Do Not Value Possessions Enough to Worry about Them (6:25-34)
Views on wealth varied among thinkers in the Greco-Roman world, but most people then like most people today pursued whatever material advancement was available. For the wealthy, that meant greater wealth; for most of the Empire, it meant continued subsistence. Those who would associate Jesus’ views strictly with those of Cynic philosophers miss the diversity in both Greek and Jewish thought on wealth. A number of ancient writers expressed the worthlessness of wealth, although some such critics (like Seneca and Philo) apparently ignored their own possession of it.195 Jesus’ Jewish emphasis on depending on God also differs considerably in content from a Cynic emphasis on self-dependence (Witherington 1994: 124). But Jesus lived simply (8:20), and most inhabitants of the Roman Empire would have considered this call to abandon valuing possessions as unduly radical. While uncomfortable with those preaching universal abandonment of possessions, however, ancients might respect those who, like the Essenes, abandoned their own (Jos. War 2.122-27; Ant. 18.20, 22; Philo Every Good Man Is Free 76-87; Hypothetica 11.4; Pliny N.H. 5.15.73; cf. Philo Vit. Con. 34-39).
If disciples really trust God, they will live as if treasure in heaven is what matters (6:19-21; cf. 13:52; 19:21; 1 Tim 6:8-10). Although only the more radical sages of antiquity shared Jesus’ view that earthly possessions were essentially worthless, his illustrations of the point may not have surprised his hearers as starkly original. In 6:19-20 Jesus’ illustration follows a rhythmic pattern that reinforces his point (Tannehill 1975: 48; cf. Kennedy 1984: 60 on the "gnomic effect" of the repetitive "treasuring treasure"). Because people often kept all their monetary savings in strongboxes in their own homes or buried beneath their floor, the danger of thieves and corruption was quite real (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 73; cf. 24:43).196 Precious apparel, considered a treasure (Josh 7:21; 2 Kings 5:22-23; 7:8), could be corrupted by moth (Gundry 1982: 112), whereas precious metals would be corrupted by rust. Idols made of precious materials would succumb to rust and moth alike (Ep Jer 12). What good was wealth if one kept it buried in the ground for fear of thieves (Hor. Sat. 1.1.41 -42)? Ancients often acknowledged the corruptibility of wealth (Sir 34:5; m. ’Abot 2:8); Ben Sira admonishes his hearer to use money for a friend in need rather than letting it rust, for one would thereby lay up treasures according to God’s commandments (Sir 29:10-11).
Jesus’ contemporaries often stressed that obedience on earth led to treasure in heaven (4 Ezra 7:77; 2 Bar. 14:12; 24:1; 44:14).197 Second-century tradition declared that a first-century king who gave to the poor dispensed with earthly treasures to gain heavenly ones (t. Pe’a 4:18). A later teacher insisted that if his disciples sought wealth in this world they would lose their reward in the world to come, where alone their labor in the law would be rewarded (Montefiore and Loewe 1974: 205-6). Yet for Jesus, the treasure is not merely in heaven (19:21); it represents the kingdom of heaven (13:44). Idolaters who value Mammon too highly to abandon it for what Jesus values will have no place in his kingdom (19:21-30; cf. Lk 14:33).
One first-century Jewish teacher insisted that one should value one’s neighbor’s property as highly as one’s own (m. ’Abot 2:12; cf. Ex 22:6; 23:4-5; Deut 22:1-4). But nearly all Jesus’ extant statements on wealth go beyond the rabbinic model; some scholars thus suggest that " closer to Qumran, Jesus disdains all earthly wealth " (Meier 1980: 65; cf. Flusser 1988: 194-95). Qumran, however, practiced a rigid communalism (1QS 6.22-23; Jos. Ant. 18.20; War 2.122; Philo Prob. 85-86; Hypothetica 11.4-5; Mealand 1975), whereas the early Christians shared possessions voluntarily as the needs arose (Acts 2:45; 4:32-35; see Fitzmyer 1966: 243).198 Jesus did not establish a council to enforce his teachings on possessions as at Qumran, but his views were no less countercultural and radical than Qumran’s.
Some other countercultural sages in antiquity also advocated lack of attachment to material possessions. One sage remarked that you can lose only what you have, so if you had had more, you would have lost more; had you had less to lose, you would have complained about not having much (Epict. Disc. 1.18.15-16). Unlike some philosophers, however, Jesus is not against possessions because he supposes them evil (cf. Lucretius Nat. 5.1105-42; Sen. Dial. 5.33.1); the issue is not that possessions themselves are bad, but that a higher priority demands people’s resources. If they value what God values rather than what most societies value, they must value the basic needs of others without adequate resources above the accumulation of possessions beyond basic needs (19:21; cf. Lk 3:11; 12:33-34).
The person whose perspectives are distorted by materialism is blind to God’s truth (6:22-23).199 Other ancient sages also naturally employed illustrations comparing the eye to one’s will (Marc. Aur. 10.35). Those who justify their pursuit of material possessions by comparing themselves with others will blind themselves (cf. 7:3-5) to the truth of their disobedience and affect their whole relationship with God.
Jesus’ illustration about the " single " (NRSV: " healthy " ; NIV: " good " ) eye and the evil eye would immediately make sense to his hearers: a " good " eye was literally a healthy eye, but figuratively also an eye that looked on others generously (Sir 32:8).200 In the Greek text of the Gospels, Jesus literally calls the eye a " single " eye, which is a wordplay: the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible also uses this word for " single " to translate the Hebrew term for " perfect, " that is, " single-minded " devotion to God, setting one’s heart on God alone. Jesus’ contemporaries also used the expression for righteousness (1 Macc 2:60; Test. Iss. 3:5 MSS; Eph 6:5; cf. perhaps " simplicity " or " integrity " in Marc. Aur. 6.30; 7.31; 10.1; 10.9.2; 10.32) and generosity (Albright and Mann 1971: 81; cf. Ps 119:113; Rom 12:8; Jas 1:8). An " evil eye, " conversely, was a stingy, jealous, or greedy eye (Deut 15:9; Prov. 23:6; 28:22; Sir 14:8-10; 34:13; Tob 4:7, 16; m. ’Abot 2:9, 11; 5:19; cf. also Roberts 1963); yet it also signifies here a " bad eye, " one that cannot see properly.201 Jesus used the " single " eye as a transition to his next point, for the " single " eye is literally undivided, seeing the whole picture: thus one is not divided between two masters, as the text goes on to explain (6:24).202
One must love either God or money; the professed lover of both is an idolater (6:24). One must serve someone, but a person whose service is divided will love one master and hate the other. Jewish law addressed possibly theoretical cases of persons who were half-slave and half-free or jointly owned by two persons (m. ’Ed. 1:13; Git. 4:5; Pesah. 8:1; t. Ker. 1:17; b. ’Arak. 2b; B. Qam. 90a; Git. 43a; Hag. 2a; Qidd. 90a; Yebam. 66a); divisions of estates at inheritances could encourage such situations (cf. P. Grenf. 1.21). This seems to have been an uncommon situation (cf. Acts 16:16), but Jesus’ observation seems to have obtained accurately: the slave naturally preferred one master to the other (Groenewald 1967; Beare 1981: 183).203 Jesus warns his audience that one must choose which master one will serve: those who work for possessions will end up hating God; those who work for God will end up hating possessions.204
" Mammon " here was a common Aramaic term for money or property,205 but its contrast with God as an object of service here suggests that it has been deified as well as personified (cf. Sir 34:7; Meier 1982: 66). For Jews, the " worship " of money functioned as a reductio ad absurdum; indeed, even Gentiles would ridicule one who " worshiped " money (Eurip. Cyclops 316). The early Christians extended the principle of not serving two masters to avoiding theaters (where humans were routinely slaughtered for public entertainment, akin to much modern entertainment except that it was not fictitious; Tert. Spec. 26) and to gaining the world and thereby forfeiting one’s soul (2 Clem. 6). But Jesus here applies the principle to one of the greatest temptations: the idolatry of materialism (cf. possibly Col 3:5, though there it may refer to sexual desire).
For those interested in how the text’s radical demands might sound in our culture, I pause here to repeat the lament of North American scholar Craig Blomberg 1992a: 124: " Many perceptive observers have sensed that the greatest danger to Western Christianity is not, as is sometimes alleged, prevailing ideologies such as Marxism, Islam, the New Age movement or humanism but rather the all-pervasive materialism of our affluent culture. " Pointing out that the New Testament also summons churches in one part of the world to look out for the needs of churches elsewhere (2 Cor 8:13-15), Blomberg further reminds readers that because " over 50 percent of all believers now live in the Two-Thirds World . . . a huge challenge to First-World Christianity emerges. Without a doubt, most individual and church budgets need drastic realignment " (Blomberg 1992a: 126-27; cf. also idem 1992b; Schmidt 1988; Hagner 1995: 562).
Do Not Value Possessions Enough
to Worry about Them (6:25-34)
Jesus’ message here picks up his earlier discussion of secret charity (6:1-4). Christians must not seek material gain (6:19-24), but should trust God’s power to provide for genuine needs (6:25-34). Jesus’ culture, of course, defined need quite differently from modern Western society. If God sustains life and protects the bodies of those who serve him, they should not complain if he provides without honoring the symbols of status their culture values (6:25). If he feeds his children like the birds (6:26; cf. 1 Kings 17:6) or clothes them like the flowers (6:28), he will have provided more than what human cultures value, not less (6:29). Yet if God provides for birds and flowers, he will also provide for his children (6:30).206
God promises the basics (6:25-26, 28-30). Jesus twice uses a standard type of Jewish argument traditionally called qal wahomer: " how much more? " (6:26, 30).207 If God cares for birds and for perishable flowers, how much more for people in his image and for his own beloved children (cf. 6:8, 32)? Unlike most modern biologists, ancient naturalists were sometimes also sages, who regarded all God’s creation as a legitimate field for inquiry. Wisdom sayings often addressed nature (e.g., 1 Kings 4:33; Ahiqar col. 6; Sir 43:33; Plut. Cleverness of Animals, Mor. 959B-985C).208 Philosophers regularly drew lessons from nature (see Keener 1992: 42-43, 66), sometimes including that people should " merely ... avert hunger, thirst, and cold " (Seneca Ep. to Lucil. 4, LCL 19) or should not borrow (Plut. Borrowing 7, Mor. 830 B), though unlike animals we do need clothing (Epict. Disc. 1.16.1). They also recognized humanity’s inherent superiority to other animals (Epict. Disc. 1.16.2; 4.7.7).
Jesus draws a lesson from God’s care for birds and flowers (6:26, 30). Although later Jewish teachers prohibited prayers for birds, considering this a trivialization of prayer (m. Ber. 5:3; Jeremias 1971: 182; Urbach 1979: 1:383), they did recognize God’s provision for creatures (cf. Ps 104:24-27; Langer 1991) and that people were worth much more than birds. Jewish people recognized that God knew the exact number of raindrops he caused to fall (2 Bar. 21:8; cf. Mt 10:29). Teachers recognized God’s care for animals in Scripture (Deut 25:4) and sometimes reasoned from this observation to God’s care for people (Cohen 1966: 63; cf. Jos. Apion 2.213; 1 Cor 9:9-10); some emphasized mercy to animals (Test. Zeb. 5:1; Gen. Rab. 33:3; Pesiq. R. 48:2,4). A late-second-century sage allegedly learned that not a single bird hunted by a fowler died or escaped apart from a heavenly decree, and decided that therefore he should emerge from hiding, trusting God to protect him as well (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:16; Gen. Rab. 79:6; cf. Mt 10:29). Another early teacher observed that just as animals and birds, created to serve humanity, did not toil, people, created to serve God, would not have had to toil had they not sinned (m. Qidd. 4:14).209 Jesus, who regards God’s original purpose at creation as still valid (19:4-6), believes that the God who cares for unemployed animals will care still more for his children regardless of their economic situation.
Sheep were the most common grazing animal in the ancient Mediterranean world, so clothes were commonly made of wool, or of linen made from flax; only the rich wore silk, and cotton was not widely used. Poor people often wore wool undyed or, when possible, stained with cheap, dark dye producing a grey or dull brown cloak; for dressier occasions (cf. 22:11) they might wear brighter colors from vegetable dyes, though only the rich could afford the various shades of purple (Cary and Haarhoff 1946: 96-97). People considered their cloaks essential, and the law in fact took this for granted (Ex 22:26-27; Guelich 1982: 339). John had rugged clothing, but at least he had some (3:4). Some early Christians (less given to hyperbole than their Palestinian masters) declared that Christians need nothing more than food and clothing (1 Tim 6:8). But Jesus declares that God can provide for his children adequately even if they lack clothing (cf. also 5:40)! He appeals to the splendor of the fields, whose vegetation is nevertheless used as fuel for baking bread (Blomberg 1992a: 125; cf. Ps 104:27-36); were not people, to whom God gave such use of his creation, more valuable to him than these flowers? Since 6:30 identifies " lilies " (6:28) with " grass, " the term probably refers in a general way to any of Jewish Palestine’s wildflowers (Guelich 1982: 339; France 1985: 141), although some identify them with anemones, which were purple as one might imagine Solomon’s royal apparel to be (6:29; Gundry 1982: 117; Jeremias 1972: 215; for royal purple, cf., e.g., 1 Macc 10:20, 62, 64; 14:43-44). Solomon’s splendor had become proverbial (CIJ 2:83, §837; Jos. Ant. 8.35-41; m. B. Mes. 7:1; Guelich 1982: 340; Vermes 1993: 87n.ll), but it remained miniscule compared to the splendor of God’s creation (cf. Ps 8:1-9). In one ancient story, a powerful king asked a sage if he had witnessed any sight as lovely as the king’s array; the sage responded that he had seen pheasants and peacocks far more beautiful, " for they shine in nature’s colours, which are ten thousand times more beautiful " (Diog. Laert. 1.51, LCL 1:53). A Jewish teacher similarly reminded his hearers that no matter how much wealth a king possessed, only God could send him the rain to produce sustenance (Sifre Deut. 42.1.5). Health matters more than wealth (Sir 30:14-16), as the body matters more than clothing (Mt 6:25). In the end, Jesus teaches here, wealth does not matter, but God’s blessing does, and he will provide it.
Jesus again shames his hearers by reminding them that even Gentiles seek material things (6:31-33; cf. 5:47; 6:7). Pagans seek (NRSV: " strive for " ; NIV: " run after " ) their own needs (6:31-32); God’s children should seek instead God’s agendas, assured that God will care for them in the process (6:33). Even in Jesus’ model prayer, his disciples seek God’s kingdom first (6:9-10; on seeking God and his Torah, see, e.g., Ps 9:10; 27:8; 34:10; 119:2,45; Sir 35:15; 51:13-14, 21; Wis 1:1-2; CD 1.10). The faith Jesus taught was not an intricate ritual to get what one desired, as in later magical texts; his teaching of faith meant obeying God’s will with the assurance that God would ultimately fulfill the best interests of his children. In the Gospel tradition, that kind of faith grows only in the context of an intimate relationship of love between the heavenly Father and his children, the kind of relationship Jesus had with his Father and modeled for his disciples in his relationship with them.
Apart from a few philosophers who advocated concern for only one matter (e.g., Epict. Disc. 1.14), to the average Roman citizen of means, material advancement constituted a basic goal, as it does for most Western Christians (White 1971: 233). Yet nearly all Gentiles, especially the vast majority who were peasants working feudal estates, sought the basics, and some Greek-speaking Jewish writers, eager to perpetuate the notion that the Jews were a nation of philosophers, contrasted themselves with the Gentiles on this point. Other nations " are men of food and drink and raiment, for their whole disposition has recourse to these things, " whereas the Jews disdained such concerns and contemplated only God’s reign over the world (Ep. Arist. 140-41, trans. Hadas 1951: 157).
Jesus not only failed to associate faith with being able to obtain possessions from God, but Jesus did not even associate it with diligently seeking basic needs from God. Pagans seek those things, he warned (6:32); you should seek instead God’s kingdom and his righteous will (6:33; cf. Clement of Alexandria’s report of Jesus’ saying in Jeremias 1964c: 99). Seeking God’s kingdom means valuing what God values and obeying his commands: it is when his people care for others in need among them that God supplies the needs of his people as a whole, perhaps because then he can best trust them to use his gifts righteously (Deut 15:1-11; Blomberg 1992a: 126).210
Jewish people recognized that in calling them to love him with their whole heart and soul, God demanded that they care for him more than for their life or possessions (Sifre Deut. 32.4.2). Jesus and the prophets had faith in the Hebrew sense of ’emunah — a firm, persevering trust (cf. Vermes 1984: 49). Modern readers who wish to hear the text as Matthew’s first audience would have should listen to the text’s demand in its radical fulness.
Anxiety does no good (6:27, 34). Anxiety will not add even the smallest unit of time to one’s life. Some translations read as if one added a cubit to one’s height (Schwarz 1980, speculatively retroverting into Aramaic; cf. Tert. Spec. 23), but the adjective " single " in the phrase " a single cubit " militates against this interpretation. Jesus in 6:27 refers not to adding a " mere " cubit to one’s height — which would be a considerable addition! — but to adding a " mere " cubit to one’s longevity (see Schweizer 1975: 165; Filson 1960: 101; France 1985: 140; cf. Ps 39:5), thus the NRSV translation, " a single hour. " (Though a graphic image, a cubit as a metaphorical time unit was intelligible; cf., e.g., Ap. Rhod. 4.1510.) Jesus may employ intentional understatement here (rhetoricians would have called his figure " catachresis, " whereby a related term substitutes for a more precise one, such as " short power " or " small height " — Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.33.45). Not only is it true that one cannot extend one’s life by worrying; daily experience in our comparatively fast-paced culture confirms the wisdom of an earlier Jewish sage who observed that worry and a troubled heart actually shorten life (Sir 30:19-24; cf. Pub. Syr. 187). If much study is wearying to the flesh (Eccl 12:12), " worry " about wealth also banishes sleep and destroys the flesh (Sir 34:1).
Greek philosophers sometimes disdained such bodily needs altogether, complaining that their bodies were prisons because they were dependent on food and drink (Epict. Disc. 1.9.12) and advising that one turn one’s mind to higher pursuits (Marc. Aur. 7.16). A Greek sage like Epictetus insisted that God would take care of good men, who ought not worry about food (Disc. 3.26.27), although he added that it was no major loss should God fail to provide and the good man die (Disc. 3.26.29; cf. 1.9.19-20)! Jesus never condemns people for recognizing these basic needs; their Father knows that they need food and clothing. Yet he calls them to depend on God for their daily sustenance, a provision that Jewish people considered one of God’s greatest miracles (e.g., Gen. Rab. 20:9; 97:3; Pesiq. R. 33:5), and the most peasants could consistently hope for (cf. Oakman 1992: 118). Jewish teachers often insisted that God cared for Israel’s needs, but only when Israel performed his will (Sifre Deut. 42.3.3). Those who could trust their heavenly Father to care for them (as most first-century Jewish children could depend on their earthly fathers) need not be anxious concerning clothes or food (Ep. Diogn. 9 follows Jesus here).
Unlike some early Christian writers, Jesus makes his point in graphic word pictures; his is the language of the oral literary artist. Like a typical sage, Jesus finally notes that one has enough to worry about for the day without adding tomorrow’s worries (6:34; cf. Prov 27:1; b. Ber. 9b; Sanh. 100b; Yebam. 63b; Epict. Disc. 3.24.26).211 There was no way to predict which of today’s ventures would render success on the next day (Abrahams 1924: 209, citing Eccl 11:1-6 and b. Ber. 9b). Employing the typical rhetorical technique of personification (Kennedy 1984: 60; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.53.66; Cic. De Nat. Deor. 2.23.60-62), Jesus further admonishes his hearers to let " Tomorrow " worry about itself, the sort of admonition that also suits the graphic language of sages (Marc. Aur. Med. 7.16; cf. 12.1.1). Essene law forbade talk about the following day’s work on the Sabbath (CD 10.19), but Jesus’ rest requires continually leaving tomorrow with God, fulfilling God’s true purpose for the Sabbath — rest (11:28-30), just as those who sought Wisdom would quickly be freed from care (Wis 6:15; cf. 7:23; m. ’Abot 3:5).
Yet when Jesus graphically forbids his disciples to worry about tomorrow (6:34; cf. " worries " also in 10:19; 13:22; Phil 4:6), this does not suggest that he expects them to ignore whatever concerns arise. Rather, he expects them to express dependence on God in each of these concerns, praying for their genuine needs (6:11), provided they pray for God’s kingdom most of all (6:9-10; most of Paul’s " concerns " fit this category — 2 Cor 11:28; 1 Thess 3:1-5). Whether or not " bread for tomorrow " is the correct interpretation of the petition in 6:11, Jesus’ exhortation in 6:34 would not prohibit prayer for tomorrow’s bread. Thus another early Jewish teacher could on the one hand daily utter the Jewish prayer called the Amida, the ninth benediction of which sought God for a good harvest, while contending on the other hand, " Whoever has a morsel in his basket and says What shall I eat tomorrow? is among those of little faith " (b. Sota 48b in Abrahams 1924: 106; cf. Mek. 16:4 in Smith 1951: 137).212 True disciples can show God their love for him by trusting his loving purposes for them and leaving the future with him.
Do Not Judge (7:1-6)
Cf. Mk 4:24-25; Lk 6:37-42; 8:18. The rhetoric of this section, like many of Jesus’ other sayings, employs familiar techniques like hyperbole that may have moved an ancient audience to laughter. In this case, Jesus would have been employing such Middle Eastern humor (cf. Pilch 1995) to disarm his audience and communicate his message with intensity.
Matthew continues to arrange Jesus’ teaching in a relevant, pastoral way to his readers. Jesus probably followed many topics at some length in his teaching before changing the subject, and the oral tradition of his teaching probably continued the process of arrangement. But Matthew has a special penchant for arranging Jesus’ sayings, so it helps us to notice how he ties different blocks of Jesus’ teaching together in the Sermon on the Mount. He retains at least 7:1-5, 12, 15-27 from the extant version of Jesus’ sermon on this occasion (cf. Lk 6:31, 37-38, 41-49), which provides an extended sample of his teaching.
But both these and other teachings obtain special nuances by their context in Matthew’s whole sermon. Thus, just as outward acts of righteousness can be misleading (6:1-18), disciples should avoid external evaluations of individuals altogether (7:1-5) and certainly not trust all religious claims (7:15-23). Just as Matthew’s promise concerning giving (6:19-34; cf. Lk 11:34-36,12:22-34) picks up his earlier discussion of private charity (6:1-4), his promise concerning prayer (7:7-11; cf. Lk 11:2-13, which includes the prayer of Mt 6:9-13) expands his earlier discussion of private prayer (6:5-15) and probably " seeking " the kingdom first (6:32-33). Jesus’ admonition to self-examination (7:1-5), warning that few will enter God’s kingdom (7:13-14), observation that one’s behavior reveals one’s character (7:15-20), and caution that one’s life and not just lips must acknowledge Christ (7:21-23) suitably climax in his final warning that only those who obey his teaching will endure the judgment (7:24-27).213
Paul seems to allude to this judgment saying in Romans 2:1 (cf. 14:1, 10, 13; also Hagner 1993: 169); James 5:9 may also allude to it. Warnings about judging or accusing God’s servants are, of course, much more ancient (Ps 109:6, 20, 29). The principle of reciprocity in 7:12 apparently forms an inclusio (a framing device; cf. 5:3, 10) with 7:1 (the NIV’s " so " in 7:12 means " therefore, " connecting it with its preceding context): since what you do will be returned to you, make sure you do what you would like to have done to you. In the context in Luke, who includes more sayings on the subject, giving and receiving God’s mercy includes being like God (6:35-36; cf. Mt 5:45, 48). In both Matthew and Luke, this text reminds the sermon’s readers that one cannot take the kingdom’s demands seriously without also embracing grace.
Judging assumes a divine prerogative. The second line of 7:1 declares that the person judging " will be judged. " It is not impossible that when Jesus first taught the crowds, he offered a proverb about human reciprocity: people will think ill of a critical, judgmental person (cf. 7:12). But another reading fits as well, and in this context, commentators are correct to read this line as a future divine passive indicating that God will judge conclusively on the day of judgment (Gundry 1982: 120-21; France 1985: 142; see 7:13-14, 25-27). The final judgment belongs to God alone, and those who seek to judge others now usurp God’s position.
By this point in the sermon, a disciple who has been taking the Matthean Jesus’ words seriously might well be too introspective to focus on judging others anyway. The graphic language of Jesus’ teaching so far (5:3-6:34) challenges its hearers to a radical personal commitment to God’s kingdom and righteousness that should scare them into attending to themselves. But just in case the hearers had been too obtuse to grasp that point in 5:3-6:34, Matthew renders it explicit in 7:1-5. One dare not assume God’s prerogatives by withholding forgiveness (6:12-15) or judging (7:1-5). Disciples are instead objects of God’s evaluation, and God evaluates most graciously the meek, who recognize God alone as God and judge. One should note, however, that Jesus warns against assuming God’s prerogative to condemn the guilty, not against disciples’ discerning truth from error (7:15-23). Further, Jesus does not oppose offering correction, but only offering correction in the wrong spirit (7:5; cf. 18:15-17; Gal 6:1-5).
The discourse recognizes that right beliefs about judging are inadequate. Although Jesus regards scribal and Pharisaic righteousness as inadequate (5:20), it is not because the scribes and Pharisees professed the wrong doctrine on this issue. The popular early sage Ben Sira warned that if one takes vengeance, God will take vengeance for one’s sins (Sir 28:1), if one forgives others one will be forgiven by God (28:2), if one hates others one does not merit God’s pardon (28:3). Another early sage, Hillel, reportedly declared, " Do not judge your neighbor until you have been in his situation [lit., ’his place’] " (m. ’Abot 2:4/5).214 Other early sages also insisted that one should assume the best of any person (ARN 19, §41B; cf. b. Shab. 127b).
As noted above, the issue is not failure to discern, but hypocrisy in judging others for one’s own faults. Later rabbis declared that one should " remove [one’s] own blemish first, " giving the example of a rabbi who deferred a case to correct his own behavior before he ruled that another must do the same (Abrahams 1924: 118; see other examples in Bultmann 1968: 107; cf. b. Rosh Hash. 16b; Gen. Rab. 98:4). Greek and Roman sages offered similar wisdom: for example, one must solve one’s own problems, and only then may one turn to criticizing others accurately (Demosth. 2d Olyn. Or. 27); we see others’ faults more quickly than our own (Longinus Sublime 4.1; Phaedrus 4.10; Babrius 66; Sen. Dial. 4.28.6-8). Likewise, " Practice nothing in your deeds for which you condemn others in your words " (Isoc. Nic./Cypr. 61, Or. 3.39, LCL 1:110-13),215 which seems to have become part of common moral wisdom (cf., e.g., Juv. Sat. 2.9-10, 20-21; 14.38-40; Plut. Profit by Enemies 5, Mor. 88F-89A).
Not only the basic principle but the very image of measuring back what one measures out (7:2; what goes around comes around) was proverbial wisdom. In the marketplace one would measure out to others the appropriate portions of what they were purchasing (e.g., m. Besa 3:8). This image had become a Jewish maxim, however: " By the measure by which a man metes it is measured to him " (judgment in the present era in m. Sota 1:7; b. Sota 8b).216 Perhaps only one stream of Jewish tradition applied it to the day of judgment as Jesus does (cf. Rüger 1969), but it is at least implied elsewhere: a person judged mercifully by another ( " with the scale weighted in my favor " ) prayed that God would also judge the other mercifully at the judgment (ARN 8A). Jesus’ contemporaries often affirmed his principle and even used the same kind of illustrations, but Jesus demands more than agreement from disciples: he demands obedience (7:24-27).
One blinds oneself by rationalizing away one’s guilt (7:3-5; also 6:22-23; cf. Rom 2:1-3; Tert. Apol. 39.14). A splinter or wood chip in one’s eye might render one blind, but a plank imbedded in one’s eye would certainly render one blind. The image (possibly borrowed from a carpenter’s workplace — France 1985: 143) is graphic, even hyperbolic (Tannehill 1975: U4-18):217 consider the absurdity of one’s walking around with a thick roof beam protruding from one’s eye (as if either end of it would even fit!), totally ignorant of one’s impossibly grotesque state. Just as one would not want someone blind leading one into a pit (15:14; 23:16), one would not want a blind eye surgeon operating on one’s eyes.218 Only one who sees well is competent to heal others’ source of blindness (cf. 9:27-31; 20:29-34); thus one must " pluck out " (cf. 5:30) any impediments to sight.
Even when one is right, one should not impose the truth on others against their will (7:6). Jesus’ saying in 7:6 is certainly authentic; although unattested elsewhere, it is inconceivable that Matthew would simply create a saying that fits his context with such difficulty (also in favor of authenticity, cf. the Aramaic rhythm in Jeremias 1971: 25). Its meaning is unfortunately less clear than its authenticity; as Schnackenburg puts it, the saying is " rätselhafter " and " dunkel " (1985: 72-73). Perhaps because the saying seems to make such little sense in its Matthean context, interpretations of 7:6 abound.
Some think that the " dogs " here are the Gentiles (15:26) and the pearl the gospel of the kingdom (13:45-46; see Meier 1980: 69-70).219 The specific connection between dogs and Gentiles some have drawn in other Jewish texts (Man-son 1979: 174 cites especially 1 Enoch 89) appears but is not well-attested enough (given other usages) to insure this meaning, however (Abrahams 1924: 195; Johnston 1977b: 596; Vermes 1993: 89). The image of dogs even in 15:26 is not quite as wholly negative and demeaning as it is here (see comment there), so it is unlikely that the saying ever applied to the Gentile mission (see Jeremias 1958: 20n.8), despite other possible limitations on that mission in the history of the Matthean community (perhaps 10:5). Certainly Matthew would not have understood the saying as prohibiting the Gentile mission, because he views Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount as applicable in his own day (7:21-27; 28:19), whereas the prohibition of preaching the kingdom to Gentiles (10:5) was restricted to the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry (28:19). Had Matthew had an isolated saying that his readers might have understood as prohibiting the Gentile mission, he surely would have placed it in the context of 10:5-6, not here. Other attempts to narrow the saying’s object to prohibiting sinners from the Eucharist, as in the Didache (9.5; cf. Llewelyn 1989 on the redactional level; rejected in Fenton 1977: 110) also exceed our evidence.220
Nevertheless, Matthew’s audience, hearing the Gospel more than once, might interpret this saying in the light of 15:26. In that case, the saying might warn against giving miracles (cf. 7:7-11) to those unwilling to be part of the family, just as Jesus demands faith and submission rather than bestowing his power like magic (15:22-28). In this case the saying forces people to press in to become disciples (13:10-12); it would qualify both the following context about prayer and the preceding prohibition against " judging, " inviting disciples to discern " dogs " from God’s children. Still, both 7:6 and 15:26 appear preredactional, and it is possible that Matthew intended no connection; had Matthew intended an obvious connection, 7:6 would have fit better closer to the pericope of the Canaanite woman.
In its most general sense the logion probably was simply a wisdom saying like Proverbs 23:9: " Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, who will only despise the wisdom of your words " (NRSV; cf. also Syr. Men. Sent. 328-32). Some thus suspect that Matthew has apostate Christians in view (Meier 1980: 69-70; Guelich 1982: 354). Dogs may refer to the wicked or oppressors more generally (cf. Ps 22:16, 20; 59:6, 14-15; Prov 26:11; Gen. Rab. 63:8; 65:1; Ex. Rab. 9:2).221 It was also commonly known that stray scavenger dogs — the main kind encountered in the towns of Jewish Palestine (Tob 5:16 probably reflects Diaspora thought) — growled at those feeding them as much as at passing strangers (Isoc. Demon. 29, Or. 1). Clearly these are people who do not value what disciples have to offer them, like swine who find what looked like peas or acorns to be inedible instead (A. B. Bruce 1979: 129-30). Swine proverbially lacked appreciation of value (Prov 11:22), and even people " trampled underfoot " what they viewed as worthless (Mt 5:13).
Its possible sense in its present Matthean context has provoked a variety of proposals; after all, Matthew had some reason for including the saying where he did, even if it is not a perfect fit.222 Some therefore connect the saying to the preceding context by suggesting that it means that it is worthless to try to correct (7:1-5) someone unwilling to listen (cf. Sen. Ep. Lucil. 29.2-3); one should let the person be as a Gentile (18:17, assuming again the identification of dogs and Gentiles; cf. van Zyl 1982). But in this case, given the possibility that the self-evaluated person would evaluate others in verse 4, one would expect verse 6 to contain some note of disjunction (Schweizer 1975: 170-71). Others note that while disciples should not judge (7:1-5), some people should be avoided (A. B. Bruce 1979: 129-30) and disciples must exercise discernment (Guelich 1982: 353; France 1985: 144); these suggestions are noteworthy but likewise fail to explain the lack of disjunction. Still others contend that 7:6 functions as an illustration of 7:1-2: judging others is like giving food to dogs, and being judged like one’s gifts and oneself being trampled (Bennett 1987).
Most likely, 7:6 provides a transition between the preceding and following contexts. One commentator suggests that just as people are careful how they measure and to whom they give (7:1-6; cf. Hesiod W.D. 354: Give only to one who gives), God will do likewise, giving only to those willing to receive from him, forgiving the forgivers and being merciful to the merciful (7:7-11; Fenton 1977: 110). A similar interpretation might combine the strengths of several of the above proposals: correcting those who will not receive correction is futile (7:1-5; Prov 9:8; 23:9); one should discerningly continue to offer wisdom or the gift of the kingdom (cf. 13:45-46) only to those willing to receive what one offers, just as God does (7:7-11). In this case the text sounds a note of reciprocity to be repeated in 7:12 (Keener 1993: 64). If 7:6 means something along these lines, it does not allow one to prejudge who may receive one’s message (13:3-23), but does forbid one to try to force it on those who show no inclination to accept it (10:13-16; cf. Carson 1984b: 185; Blomberg 1992a: 128-29; Hagner 1993: 172).223
Good Gifts Guaranteed (7:7-11)
Cf. Lk 11:9-13. Jesus’ call to prayer in this passage opens with a typically Semitic step parallelism (Bailey 1976: 48; cf. Manson 1979: 32; Jeremias 1971: 25; Tannehill 1975: 46-47):
A Ask, and it will be given you
B Seek and you will find
C Knock and it will be opened to you
A’ For everyone who asks receives
B’ And the one who seeks finds
C’ And to the one who knocks it will be opened
Matthew did not elect to place this passage on prayer in his longer section on the subject in 6:5-15, but the present passage fulfills important functions in its immediate context. The image behind " asking " is that of a dependent child making a request of his or her father (6:8-9; cf. 21:22); the image of giving a gift may continue the thought of 7:6 suggested above.224 Contextually, the supreme object of " seeking " is the kingdom (6:33; for the food he mentions, cf. also 8:11; on " finding, " cf. 10:39; 11:29; 13:44; 16:25); though disciples ask God to supply their material needs (6:11), they do not " seek " them zealously (6:32-33; cf. 1 Tim 6:5-11). The door to be opened is the gate of salvation (7:13; contrast Lk 11:5-13). Thus it is possible that Matthew’s emphasis in this section is prayer for God’s rule (cf. 6:9-10).225 Another possible sense of the context is that if one should not judge others (7:1-5), one may nevertheless pray for them (cf. 18:15-20). In either case, the specific application of the saying in a given context depends on its more general principle concerning how God hears prayers of faith (21:21-22; cf. 14:28-31). That Matthew and Luke felt free to reapply the pericope in various ways suggests that the tradition already applied it in a general manner, probably in accord with Jesus’ teaching to his disciples on faith.
God can supply anything to the righteous who seek his purposes (7:7-10). This pericope emphasizes some important lessons: First, Jesus promises his disciples extraordinary power with God, like that of Elijah of old. In this case, the Gospel narratives and other " charismatic " sayings (e.g., Mk 9:23; 11:22-25; Jn 14:13-14; 15:7; 16:23-27; cf. Jas 1:5) demonstrate that Jesus was not speaking figuratively, but training disciples to express bold faith (cf. 6:8; 18:19; 20:20; 21:21). Early Jewish teaching did celebrate God’s kindness in answering prayer (Hagner 1993: 174), but rarely promises such universal answers to prayer to all of God’s people as the language here suggests.226 Only a small number of sages were considered pious enough to have such power with God. Judaism had a tradition concerning men of God with holy chutzpah, or boldness, who could request and receive anything they asked from God (e.g., Lachs 1987: 171-80; Keener 1991b: 138-39; Vermes 1993: 198; citing, e.g., b. Ta’an. 25b; 26b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 22:2). Both the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Gen 32:26-30; Ex 33:12-34:9; 1 Kings 18:36-37, 41-46; 2 Kings 2:2, 4, 6, 9; 4:14-28) and the Gospel tradition (Mk 5:27-34; 7:24-30; 10:46-52; Mt 8:7-13; Jn 2:3-5) provide examples of such bold faith. Greek tradition sometimes valued sages’ impudence (e.g., Diog. Laert. 6.2.34), and Jewish sages also respected persistence (e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 22:2). But Vermes and others have drawn attention especially to a tradition of Jewish holy men like Honi the Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa, who could pray and receive almost anything from God. The most crucial model for such holy men is probably Elijah, who despite his human frailty (1 Kings 19:4) could summon fire from heaven against those potentially threatening his life simply by declaring, " If I am a man of God, may fire come down from heaven " (2 Kings 1:10, 12-15). James, a sage who may move in the general Matthean circle, likewise tells us that Elijah was a person of flesh and blood just like his audience,who through faith could have access to the kind of miracles that Elijah had (Jas 5:16-18).
Second, it presupposes that the petitioners will be as committed to God’s purposes as Elijah and like-minded servants of God were. Such a call to believing prayer supposes a heart of piety submitted to God’s will; although Jesus states the promise graphically, he implicitly addresses only disciples, who will seek the good of God’s kingdom and provision for their basic needs (6:11, 19-34). Jesus’ promise is for the righteous — people who share kingdom values in 6:19-34, who ask God to supply their basic needs and requests concerning the kingdom. But beyond this significant limitation, Jesus’ promise might have amazed and troubled his first hearers (most proposed parallels in Dalman 1929: 230; Smith 1951: 137-38 resemble the wording only, not the concept). Jesus’ disciples were to be prophets (5:12) and holy persons whose requests God would hear, like Elijah or Honi of old.
Third, this passage’s context suggests the kinds of prayers Matthew intends such righteous people to offer. They seek first the purposes of God’s kingdom (6:9-10, 31-33; cf. Ps 9:10; 24:6; 27:4, 8; 34:14; 63:1; 69:6, 32; 70:4; 119:45; 122:6-9; and especially Prov 2:4-5; 8:17; Is 55:6; Jer 29:13) and provision for their own basic needs (6:11). " Good things " (7:11) is not very specific; it sometimes referred to agricultural produce that the righteous would then share with others (Test. Iss. 3:7-8), and at other times to prosperity more generally (Sib. Or. 3.659-60, 750; cf. Test. Jos. 2:7). Some traditions (probably foreign to both Jesus and Matthew) suggested prayers for " good things " in general because one could not know what was good, for any specific gift one might seek could produce harm (Pythagoras in Diod. Sic. 10.9.8; Diog. Laert. Lives 8.1.9; contrast Mt 6:11-13).227 Yet the specific examples Jesus gives that children would request are basic staples in the Palestinian diet — bread and fish (meat was a rare luxury; see Safrai 1974/76b: 747).228 Of course such requests fit the image in the parable; often such staples might be all that Palestinian Jewish fathers could provide their children on a regular basis.229 But they also indicate the sort of range Jesus’ promise includes: the basics he had already promised his hearers (6:25-34). Jesus later provided bread and fish for his followers (14:19-20; 15:36-37), encouraging Matthew’s audience that the risen Lord would also hear their requests for provision for their lives and the work of the kingdom (6:11; 10:8-13, 40-42).
God’s Fatherly care for his children is their assurance that he will answer them (7:11; cf. 6:8). God, who gives " good gifts " to his children, may not grant a child’s request for something harmful (in contrast to some pagan expectations concerning misplaced prayers — Ovid Metam. 2.44-102; 3.287-98, 308-9; 11.100-105; 14.129-53),230 but he will not withhold any good thing from those who desire and seek what is right (Ps 37:4; 84:11). Jewish scholars typically argued by means of " how much more " arguments (qal wahomer):231 if a principle is true in the lesser case, how much more in the greater.232 Thus another sage perhaps a century after Jesus taught, " If a member of a man’s household is well-treated, how much more a member of the Creator’s household? " (Sifre Num. 88, cited in Smith 1951: 138; Lachs 1987: 142). As Tannehill points out, " The vivid oddness of considering whether we fathers might respond to the needs of our children in a harmful or capricious way makes distrust of the heavenly Father appear unnatural " in 7:7-10, which the " how much more " of 7:11 reinforces (Tannehill 1975: 133).
Reciprocate good deeds in faith (7:12). Cf. Lk 6:31. If those who condemn others are condemned (7:1-5), God clearly operates on a principle of reciprocity; thus one must do good to people in advance of their doing good to one, trusting God to reward one later. The principle in this context is: as one gives, it will be given to one by God in the day of judgment (cf. also Test. Zeb. 5:3). If God is the example of giving (7:7-11), one should give whatever people need (5:42). How one treats others (7:12) reveals one’s character (7:16-20), hence one’s eternal destiny (7:13-14, 21-23).233
This golden rule was a widespread principle of ancient ethics.234 This principle coopts the principle of retaliation (Judg 15:11; Prov 24:29); in societies where honor was rewarded and shame avenged, one who did harm to others invited harm in return (cf. Num 35:16-25; Judg 1:7, 9, 24, 56; Ps-Philo 11:10-13; Hesiod W.D. 709-12; Diog. Laert. 1.69; Phaedrus 1.26; Gen. Rab. 96 MSV). Such a context naturally invited meditation on the fact that one ought to treat others as one wished to be treated (the positive form of the rule) and not treat others as one did not wish to be treated (the negative form of the rule). The positive form of the rule appears as early as Homer and recurs in Herodotus, Isocrates, and Seneca (Danker 1972: 86; Meier 1980: 70); the negative form appears in Tobit 4:15 ( " And what you hate, do not do to anyone " ) and in Philo (Hypothetica 7.6).235
Another early Jewish work employed a form that straddled both, advising a king: " Just as you do not wish evils to befall you, but to participate in all that is good, so you should deal with those subject to you and with offenders " (Ep. Aristeas 207; trans. Hadas 1951: 181). Although some commentators have tried to disparage the negative form by contrast with the positive (seeking to make Jesus’ rule here more distinctive), they mean essentially the same thing; both biblical law (Lev 19:18) and Paul (Rom 13:10) define the positive commandment of love by means of negative commandments (Sanders 1992: 258-59; cf. Guelich 1982: 360-61).
Apart from its function as an epitome of the law, the saying was probably a proverb before Hillel (Moore 1971: 2:87), as its earlier occurrence in Tobit and its later appearance without citation in a story of an early second-century rabbi indicate (see Dalman 1929: 226; Montefiore and Loewe 1974: 172-73). The principle that God requites what people have sown is also ancient (e.g., Judg 1:7; 9:24, 56).
One who observes this basic principle will fulfill all the basic principles of the law the way God intended them (cf 5:21-48; 22:37-40). Later Jewish tradition declares that the sage Hillel, who taught before Jesus did, had already seen this rule as " the heart of the law, " as Jesus also put it (possibly drawing on contemporary Greek concepts of the unwritten law — Jeremias 1963: 3). As the story goes, a Gentile approached both Hillel and his rival sage, promising each that he would convert to Judaism if the sage could teach it to him concisely ( " while standing on one foot, " which was proverbial for doing something with ease, e.g., Hor. Sat. 1.4.10; plausibly but less likely, Jospe 1990 prefers reading rgl as the Latin " rule " ). Hillel declared, " Do not do to your fellow what you hate to have done to you. This is the whole Law, entire; the rest is explanation. Go, learn! " (b. Shab. 31a as quoted in Moore 1971: 2:86-87).236 By echoing the Matthean phrase " law and prophets " in 5:17, this epitome joins that statement as pivotal expressions of the sermon’s ethics (see Luz 1989: 429-30).
This principle must guide one’s daily treatment of others. The principle is so natural that it appears in cultures totally isolated from the ancient Mediterranean, including Confucian teaching from sixth-century-B.c. China (verbally almost identical to the negative formulation above; see Jochim 1986: 125). The commonness of this principle should not surprise us because one of the most natural rules of ethics is that a person extrapolates from his or her own worth to that of others, and hence values others as oneself (cf., e.g., Sir 31:15); thus every person is morally responsible to recognize how he or she ought to treat every other person.
In Matthew’s ethics, no one so insensitive as to demean another human being on account of that person’s social station (e.g., a child — 18:3-4; 19:14; 21:16) warrants God’s mercy (5:7; 6:14-15; 7:1-5). This is the law of love, the principle by which Jesus epitomizes the entire humanward aspect of God’s law (22:39-40; cf. Jn 13:34-35), a principle Jesus’ earliest followers never forgot (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; 6:2; Jas 2:8) What is distinctive about Matthew’s citation of the principle is its relation to the day of judgment in this context (7:1-2, 13-14; contrast Lk 6:31, where it naturally fits the flow of Lk 6:27-36//Mt 5:38-48).
Present Claims versus Future Judgment (7:13-23)
Cf. Lk 6:43-46; 13:23-27. Most first-century Jewish people believed that they were saved by virtue of descent from Abraham (3:9). Yet Jesus regards the assumption of salvation as a deception; most of his contemporaries were unsaved (7:13-14). Those who led them showed by their lives that they were not God’s true representatives (7:15-20); indeed, professing servants of Christ would themselves be banished from God’s presence in the judgment (7:21-23), for only those who truly obeyed Jesus’ teaching would stand (7:24-27). Matthew intends this part of the discourse not only to challenge his community’s opponents but to prevent his community from becoming like that of those opponents.
The way of salvation is narrower than Jesus’ hearers think (7:13-14). Greek and Roman writers fairly often employed the image of the two paths in life (Sen. Ep. Lucil. 8.3; 27.4; Diogenes 30 to Hicetas; Aune 1987: 197; cf. the Pythagorean version of a narrower way in Athenaeus Deipn. 10.77; Porphyry Wit. Pyth. 42; Thorn 1994: 106) or two ways after death (Virg. Aen. 6.540-43; Cic. Tusc. Disp. 1.30.72). Jewish pietists also stressed the two moral ways (Deut 30:15; Ps 1:1; m. ’Abot 2:9; Test. Asher 1:3, 5);237 early Christian literature developed it further (cf. Did. 1:1-6:2; Barn. 18:1-21:9; see Kraft 1965: 134-62), and those particularly concerned with the future judgment especially employed the image of the two ways, the narrow one leading to life (cf. 19:17) and the broad one to destruction (4 Ezra 7:3-16, 60-61; 8:1-3; Test. Abr. 11A; 8B).238 The story is told of a pious first-century teacher, Johanan ben Zakkai, unsure on his deathbed whether he will proceed on the road to paradise or the one to Gehenna (ARN 25A; b. Ber. 28b; Gen. Rab. 100:2; cf. Gen. Rab. 96:5); other accounts similarly depict those two roads after death (ARN 25A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:2; cf. Gen. Rab. 59:6; 69:7).239
To enter the narrow gate of the kingdom one must knock — that is, request that God make one a citizen of his kingdom (7:7-8).240 The difficulty of Jesus’ way is that it includes persecution (5:10-12).241 As in the first chapter of the Didache, the narrow way of life includes the ethics taught in Matthew 5.
Most Jewish people in Jesus’ day were religious; respecting God and keeping his commandments were important parts of their culture. These would be the " many " people of whom Jesus’ hearers would think when they heard him. Yet Jesus, like a few of his more scrupulous contemporaries (4 Ezra 7:45-61; 8:1-3; cf. b. Sukk. 45b), declared that most people were lost.242 (In Luke, many Gentiles enter in while many of Abraham’s descendants are excluded — Lk 13:22-30; cf. Mt 8:11-12.) Matthew does not want his audience to devise methods for calculating who is more likely to " make it in " (7:1-5); they already know that they are a minority. Yet such words might jar even them from complacency, recalling Jesus’ teachings about temper, mental chastity, integrity, and so forth (cf. 5:21-48).
True prophets obey Jesus’ teachings (7:15-23). Jesus urges his followers here to " take heed " (7:15; cf. 6:1; 10:17; 16:6,11; customary hortatory language, e.g., Marc. Aur. 10.8.1; Tob 4:12, 14; Test. Dan 1:2), and surrounds the basic warning with an inclusio ( " know them, " 7:16, 20; cf. 7:23). Like the false prophets of old (Jer 5:31; 6:13-14; 8:11; 23:13-17; Ezek 13:1-16; Mic 3:5-8), those against whom Matthew warns in the context of 7:15 probably proclaim a gospel of false peace, setting forth an easy way that neglects God’s true demands (7:13-14; France 1985: 147; cf. Hill 1972: 151). Matthew elsewhere warns against false prophets (7:22; 24:5, 24) and apostate Christians and leaders in the church (24:12, 48-51). Jesus elsewhere applies the present denunciations of fruitless trees against the religious leaders of his day (12:33; cf. 3:8, 10; 21:19; 23:3; for earlier agricultural images see, e.g., Is 5:2; Hos 10:1, 12-13), but because his words in this context address prophets one suspects that Matthew wants his own generation to take notice (cf. Meier 1980: 73-74).243
Prophets falsely promising swift messianic deliverance remained inside Jerusalem after the Christians left in a.d. 66 (Jos. War 6.285-88), and possibly reputedly Christian prophets claimed to portend Jesus’ return in the years surrounding A.D. 70, when it seemed that the second coming was about to be fulfilled (24:34). Jesus’ words are not only polemic against enemies of the faith from the outside; they are also warnings to those who claim to be his followers. The reader dare not restrict the title " hypocrites " to Jesus’ religious contemporaries (6:2, 5, 16; pace Did. 8.1-2); Matthew clearly warns that God’s subsequent servants may share the same fate (24:51).244 This passage presents his audience with several lessons.
One must evaluate prophets by their fruits, not by their spiritual gifts (7:15-23). Although the term for " do " is very common, the language of the passage may establish an implicit contrast between merely doing " miracles (7:22) and " doing " the Father’s will (7:21). More plainly, these false prophets (7:15) claim to have prophesied, exorcised, and effected miracles by Jesus’ name (7:22; cf. perhaps 24:5). Although one could find in this passage Jewish exorcists’ attempts to use God’s sacred name (12:27; Jos. Ant. 8.47; cf. m. Sanh. 10:1; Bietenhard 1967: 243; PGM 1.168) — as yet unaware of their judge’s identity as Jesus (cf. 25:31) — it almost certainly refers instead to false Christian charismatics whose disobedience Christ finally reveals (10:26; Aune 1983: 223). " In his name " means " as his representatives " (e.g., 10:41-42; 18:5; cf. 21:9) rather than implying the use of magical techniques by which ancient exorcists invoked names of higher spirits to expel lower ones (cf. Acts 19:13-16). Although some could prophesy and work signs by demonic power (in conjunction with Jewish beliefs on false prophets, cf., e.g., 24:24; Jer 2:8; 23:13; especially 2 Thess 2:9; Rev 13:13-16), biblical precedent warned that one could prophesy and yet be lost (1 Sam 19:24).
Matthew is not anticharismatic — that he must warn his community against the wrong kind of prophets, yet fails to attack prophetism in general, strongly suggests that he and his community both accept some prophets as genuine (5:12; 10:8, 40-42; 23:34; cf. Michaels 1976; Hill 1979: 156; Aune 1983: 215; Schweizer 1995: 151). The Didache similarly provides moral tests for prophets precisely because its community accepts the validity of prophets (e.g., Did. 11.3-12). NRSV’s " evildoers " in 7:23 is literally " workers of lawlessness, " those who violate God’s law articulated in 5:17-20 (lawbreakers rather than libertines; cf. 23:28; Ps. Sol. 1:8; 17:18; Meier 1980: 73-74; Gundry 1980: 132-33; Davison 1985). Jesus’ words about fruit thus refer to repentant works (7:21; 3:8, 10), recalling Jesus’ ethical teachings in 5:21-7:12.245 Jesus uses a word for bad fruit that often means " rotten, " though here the meaning is " worthless " (Manson 1979: 32). Many ancients recognized that, despite all pretense, an evil person’s nature was bound to emerge (Livy 3.36.1; Prov 27:22; 1 Tim 5:24-25); the Greek sage Antisthenes had reportedly complained that states will perish once they prove incapable of discerning good and bad people (Diog. Laert. 6.1.5).
Once inside the church, false prophets and their teaching will cost the spiritual lives of some disciples (7:15). Although people disguising themselves in sheepskins could sometimes pass as stray dogs or other animals temporarily (Jos. War 3.192), Jesus is employing graphic hyperbole here (wolves do not wear clothes, and changing one’s hide was a metaphor for the impossible — Jer 13:23; Jub. 37:20). By coming in sheep’s clothing, the false prophets pretended to be sheep (7:15; Acts 20:29-30; and perhaps Sib. Or. 7.134-35 echo this saying), though they were in fact hungry wolves who had come to prey upon sheep (cf. 10:16); ancients viewed wolves quite negatively (e.g., Epict. Disc. 1.3.7; 2.4.11), and the enmity of lambs and wolves was by now proverbial (e.g., Is 11:6; 65:25; 1 Enoch 89:15, 55; Jub. 37:21; Hor. Epode 4.1-2; cf. Horn. 11. 22.263; Virg. Aen. 9.566; Ovid Metam. 1.505; 5.626-27; 6.527-28; Phaedrus 1.1; Babrius 89; 102.8). Others naturally compared stealthy, nocturnal human predators to wolves (Ovid Metam. 14.778) or employed " hungry wolves " as a metaphor for warriors (Hom. II. 16.156-57, 352). Further, the image of a human trying to sneak forward disguised in a wolfskin (Eurip. Rhesus 209-15; Longus 1.21) or sealskin (Hom. Od. 4.435-55) or hidden beneath sheep (Odysseus’s men slipping past Polyphemus in Hom. Od.) was widely known in the Greek world, and Aesop’s fable of the wolf in sheep’s clothing may have been this early and may have circulated in Palestine (some of his fables influenced some rabbinic texts; Davies and Allison 1988: 704, following Schwartzbaum).246
God will expose the true state of people’s hearts on the day of judgment (7:19, 21-23). " On that day " (7:22) refers to the final " day of the Lord " (cf., e.g., 10:15; 24:36; Is 2:11, 17, 20; 11:10-11; Joel 1:15; 3:18; 2 Thess 1:10; Kingsbury 1975: 27).247 Some people may have claimed that they accepted Jesus as a great teacher, yet no more than a teacher. Yet a central component of Jesus’ teaching (here from Q material) is the revelation of his identity, admittedly in veiled terms at first. In this passage, as in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus claims the role of final judge (Argyle 1963: 63; France 1985: 149). Whether suppliants may have greeted Jesus with " Lord, Lord " (7:21) during his earthly ministry (Cullmann 1959: 202), other teachers did not suppose that God would judge hearers primarily on the basis of their words (cf. Lk 6:46-49; Mt 25:11; 2 Clem. 4); indeed, " Lord, Lord " could function as a divine address (Test. Abr. 9; 10A; but doubling names is particularly characteristic of that document — 14, 15A; cf. Jub. 18:1, 10; 23:3).248 Luke’s version of the judgment scene (Lk 13:25-27) likewise indicates that the judge on the final day will be Jesus who ate and drank with them, a connection that his former associates will vainly endeavor to exploit in a manner customary of Near Eastern hospitality (Lk 13:26).
Not those who claim to " know " or be " known by " Jesus, but only those who do the Father’s will (cf. 6:10; 18:14; 21:31; 26:42), have any in-group claim on Jesus (12:50). Jesus thus borrows biblical language for righteous enmity toward the wicked (Ps 6:8; 119:115; 139:19) to banish them from his presence (7:23; cf. 25:41). " I never knew you " is a formal repudiation of the person (25:12; cf. 10:33; 26:70, 72, 74; France 1985: 149); also used in mild rabbinic bans, it is far more serious here (b. ’Erub. 53a; Mo’ed. Qat. 16a; p. Mo’ed. Qat. 3:8; Carson 1984b: 193; Lachs 1987: 150).249
Obeying Jesus’ Words (7:24-27)
Cf. Lk 6:47-49. Jesus’ sermon concluded with this final parable before Matthew edited it (see Lk 6:46-49); both in the source and in Matthew, Jesus’ sermon on ethics climaxes with Christology, which provides the authority for his ethics.250 Earlier in the sermon disciples suffer persecution on account of Jesus (5:11; cf. 10:18), and Jesus " fulfills " Torah (5:17); here he appears as the eschatological judge (7:21-23; cf. 3:11-12; 16:27; 19:28; 25:31-46; Stanton 1993: 320).
Jesus again employs typical wisdom language familiar to Jewish sages (e.g., Tuttle 1977), but Jesus is clearly more than a sage here. Although some Jewish teachers debated whether knowing or obeying the law was more important, since one could not obey it without knowing it (m. ’Abot 1:17; 3:9, 17; 5:14;Sifra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.4; Sifre Deut. 41.2.5-6; b. Qidd. 40b; p. Hag. 1:7, §4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:10; Song Rab. 2:14, §5; Dalman 1929: 64),251 nearly all agreed that obedience was essential (e.g., ARN 24A; b. Sanh. 106b; Yoma 86a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:9; Lev. Rab. 35:7; Num. Rab. 14:10; cf. Ep. Arist. 127; contrast p. Hag. 2:1, §§10-11; Ruth Rab. 6:4). Some held that knowing without obeying led to judgment (Sifre Deut. 32.5.12; b. Sanh. 106b; Yoma 86a; Deut. Rab. 7:4; cf. Jas 1:22).252
One early second-century teacher, while illustrating this point with many examples, went so far as to say that one who studies Torah and has good works " may be likened to " one who lays a foundation of stones and then of bricks, so that rising water or rain cannot overturn it. But one who studies Torah and has no good works is like one who builds with bricks on the bottom, so that even a small amount of water overturns it (ARN 24A; a similar example is found in Bultmann 1968: 202). The language of this example is almost as similar to Matthew’s as Luke’s version of the parable is (cf. Gundry 1982: 135).
Jesus here refers to his own words as Jewish teachers generally referred to God’s law (Jeremias 1972: 194; Argyle 1963: 64; Luz 1989: 452). The label " sectarian " (a demand to follow Jesus rather than other teachers; Meeks 1986: 138) may therefore constitute an understatement! The language at least implies that Jesus is God’s prophetic spokesperson (Ezek 33:32-33) but is more authoritative than is typical even for prophets; in this context (7:21-23; cf. 18:20), the claim is far higher. Neither Matthew nor his tradition allows a reader to be content with calling Jesus a great teacher or prophet (16:13-16); one must either accept all his teachings, including those that demand submission to his Lordship, or reject him altogether. For the early Christians, Jesus was not one way among many; he was the standard of judgment.
The Hebrew Bible often employed the rock image for the security Israel had in God if they obeyed him (e.g., Deut 32:4,18, 31; Ps 18:2, 31,46; 1-9:14), as in a time of flood and disaster (Is 28:14-19); other biblical images may also be indirectly relevant (see on Mt 16:18): a house was built by wisdom (Prov 24:3; cf. Ps 127:1; Jer 22:13). The storm could represent any test,253 but in this context it surely points especially to the final test, the day of judgment (e.g., Jeremias 1963: 8-9; Heil 1998: 23-35; cf. the test of the final tribulation in Jeremias 1972: 169). The ultimate storm here may recall the flood that Jesus elsewhere uses to prefigure the final day (24:37-39; Schweizer 1975: 191, citing also Ezek 13:10-16; cf. 1 Enoch 94:7). One commentator wryly observes that the Hebrew Torah " ended with blessings and curses; so much the more, the ’Torah’ of Jesus! " (Meier 1980: 75).
Jesus’ clear assurance of deliverance in the final test contrasts with the fears of some of his contemporaries. Many Greeks had little certainty of the afterlife (Plato Apol. 29AB; Phaedo 64A; Lucian Demonax 43). According to later accounts, the great teacher Johanan ben Zakkai was unsure which of the two ways he would take when he died (Bonsirven 1964: 167-68; Sandmel 1978b: 202; cf. fear of death in Test. Abr. 1.10A). The tellers of these accounts probably intended to emphasize Johanan’s humility (Sanders 1977: 228; Sandmel 1978b: 244), and some later teachers proved considerably more self-assured, even possessed of holy chutzpah (Gen. Rab. 62:2; 92:2). After all, Judaism believed that Jews by virtue of their Jewishness would inherit God’s kingdom unless they broke covenant with God by casting off the law (cf. 3:9). Nevertheless, no disciple could long utter ben Zakkai’s words, for then they would be doubting Jesus’ promise (cf. 2 Clem. 18:1-2). The bold promise and warning that Jesus offers here, and especially what the text implies about his identity, exceeded the bounds of academic propriety observed by most ancient scholars, especially in the stream that became the rabbinic movement. Jesus spoke publicly with unparalleled authority (7:28-29; cf. 8:9; 9:6; 21:23).
Jesus’ Hearers Recognize His Claims to Authority (7:28-29)
Cf. Mk 1:21-22; Lk 7:1; Jn 7:46. Each of Jesus’ five major discourses in Matthew concludes with the formula, " And when Jesus had finished speaking these words " (or, in 13:53, " these parables " ), which was a relatively natural way to conclude a section (Ex 34:33; Jub. 32:20; 50:13; Allison 1993b: 192-93 compares Deut 31:1, 24; 32:45). Four of the five discourses also close with a parable that invites continued reflection (Jones 1995: 173).254 The crowds respond to Jesus’ teaching as disciples and groups of people often responded to his other acts: with awe (8:27; 9:8; 12:23; 22:33; cf. Jn 7:46). What amazed them so much about Jesus’ teaching was not his use of proverbs, parables, hyperboles, and other standard pedagogic devices of his day; what astonished them was his claim to authority, a theme that climaxes in 28:18.255 Other Jewish teachers regularly cited earlier sages’ opinions (cf. Meier 1980: 76; Gundry 1982: 137; Morris 1974: 109), and though later teachers sometimes came to regard their tradition as tantamount to God’s word, Jesus’ contemporaries never would have said, like Jesus, that people would be judged according to how they treated a particular teacher’s words.256 With greater authority than the scribes who expound the law, greater authority than Moses who gave it (5:1), the authority indeed of the one who will judge humanity on the final day (7:21-23), Jesus declares God’s word, and the people recognize that he speaks with authority unlike their other teachers.