles/nations, 18, 134, 163, 327, 444–45; see also universalism mockery, 2, 43, 226, 288, 302, 348; see also Jesus, mockery of Moses, 32–33, 54, 64, 129, 263–64, 287–88, 341 mountain, 55, 64, 127–29, 135, 228–29, 243, 261–62, 264–65, 268, 277, 359, 441 murder of prophets/murderers of prophets, 349–52, 419, 429

Nazareth, 33, 45, 56–57, 173, 220–22, 230, 309, 350, 441 non-Jews: see Gentiles oath (swearing), 76, 78, 89–91, 223, 346–47, 405, 408 Old Testament, 1–2, 10, 21, 30, 34–35, 77, 133, 260, 277, 291, 321, 378, 391 opponents of Jesus, 19, 26, 40, 45, 51, 96, 143, 152, 178, 191, 198–99, 219, 235, 246–47, 325, 328–33, 335–36, 338, 353–54, 367, 381–82, 399, 403, 411, 413, 419, 426 parables, 125–27, 201–20, 236, 276–78, 283–85, 294–300, 317–32, 365–75 parenesis, 14, 89, 113, 121–22, 134, 166, 168, 318, 329, 343, 365–66, 379, 416 parousia, 7, 163, 191, 210, 261, 304, 353, 355–56, 363–68, 372, 405, 443, 447 particularism: see Israel passion: see Jesus, passion of Passover, 382, 386–87, 389, 393, 414–17, 420, 432 Paul, 23, 36, 74, 88, 123, 259, 289, 371, 389, 391 peace, 68–69, 84, 96, 160, 167–68 people of God, 5–7, 11, 13–14, 25, 29, 41, 62, 65, 132, 150, 158, 184, 226, 254, 296, 323, 389, 391, 418–19, 441, 443 persecution: see affliction Peter, 8–9, 11, 22, 55, 60, 135, 156, 167, 228–31, 249, 251–55, 258–66, 270–72, 283–85, 295, 324, 392–96, 402–3, 407–9, 441, 445–46 Pharisees, 16–17, 19, 23, 73–74, 78, 100, 122–23, 145–46, 152, 164, 184–96, 198–99, 232–36, 238, 286–87, 315, 330–31, 335–41, 346–48, 351–52, 401, 434; and Sadducees: see Sadducees, and Pharisees; and scribes: see scribes, and Pharisees Pilate, 268, 383, 405, 409, 411, 413–20, 432–34, 438–39

Subject Index

pilgrimage of the nations, 6, 41–42, 133, 312 polemic, 19, 78, 96, 100, 122, 178, 235–36, 246, 248, 340, 347–48, 352, 426, 433 poor/poverty, 61, 66–68, 94, 109, 159, 173, 218, 292–93, 296, 312, 347, 379, 384 possessions, 108–10, 114, 217–18, 260, 269, 283, 290, 292–94, 296, 337, 432 power of God, 112, 166, 268, 314, 333; see also Jesus, power of prayer/praying, 22, 92, 96, 99–107, 117–18, 140, 156, 163, 230, 281, 312, 314, 352, 359–60, 394–98, 427–28, 441 predictions of Jesus’ passion and resurrection, 3–4, 256–59, 268–69, 274, 300–303, 309, 400, 425, 436 priests/priesthood, 30, 129–30, 186, 233; see also high priests promise(s), 6, 26, 29, 65–70, 96, 101, 133–34, 175–76, 182–84, 268, 274, 294–96, 302–3, 314, 318, 358; fulfilled in Jesus, 7, 25, 35, 40, 45, 52, 57, 150–51, 173, 191, 277, 391; of Jesus to be with the disciples, 11, 14–15, 37–38, 392, 446–47; to Peter, 11, 253–55 proselytes, 30, 346, 445 punishment, 83, 162, 171, 195, 216, 275, 354, 367, 374, 376, 413, 418–19 purity, 16, 68, 88, 146, 173, 231–33, 236–38, 336, 348–49 rejection of Jesus: see Jesus remarriage, 88–89, 269, 287–88, 293 repentance, 3, 46–49, 58–59, 61, 98, 107, 146, 159, 179–80, 207, 278, 281, 318–19, 329, 408, 411, 430–31 resurrection, 149–50, 217, 330, 332–34, 429, 440; see also Jesus, resurrection of retaliation, 92–93, 119, 288 revelation, 8, 32, 52, 134, 181–82, 206,

461

214, 219, 229–30, 251–52, 259, 262–65, 416, 441, 445; of God’s will, 74, 76, 78–79, 119, 287, 439, 446 reward, 69, 75, 96–101, 169–70, 269, 296, 299, 372, 374, 377, 380 riches: see possessions righteousness, 50–51, 66–69, 72–73, 75–76, 78, 98–100, 109, 113–14, 121, 169, 214, 216–18, 292–93, 319, 329, 351, 378–79; of Joseph, 34, 38; see also Jesus, as the righteous one Roman governor/authorities, 316, 331–32, 409, 415, 417 Rome, 84, 162, 271, 302, 310, 331, 357, 416 ruler, 32, 36, 40–41, 44–45, 145, 222–23, 305–6; Davidic/Messianic, 8, 35, 41, 52, 183; God as, 47, 103–4, 112–13, 194, 213, 324, 392 Sabbath, 16, 18, 184–89, 336, 360, 433 Sadducees, 270, 332–35; and Pharisees, 46, 48–51, 196, 220, 245–48 salvation, 6–7, 10, 13–14, 26, 36, 66–68, 75, 126, 133–34, 148–49, 167, 183–84, 217, 240–41, 244–45, 282, 293–96, 324, 329, 361, 389–92, 443–46 salvation history, 11, 27–28, 174, 241–42, 265, 405, 445 salvific death: see Jesus, death of sanhedrin, 81–82, 162, 268, 358, 405; see also High Council Satan: see devil scribes, 32, 127, 137, 143–44; Christian, 22, 218–19, 350–51, 420; and Pharisees, 16, 73, 78, 80, 95, 97, 100, 197, 231–35, 254, 340–52, 434; and (high) priests, 40, 302, 311, 313, 403, 425 Scripture, 1–2, 17, 21, 32–33, 52, 54, 65, 74, 125, 145, 186–87, 219, 278, 313, 338–39, 390, 423; see also fulfillment quotations

462

Subject Index

sheep/shepherd imagery, 122, 161, 189, 191, 225, 276–79, 376, 393, 401; false/bad shepherds, 6, 155, 158, 161, 195, 250, 323; see also Israel, lost sheep of the house of; Jesus, as shepherd sign of Jonah: see Jonah/sign of Jonah Sinai/sinaitic covenant, 54, 64–65, 77, 129, 262, 264–65, 390; see also covenant sin/sinner, 105, 143, 236–37, 275–76, 278–82, 350; see also confession, of sins; forgiveness of sins soldiers, 94, 132, 198, 268, 420–23, 430, 434, 436, 438–40 Son of God: see Jesus, as Son of God Son of Man, 137–38, 144, 178, 215, 249–50, 260–63, 268, 361–66, 375–79, 382, 405–6, 427; kingdom of the, 216–17, 261, 302–4, 442 sons of Zebedee, 60, 156, 257, 262, 265, 300–305, 394–95 soteriology, 9, 36–38, 57, 64, 76, 96–97, 120, 124–25, 136, 141, 143, 158, 174, 194–95, 201, 258, 280–81, 291–95, 306, 324, 346, 389–90, 401, 445 sovereignty of Jesus: see Jesus, sovereignty of synagogue, 2, 12, 18–19, 61, 77–78, 101, 148, 162, 220, 248, 352 Syria, 22–23, 30, 62, 239 table fellowship, 10, 145–46, 227, 241 tax collectors, 17, 97, 144–45, 148, 156, 159, 178, 270, 280, 319, 325, 328–29, 411 teaching of Jesus: see Jesus temple, 30, 186, 250, 308–16, 336, 346–47, 353–56, 359, 404, 412–13, 428; tax, 269–71 temptation, 3–4, 9, 27, 52–56, 105–6, 209, 247, 275–76, 335, 397, 400, 424, 428, 441 ten commandments: see Decalogue

Torah, 15–17, 51, 63–65, 72–79, 82–83, 90, 118–19, 123, 125, 145–46, 182–84, 186–88, 232–35, 254–55, 287, 291–92, 324, 334–37, 344–49, 446 tribulation, 167–68, 356, 360, 363 twelve disciples, 3, 7, 11, 17, 29, 145, 156, 163, 170, 255, 261, 295–96, 301–3, 323, 399, 409, 441, 445 unbelief, 133, 221, 267 universalism, 9–11, 14, 17–18, 26, 39, 57, 71, 132–34, 192, 240–41, 245, 254, 357–58, 376–77, 385, 390–91, 440–47 universal judge: see Jesus, as judge universal Lord: see Jesus, as universal Lord virgin birth, 33, 36–38; see also Jesus, birth of wealth: see possessions wilderness, 4, 27–28, 43, 47, 52–54, 56, 175–76, 300 will of God, 12–13, 15–16, 37, 51, 68–69, 72, 74, 76, 91, 103–4, 107, 113, 126, 169, 187, 224, 280, 289, 294, 337, 370, 446; saving, 129, 278; see also Jesus, obedience of wisdom, 8, 35, 39, 66, 69, 84, 86, 93, 109, 114, 126, 166, 178–79, 181–83, 198, 220 woes, 179–80, 254, 275, 340, 344–50, 353, 389, 410 woman/women, 6, 30–31, 84–88, 111, 129, 213, 227, 245, 286–87, 318, 359, 364, 468, 431, 437 world, 12, 55–56, 67, 69, 70–72, 114, 168, 209, 216, 260, 377; see also Jesus, as universal Lord; universalism wrath, 48–49, 327, 396 Zechariah, 310, 351–52, 410, 413 Zion, 310; see also pilgrimage of the nations