The Doubts of a Man of God (11:1-6)

The Doubts of a Man of God (11:1-6)

The Doubts of a Man of God (11:1-6)

Cf. Lk 7:18-23. After Matthew rehearses for his own missionary church Jesus' instructions to his first disciples, he summarizes the actual historical mission as tersely as possible, moving almost directly from the instructions to Jesus' ministry in the cities where disciples had prepared the way (11:1; cf. 10:15, 23). In Luke's narrative concerning the seventy-two the disciples report the amazing victories God has given them in Jesus' name (10:17), and Jesus turns their attention to something greater (10:18-20). But Mark's account of the sending of the Twelve (6:7-13; cf. Lk 9:1-6) inseparably connects the disciples' mission (again summarized tersely — 6:30) with the end of John the Baptist's life, which Mark recounts at great length (6:14-29; cf. Lk 9:7-9). John must contact Jesus through messengers because John is in Herod's prison, soon to face execution for his bold proclamation (14:3-12). Disciples of the kingdom who prepare Jesus' way in power (11:1) need to remember the first one to prepare the way for Jesus (11:10); those who receive Jesus' power (10:7-8) must also bear his cross (10:17-39).

Most modern scholars, including even Bultmann, accept the saying in 11:5-6 as authentic words of Jesus (Davies and Allison 1991: 244). The saying is difficult to dispute: Jesus' roundabout response to John is characteristic of Jesus' responses, fitting both the messianic secret and a Near Eastern teaching style; the gospel for the "poor" coheres with other Q tradition about Jesus (5:3//Lk 6:20); and it exhibits Semitic structure. The setting of the saying also stands a good chance of being authentic.¹ The account is devoid of standard Christian portraits of Jesus (emphasizing atonement or Lordship) and traditional Christian titles ("coming one" hardly qualifies).² Further, although Matthew and other early Christians had reason to stress John's testimony for Jesus (3:14), he here reports John's doubts and does not even conclude with a clear statement of John's renewed faith (Meier 1994: 135). The tradition here is thus authentic, not a creation of early Christian imagination (Witherington 1990: 42-43, 165; Sanders 1993: 94; Wink 1989).³

By this narrative, Matthew encourages those whose faith is tested for the work for the kingdom (11:2-3, 6). One could argue that this narrative criticizes John's unbelief. Does not Jesus' response to John's question in 11:4-6 constitute a rebuke? And does not Jesus diminish John's status vis-à-vis that of the disciples in the second half of 11:11? Further, in the time of Matthew's source ("Q") some of John's followers may have been competing for their master's honor vis-à-vis that of Jesus (cf. Acts 18:25; 19:3; later, Daniélou 1964: 62; Ps-Clementine Recognitions 1.54); one can therefore see why some early Christian traditions would emphasize his weakness.

But an argument that views John negatively misses the very thrust of the passage. Jesus could confront John's question no more graciously than he does in 11:4-6, quite in contrast with how he addresses his opponents and even wayward disciples (16:23; 23:13-33); far from invoking judgment as on one who had seen much and believed little (11:21-24), he had John's disciples recount to John what they had now seen for the first time (11:4-5) and pronounced a blessing on him if he would persevere (11:6). He calls John his promised forerunner (11:10), Elijah (11:14). He further chides a generation for not receiving that prophet (11:18-19; cf. 10:41), and makes John the greatest figure of history so far (11:11), even if John does not get to hear all the compliments (11:7). ("Those born of women" was idiomatic biblical language for "human beings" in general.) When Jesus announces that disciples of the kingdom are greater than John, he is exalting the disciples, not minimizing John; he uses John for the comparison precisely because he is so significant in God's plan (see comment on 11:11).

John has already recognized Jesus' identity (3:14); now, in prison, he seems discouraged and doubting, but Matthew's biblically literate community might find this less startling than most modern readers. Pursued by Jezebel and finding that even the fire at Mount Carmel had not been sufficient to dislodge idolatry from the land, Elijah asked God to take his life (1 Kings 19:4). Pursued by Saul and frustrated by continual obstacles to God's promises, David nearly committed an act that would have stained the rest of his career, had God not intervened through wise Abigail (1 Sam 25:21-35). Most of his life the only prophet of his generation speaking judgment, torn by the hatred and impending destruction of people he loved, Jeremiah cursed the day of his birth (Jer 20:14-18; cf. 15:10). Dismayed by the long delays in God's promises to Israel, the psalmist protested his people's humiliation (Ps 89:38-51). Matthew shared the early Christian perspective that servants of God were frail like other people (cf., e.g., Jas 5:16-18; 1 Cor 15:9-10; 2 Cor 4:7-12). Limited weaknesses in generally reliable characters may even facilitate reader identification.

Thus it seems most likely that Matthew recorded John's struggle with doubt not to condemn John, but to encourage subsequent disciples (like the evangelists commissioned from his community) whose faith would be tested by hardships: "Blessed is the one who does not stumble on my account."⁴ Yet even for such a prominent servant, Jesus provides a warning: no mortal is incapable of falling. In view of its serious use in the Gospel tradition (e.g., 5:29-30; Mk 9:42-47; cf. especially 21:42-44), the language of stumbling here suggests that one's response to Jesus determines one's place at the final judgment (Witherington 1990: 43-44).

Second, God does not always act the way his servants expect him to act (11:2-3). According to the Gospel tradition, John's expectations of Jesus were correct but incomplete, as would be self-evident to eschatologically oriented followers of Jesus after the completion of his earthly ministry. Some scholars doubt the compatibility of this narrative with the one in Matthew 3; after all, how could John recognize Jesus' Messiahship yet later question his identity (e.g., Kraeling 1951: 130; Mason 1992: 159)? But the narratives make excellent sense together, for Jesus' ministry had so far fulfilled none of John's eschatological promises; John had preached that the Coming One would baptize in the Spirit and fire, casting the wicked into a furnace of fire (3:10-12). John's questions arose when he heard of Jesus' deeds (11:2-3), not in spite of them. Thus when John asks if they should look for "another," "another" is in an emphatic position and the specific term emphasizes "another of a different kind" (Gundry 1982: 205). In contrast to the expectations of some of his contemporaries, John's expectations about the Messiah's future role were right; but John did not know that Jesus had another mission before the coming judgment. Jesus urged him to believe nonetheless.⁵

Third, Matthew and his tradition contend that the answers to John's questions were already present in Scripture (11:4-6). Jesus may not yet baptize in fire or even in the Spirit, but his signs showed that he was clearly the Spirit-endowed One who would baptize in the Spirit later (3:11, 16). As Jesus performed miracles, he alluded to a passage in the Old Testament, Isaiah 35:5-6, which mentioned some of the same signs he was performing. In so doing he reminded John's disciples that the works he was performing might be less dramatic than a fire-baptism, but Isaiah had already offered them as signs of the messianic era (Goppelt 1964: 77; Jeremias 1972: 116; Borg 1987: 165).⁶ The deeds Jesus lists were considered messianic in some streams of Jewish thought (Stanton 1995a: 186-87 cites 4Q521; 1 lQMelch 18); 4Q521 may blend imagery from Isaiah 35 with that of Isaiah 61 and other precedents, perhaps Elijah's miracles (for discussion, see Wise and Tabor 1992; Tabor and Wise 1992; Collins 1994).

Besides John's messengers' "seeing" Jesus perform the miracles of Isaiah 35, Jesus allowed them to "hear" the good news he preached to the poor (11:4-5), fulfilling Isaiah 61:1 (cf. Lk 4:18).⁷ Jesus knew his mission, and John's doubts did not make him insecure; but he knew that John would recognize the words of Scripture. While he is using Isaiah, he reminds John that God himself would be a stumbling stone to Israel and Judah (Is 8:14-15), but not to those who trusted him (Is 8:13; Mt 11:6). Although the phrase derives from Q (Lk 7:22) and is how ancients sometimes expected witnesses to testify of their works (Jos. Life 263), it may be significant on the Matthean level that Jesus here uses a characteristic Matthean phrase associated with witness when he instructs John's disciples: "As you go, tell John" (cf. 10:7).

Receiving Prophets and More-Than-Prophets (11:7-15)

Cf. Mk 1:2; Lk 7:24-28; 16:16. Those who embraced Jesus' prophets embraced him (10:41); yet most of Israel had accepted neither John the prophet nor Jesus (11:16-19), hence they invited greater judgment than wicked cities that had heard less of God's message (11:20-24). After encouraging John's faith, Jesus praises John's mission (11:7-15). Perhaps he does so only after the messengers' departure (11:7; Lk 7:24) because it is not for a disciple to know the magnitude of his or her service until the final day (10:26; 25:21), but in any case Jesus used the event that had just transpired as an opportunity to provide the crowds an object lesson about the kingdom (11:11-12).⁸

First, John's sacrificial lifestyle proved that he was truly a servant of God (11:7-8). In parallel questions, Jesus begins by affirming what John was not: first, he was not a moral weakling, easily blown by public opinion or human authority (contrast his persecutor in 14:5; cf. 21:46; 22:46). People who proved too weak for the test that awaited them were compared with the weak, tall papyrus reeds, easily moved simply by the wind (1 Kings 14:15; 2 Kings 18:21; 3 Macc 2:22; cf. Is 42:3; Ps. Sol. 8:5; Mt 12:20; Babrius 36; a later example in Manson 1979: 68); in this respect he may compare favorably with Jesus' disciples (cf. 8:26). The banks of the Jordan, the site of John's baptism, hosted reeds growing as high as five meters; this may have provided the immediacy of the image (cf., e.g., Gundry 1982: 207; Theissen 1991: 26). John was no easily bent reed.⁹

Second, John was no pampered prince or court prophet who might be tempted to prophesy for hire. Some genuine royal prophets had found a home in royal courts, but only in those few generations when kings were godly enough to welcome their counsel (or when rare kings themselves met the ideal of being prophetically empowered themselves; cf. 1 Sam 10:1, 5-6; 2 Sam 23:2-3). In most generations false prophets outnumbered true prophets there even when they claimed to be Yahweh's prophets, because they were really the king's prophets (1 Kings 22:22-23). In times when true prophets were severely persecuted, some of them lived in the wilderness, as in the days of Elijah (1 Kings 17:3; 18:13; cf. 2 Kings 4:38-44; 6:1-3). John was a prophet in that mold. He had nothing to gain from his prophesying except the approval of his God.¹⁰

By contrasting John's wilderness lifestyle favorably with the luxury of a royal court, Jesus both praises one model and denigrates the other. Although Herod Antipas was only a tetrarch, he would have been the first "king" to come to most of Jesus' Galilean hearers' minds (Theissen 1991: 36). Similarly his palace, consisting of more than one building, could also be described in the plural as "houses" (Jos. Life 66; Theissen 1991: 36); or perhaps Jesus alludes to the fact that Antipas had another fortress palace at Machaerus, where John was imprisoned (14:3; France 1985: 194). Had Jesus' words been reported to Antipas, the latter might have taken them personally whether Jesus intended them that way or not. Although John the Baptist's public denunciation of Antipas's sin led to his imprisonment (14:3-5), John's fate does not lead Jesus to speak much more guardedly.¹¹

Second, what makes a servant of God great is the message that servant bears (11:9-10, 13-14). Unlike Elijah and unlike the disciples, John in the Gospel tradition reveals no signs (cf. Jn 10:41), but what made him the greatest prophet until that point was that he had the honor of introducing Jesus himself. The greatness of John thus implies something about the greatness of Jesus. At the least this made Jesus the Messiah (Jeremias 1966a: 130). Yet Matthew surely intends much more (1:23). Because the text Jesus cites to prove his case refers to preparing God's way (Mai 3:1), and Jewish tradition usually viewed Elijah as preparing God's rather than the Messiah's way (cf. Edgar 1958: 48; Manson 1979: 69; Mai 4:5-6), Jesus dramatically implies his own divine status here (Gundry 1975: 214), although his first disciples probably would not have dared assume he meant that.¹²

Jewish people usually viewed the era of the prophets as ending with Malachi (cf. Keener 1991b: 77-91); Jesus continues it until John, who becomes the pivotal first voice of the new order when those greater than the prophets (5:12; 10:41; 13:17; 23:34) will speak. Thus John's movement represents "the dividing line between the old and the new age" (Dibelius 1949: 50), or at least the first stage of the new age. But Jesus' concern here is hardly neat historical divisions to aid students memorizing time lines;¹³ instead he may allude to the Jewish recognition that the law and prophets pointed to the coming messianic era (b. Ber. 34b; Sanh. 99a; Shab. 63a; earlier attested in Acts 3:24), which had now confronted them in his own ministry (12:28).

Jesus' praise of the Baptist in Matthew 11:9-l 1//Luke 7:26-28 is certainly authentic; the later church, sometimes concerned with John's undue popularity, would hardly have invented it (Hill 1979: 46; Stanton 1995a: 167-68). Yet it is quite easy for those unfamiliar with ancient Jewish rhetorical practices to misunderstand the character of his praise. The suggestion that Jesus denigrates John in 11:11 ("the least in the kingdom is greater than he")¹⁴ rests on inadequate understanding of ancient Jewish speech patterns. The editor of Kings allowed superlative praise of two kings to stand (2 Kings 18:5; 23:25); the editor of Joshua likewise probably spoke hyperbolically in affirming that God had never listened to such a human entreaty before (Josh 10:14; cf. Ex 8:13; 2 Kings 6:18). Jesus' contemporaries and successors developed hyperbolic and superlative praise still further: rabbis called Johanan ben Zakkai "the least" of Hillel's eighty disciples not to demean Johanan but to praise Hillel as a teacher (ARN 28, §57B). Thus Kraeling (1951: 139) comments that 11:11 exemplifies standard Jewish rhetoric:

In a single passage in the Mekhilta, for instance, we have statements about both Joseph and Moses that use the same expression. About Joseph it is said, "there is not among his brethren one greater than he," and about Moses "there is not in Israel one greater than he." As used in Jewish texts such statements are not to be taken as blanket judgments. . . .

Further, Jesus' division of time into eras hardly means that John would be excluded from the future kingdom; those before the kingdom nevertheless would participate in it (8:11).

John's role was great because of the greatness of the one he introduced. If disciples of the kingdom have a greater role than John, it is not because they are more devout than he was; it is because they proclaim a fuller message of the kingdom, because they can look back and understand what John did not (see above on 11:2-3): the kingdom is not only future but was present in Jesus (11:12; 28:18-20). The "least" in the kingdom is greater than John in the sense that anyone in the kingdom has a fuller message than those who spoke beforehand; but in another sense of the phrase, the "least in the kingdom" is the greatest in the kingdom because God evaluates disciples according to their faithfulness in deferring all honor to him (18:1-4).

Finally, the kingdom belongs to those who contend for it (11:12; cf. Lk 16:16). The gospel tradition agreed with what was probably the prevailing Jewish view of that era: roles may be determined by God's gracious calling, but the calling does not erase human responsibility (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.13). Many people thought that the kingdom would come by violent revolution against the Gentile nations, a view that Jesus clearly rejected (5:5, 9, 41). Some think that Jesus is rejecting such a program here, censuring revolutionaries or social bandits (e.g., Cullmann 1956b: 20-21; Betz 1968: 53; Oakman 1992: 121; cf. Moore 1989). Others take the more likely approach that Jesus censures those who opposed Jesus, John, and the kingdom (Catchpole 1978; Thiering 1979; Patte 1987: 161; Blomberg 1992a: 188). On this approach, one might well read "violence" as "forcible acquisition,"¹⁵ in which case Jesus here reprimands those who laid claim to the kingdom but without just, legal claim (Llewelyn 1994: 156). Like the wicked tenants of 21:33-43, these people seek to lay claim to the kingdom "without God's consent" (Llewelyn 1994: 156-57, 162).

But especially in its Lukan form the text does not read like censure, and it is not clear that Matthew intends the saying in this sense either.¹⁶ This logion may be a wisdom teacher's riddle (Stein 1978: 18): Jesus regularly borrowed images from his society and applied them in shocking ways, and thus may speak favorably here of spiritual warriors who were storming their way into God's kingdom now (10:34-35).¹⁷ One second-century Jewish tradition praises those who passionately pursue the law by saying that God counts it as if they had ascended to heaven and taken the law forcibly, which the tradition regards as greater than having taken it peaceably (Sifre Deut. 49.2.1). These were the people actively following Jesus, not simply waiting for the kingdom to come their way.¹⁸

Rejecting Diverse Messengers (11:16-19)

Cf. Lk 7:31-35. By a sharp parable Jesus pronounces judgment on his generation that has rejected something greater than the law and prophets rejected by many of their ancestors (cf. 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 23:29-36).¹⁹

First, Jesus teaches here by means of graphic illustrations, consistent with his usual style (11:16-17). Probably he compares his opponents to spoiled children, but this matter is debated; the parable of complaining children (11:16-17) can fit this context (11:18-19) in one of two ways. (If one speculates on the nature of the saying before it came into the present context — some interpreters assume that the saying was originally handed on independently — one can hypothesize almost any meaning for it. But even in this context, one can defend both views.)

Some interpreters suggest that the children represent Jesus and John, Jesus addressing the generation from the vantage point of joy and John of mourning; yet the generation rejects both witnesses (e.g., Wimmer 1982: 108; France 1985: 196-97; Witherington 1990: 50). In this context, the identification of the children with Jesus and John is possible, because "children" need not refer back to "generation"; the whole following story, rather than the first noun that followed, could answer parabolic questions like "To what can I compare this generation?" (cf., e.g., 13:24, 45). On this reading, the children's complaint is true: Jesus and John approached the generation from two angles, but the other children would not play either game. Jesus scandalously paints the kingdom in terms of children's play. But this assumes an exact analogy that among other things would require two groups of children, one piping and the other mourning, a picture not explicit in this text (Dodd 1961: 15-16; Schweizer 1975: 264) unless simply assumed from the children's gender (Gundry 1982: 212; see below).

Another interpretation seems more likely. Children in the marketplace complaining that others would not play their games would strike most ancient hearers as spoiled. The children's lines, translated back into Aramaic, seem to exhibit a funeral meter and rhyme, as if they were a mock funeral dirge itself (Jeremias 1971: 26). These spoiled children thus resemble Jesus' opponents, who are dissatisfied no matter what (Dodd 1961: 16; Jeremias 1972: 160-61). They piped to John, and he would not dance (11:17a, 18); they wailed to Jesus, but he refused to mourn (11:17b, 18). This interpretation makes the analogy between the parable and its application less exact, but makes more sense of the image.

In either case, the striking image of the parable is clear: the generation is committed to refusing the truth, even if fickle in its reasons for doing so (cf. Is 29:11-12; less relevant, Eph 4:14).²⁰ The piping refers to weddings (where men would do the round dance — Jeremias 1972: 161),²¹ and the dirge refers especially to the women's role in funeral processions (children sometimes played burying a grasshopper — Jeremias 1972: 161). Matthew's term for "mourning" indicates "beating the breast," a typical eastern Mediterranean expression of grief omitted by Luke (cf. Jeremias 1972: 27). Further, mourners always expected all bystanders to join in funeral processions (Jos. Apion 2.205); later rabbis might exempt their students from such duties, but only under special circumstances (ARN 4A; 8, §22B). Most importantly, the parable's point is clear, on either reading: the generation rejects both John and Jesus (11:18-19).

Second, God has different kinds of servants for different missions, but God's people should embrace them all (11:18-19). Whereas neither Jesus nor John accumulated earthly resources for earthly pleasure, Jesus accepted invitations to urban banquets (cf. 9:10-15; Rom 14:17), while John was a wilderness prophet whose diet was locusts (3:4) and who never banqueted (cf. Jer 16:8). Jesus came partly as God's ambassador to initiate relations with sinners (9:10-13), whereas John primarily took the role of biblical prophets in times of persecution (3:7); Jesus was a missionary within the culture, John a critic from outside it. Both models had biblical precedent (e.g., David versus Jeremiah), but were appropriate for different situations.

Third, Jesus clarifies the inconsistencies behind the world's dogmatic disbelief (11:18-19). Responding to the inconsistencies of critics, thereby suggesting that ill-will rather than logic motivates their criticisms, was acceptable rhetorical practice (Phaedrus 4.7.21-24). John came leading disciples to fast over Israel's sin (9:14; 11:18), but Jesus came celebrating the kingdom like a wedding feast (9:15-17; 11:19; 22:2); each did what was appropriate to his mission (Linton 1976: 178). Yet despite the initial popularity of both prophets, the generation as a whole ultimately rejected both approaches. The charge that John the prophet "has a demon" could suggest "prophetic" madness or an association between recluses and possession (cf. P. Lond. 42.9-13), but it may suggest a familiar spirit, such as those that belonged to magicians (Kraeling 1951: 11-12; cf. Aune 1983: 135; idem 1987: 56); although they would not seek to enforce any punishment in the relatively pluralistic Judaism of first-century Palestine, his accusers were slandering him as being guilty of a capital offense. Likewise, the charge that Jesus was a "glutton and a drunkard" alludes to the "rebellious son" of Deuteronomy 21:20 — also a capital offense (cf. Jeremias 1972: 160; though later rabbis severely curtailed the applicability of the text and limited it to minors in a certain age range — cf. m. Sanh. 8:1-2; b. Sanh. 72a, bar.).²² The charge may have been exaggerated from some maligning him with illegitimate birth (Stauffer 1960: 16; cf. 1:18-20; Jn 8:41); because he did not eat according to Pharisaic purity regulations (Koenig 1985: 18); or more likely because he, though the eldest son, had left his family to minister (cf. 8:21-22; Koenig 1985: 23); or perhaps most likely simply from the fact that he accepted invitations to banquets with those less than scrupulous in the law (9:9-13).

Although other texts speak of prophets condemning their wicked generations (e.g., Jub. 23:14, 15; Sib. Or. 1.199), Jesus specifically condemns his generation for the ultimate offense: they have consummated the sins of previous generations by rejecting God's ultimate agent (23:31-32, 35). In the very different ministries of Jesus and John, the kingdom confronted that generation from two opposing prophetic models, and the generation as a whole rejected both opportunities.

Finally, true wisdom is vindicated in the eyes of those whose opinions count, that is, the wise (11:19). If some people choose to reject God's message, which he has confirmed by strong evidences, this hardly brings the message into question; it merely brings into question either the sense or the moral honesty of those who reject it. Wisdom's "deeds" here alludes loosely back to Christ's "deeds" in 11:2 (Meier 1980: 124; Gundry 1982: 213; Patte 1987: 157, 202), that is, his miracles (cf. 11:20), paving the way for the identification of Christ and wisdom in 11:28-30. One may compare also Matthew's ready adaptation of Q tradition for wisdom to Christ in 23:24.²³ It is unclear to us whether Matthew's implied audience is familiar enough with the Q tradition to recognize the later change (assuming that Luke reports the earlier form), but the redaction does suggest the perspective of the author. Throughout Matthew, however, Jesus the sage articulates and epitomizes wisdom more fully than any other (13:54; cf. 23:34), and such wisdom would constitute the standard for eschatological vindication or condemnation (7:24-27; 12:37, 42).

Unrepentant Cities Judged (11:20-24)

Cf. Lk 10:12-15. Jesus cries out laments against Jewish cities most exposed to his miracles; none are known to have been particularly hostile to Jesus, but their reception was not close to commensurate with their opportunity. In the logic of Matthew's narrative, these were the cities where Jesus had preached (11:1) after his disciples prepared the way (10:15, 23), carrying on his original mission of preaching the kingdom (9:35).

Those who attribute all oracular activity to the later church may doubt the authenticity of these verses (Boring 1982: 147), but given other evidence that Jesus stands within the Old Testament prophetic tradition that argument for inauthenticity is groundless. The mention of Galilean cities not found in the Old Testament, such as Capernaum and Chorazin (about two miles apart), suggests an early Palestinian tradition (Burkitt 1910: 14).²⁴ The prophecy does not reflect later Christian preaching (Theissen 1991: 51n.73)²⁵ and may reflect signs of an Aramaic origin (Witherington 1990: 166); it may also presuppose the early lack of Christian communities in Tyre and Sidon, in contrast to the situation that obtained by the late 50s at the latest (Acts 21:3-6; 27:3; Theissen 1991: 52).²⁶ Finally, later Christians might have been loathe to fabricate opposition to Jesus' ministry in his adopted town (Witherington 1990: 166). Indeed, far from testifying that the saying is a later Christian invention (so Bultmann 1968: 112),²⁷ Capernaum's unrepentance suggests that the saying dates to Jesus' lifetime; Capernaum later became a center of Galilean Christianity (cf., e.g., rabbinic literature's "Jacob of Capernaum").

Following the ancient Near Eastern practice of judgment oracles against other nations, prophets like Isaiah (13-23), Jeremiah (46-51), Ezekiel (25-32), and Amos (1:3-2:3) denounced the sins of various nations in succession; some more recent Jewish oracles had done the same (Sib. Or. 3.295-49; cf. even Plut. Divine Vengeance 15, Mor. 558F-559C). Like the biblical prophets, however, Jesus prophesies woes against those who claim to be God's people (e.g., Is 22; Jer 2-11; Ezek 24; Amos 2:4-3:8; cf. Mt 18:7; contrast 11:6); God reiterated that he was God of all the earth and would judge Israel as justly as other peoples (Amos 3:2; 9:7; Is 10:9-11). Echoing the language of Isaiah, Jesus prophesies against Capernaum (Is 14:14-15; cf. 5:14; Jub. 24:31; Suet. Calig. 22); like the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14, Capernaum thought highly of itself, but God's opinion was quite different (Harrington 1982: 49-50).²⁸ This passage also suggests that Jesus believed that people's response to him and his message would determine their standing at the coming judgment (Witherington 1990: 167), a confidence appropriate to the prophets (e.g., Num 16:5-11, 28-34; 2 Chron 20:20; Jer 15:19-21; Ezek 33:33; Amos 7:16-17), but in a manner far more dramatic.

First, God judges peoples according to the opportunities they have had to respond to his truth (11:20). Just as those who rejected both Jesus and John proved their folly (11:11-19), those cities that witnessed many miracles yet did not respond with wholesale repentance demonstrate their folly (11:20-24). Few others had the opportunity for as much evidence as they had had (cf. 13:17), yet many of them took their opportunity for granted, and would be judged far more harshly than those who had had less opportunity (for the principle, cf., e.g., Lk 12:47-48; Rom 2:12-16; 12:19-20; Rev 9:20-21). Tyre may have been known for its oppression of God's people (see comment on 15:21; Ezek 27-28); Sidon was also known for paganism (e.g., Ach. Tat. 1.1.1-2); but neither city had as much opportunity as Israel. One may also note here the evidential value of miracles, but that even such clear evidence is not coercive to the hardened human will (cf. Tannehill 1975: 122-28).

Second, God often judges corporately for corporate sin. When entire cultures perpetuate a hardness against God for generation after generation, judgment may be God's primary means of gaining the people's attention (e.g., Ex 7:5, 17; 9:14; 10:2; Is 26:9-10; 28:9-13; 29:9-14). This case is particularly severe, however, because Jesus has openly revealed himself to cities and they have continued to disbelieve, like Israel in the wilderness. This theme recurs elsewhere in this Gospel (see especially 23:30-38).

Third, those who claim to be God's people are often the most hardhearted hearers of all. Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom (see comment on 10:15) would have repented, but God's people took the signs for granted; this fits a common enough motif in Matthew as well as the Jesus tradition (cf. 2:4-11). The "sackcloth and ashes" indicate serious mourning and self-humiliation as part of the repentance (Job 42:6; Dan 9:3; Jonah 3:6). Yet just as Capernaum became a center of Galilean Christianity, Chorazin flourished in later centuries (see Yeivin 1983: 75; Goodenough 1953/68: 193-99; Turnheim 1987); these oracles are not later inventions, and, applied to a sinful generation, not to the indefinite future (cf. likewise 27:25). The moral principle, however, is that the exalted are brought low (11:23; cf. 23:12), even to the realm of the dead (cf. comment on Hades in 16:18) Jewish and Greek tradition placed in the underworld (cf. the descent to Hades in Is 5:14; 14:15; cf. Num 16:31-33; Prov 5:5; 30:16).

Rest for the Little Ones (11:25-30)

Cf. Lk 10:21-22; analogous language in Jn 3:35; 10:14-15; 17:2, 25. Just as Israel was wrongly secure in its status before God vis-à-vis the Gentiles (11:20-24), so the "wise" and powerful failed to recognize that God favored the children, the meek (11:25-30). Jesus summons not the mighty or wise to follow him, but the weak laden with heavy burdens (11:28; cf. 23:4), the "weary" like Israel in exile hoping in God alone (Is 40:29-31).²⁹

First, God favors the weak, not the arrogant (11:25-26). In words whose Aramaic form may indicate an especially significant saying (cf. Jeremias 1971: 24), Jesus praised the Father (cf. Jn 11:41) as "Lord of heaven and earth," a standard Jewish title for God in prayer (Jeremias 1971: 10, 187-88; Gundry 1982: 216; Aramaic incant. 36.1; also "God of heaven and earth" — 4 Bar. 5:32; Test. Sol. 1:6; cf. for Helios in PGM 4.641). Before the Lord of heaven and earth,³⁰ human wisdom and power were nothing, so no one can protest if it was the Father's purpose (cf. 3:17) to hide these things from the wise (cf. 10:26; 13:11; 1 Cor 2:6-10; Job 12:24-25) and reveal them to the "babes," the "little ones" (10:42; 18:10; cf. to the righteous in 1 Enoch 48:6; to those to whom God "gave" Wisdom in Wis 9:17). One example of the Father so "revealing" these things (11:27) in this Gospel is that of the Father revealing Jesus' Sonship to Peter (16:17), a revelation that had come not so much through a single prior dramatic experience as through learning Jesus' identity while in a relationship of active discipleship.

True wisdom was hidden from those who professed to be wise (Job 12:1, 24-25; Is 19:11-12; 29:14; 47:10; Jer 8:8-9; Ezek 28:3-12; cf. Mt 13:11; Prov 3:7; 26:12, 16; Is 5:21). The "wise" of Jesus' day had careful rules for interpreting the Bible and often rested in the security of the academic consensus of their circle; they prided themselves on their knowledge of traditional interpretations and sayings of the wise who had gone before them; they also emphasized practical piety. Jesus' religious contemporaries stressed humility far more than do most persons of faith who live in modern Western society (Bonsirven 1964: 157-58); yet this passage charges that their humility was inadequate.

Second, in contrast to the "wise and learned" (11:25), Jesus alone is in a position to declare exactly what God is like (11:27). The sages had received traditions from earlier sages, but by using a standard term for passing on tradition (cf. Manson 1979: 79; Jeremias 1971: 59) the Gospels contrast Jesus' revelation, which is directly from the Father (11:27). Although this is not a claim to omniscience (24:36; cf. Vermes 1984: 48), Jesus holds a position of special authority from the Father (28:18; Jn 17:2). Thus the Father has given Jesus the sole prerogative to reveal him, so that anyone who approaches God a different way will not find him. Some scholars object that this passage sounds too much like something the Gospel of John would say (e.g., Jn 1:18; 14:6-9); if Jesus never spoke in terms like these, however, it would be more difficult to explain where the Johannine tradition derived its picture of Jesus (so, e.g., Hagner 1993: 317-18; pace Bousset 1970: 83-85). (The summons to "come" in 11:28 can also sound Johannine: cf. Jn 6:35; 7:37.) Being part of the early Q tradition (11:25-27//Lk 10:21-22), these words most likely go back to Jesus himself.

Some scholars have objected that this exalted Q picture of Jesus and the language used to describe it is Gnostic or Greek, hence not from Jesus himself.³¹ But more recent investigations have shown that it is thoroughly Palestinian Jewish, representing the sort of blend of mystic and apocalyptic thought that clustered around discussions of Israel, divine Wisdom, and the law.³² "Language, style and structure . . . clearly assign the saying to a Semitic-speaking milieu" (Jeremias 1971: 57; cf. idem 1964a: 45-48; idem 1965: 24). Not all scholars are certain that the saying is authentic, but most today will agree that it is clearly not hellenistic (e.g., Davies and Allison 1991: 283).³³

But not all scholars who suspect that the saying originated with Jesus agree on its sense; some suggest that Jesus indicates his relationship with God merely by means of analogy with a natural family: "only a father and son really know each other" (Jeremias 1971: 58-61; idem 1965:25; Borg 1984: 232).³⁴ The analogy interpretation falters on the inadequacy of the image, however: men were generally closer to their wives and friends than their fathers (Schweizer 1975:271). Jesus' prayers addressing God as Father and the use of "Son" as a title for Jesus in the indisputably authentic saying in 24:36 also suggest that Jesus here refers to himself as God's unique Son (Gundry 1982: 217-18). Although other images (such as a new Moses — Davies and Allison 1991: 283-87) may also be at work, Jesus describes himself here especially in the language of divine Wisdom (cf. Davies and Allison 1991: 296-97; Deutsch 1987: 143). Witherington (1990: 227) is convinced that

The claim of exclusivity of mutual knowledge of Father and Son should be compared to the claims that state only Wisdom knows God and vice versa (cf. Job 28:1-27; Sir. 1:6, 8; Bar. 3:15-32; Prov. 8:12; Wis. 7:25ff.; 8:3-8; 9:4, 9, 11). The middle two clauses suggest that Jesus sees his relationship to the Father in the light of wisdom ideas, and he may see himself as Wisdom incarnate here.³⁵

Third, Jesus offers rest for the broken, and a yoke easier than that of the scholars (11:28-30). People who carried yokes to pull other loads would lay them on their neck and shoulders, with their hands grasping chains or rope attached to each end of the yoke (Jeremias 1972: 194). One would normally expect to find such a burden only on the shoulders of the poor (cf. Test. Job 7:1 with Jastrow 1985: 1:94). Long ago God had lifted the yoke of literal slavery from his people (Hos 11:4), and he promised to do so again at the new exodus (Is 10:27; 14:25). A yoke signified submission to another's rule or authority (e.g., Gen 27:40; 1 Enoch 103:11; Sib. Or. 3.391-92, 448, 508, 537, 567; cf. Fernandez 1983). Other teachers in Jesus' day and afterward spoke of accepting the "yoke of God's kingdom," or God's rule, by submitting to the yoke of the law rather than merely human rule.³⁶

Yet Jesus speaks here of a figurative bondage of unprofitable labor under an inadequate understanding of God's law (23:4; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; cf. Sir 40:1; Did. 6.2; 1 Clem. 16.17). Some teachers spoke figuratively of the "load" of one's teaching a disciple carried (Diog. Laert. 7.170; Boring 1995: 84; cf. Mt 23:4). Like a good sage, Jesus invites his disciples to learn from him (11:29; 24:32; 28:19; cf. Eph 4:20; 5:10). Yet Jesus did not interpret the law, including the law of rest (12:1-14), the same way his contemporaries did; his yoke was "lighter." In contrast to his opponents (23:4), Matthew's Jesus interprets the laws according to their original purpose, to which he is privy (5:17-48; 11:27; 12:8), for example, interpreting the Sabbath laws in terms of devotion to God rather than universal rules (12:7) and divorce law in terms of devotion to one's faithful wife rather than a loophole to reject her (19:4-8).

By speaking of God's law as Jesus' own, Jesus implicitly claims authority from the Father greater than that of Moses himself (11:27); other Jewish texts would have spoken only of God's yoke here (Smith 1951: 153), or of the yoke of Torah (Davies and Allison 1991: 289). Jesus unquestionably models his words directly after the invitation of the sage Joshua ben Sira (Sir 51:23-27):³⁷

Draw near to me, you who are uneducated . . .

Why do you delay in these matters,

when your souls thirst so much? . . .

Place your neck under the yoke,

and let your soul accept training —

she is near if you wish to find her.

Witness with your own eyes that I have labored little,

yet have found much rest for myself.

Yet the yoke in Matthew is not Ben Sira's, but that of divine Wisdom, and Wisdom elsewhere invites the hearer, "Come to me, you who earnestly desire me," and eat and drink of wisdom (Sir 24:19-21). John is not the only Gospel writer with a "wisdom christology" (Jn 1:1-18; 6:35; 7:37; cf. Hamerton-Kelly 1973: 68; Meier 1980: 127). Obeying God would bring his people "rest for your souls" (Jer 6:16 MT).³⁸

Fourth, they would find Jesus' yoke light because they would find him a master who would care for them (11:29). Jesus' yoke is not lighter because he demands less (5:20), but because he bears more of the load with the burdened (23:4; cf. 1 Jn 5:3).³⁹ In contrast to unconcerned religious teachers who prided themselves on their own position (23:4-7; 24:49), Jesus was going to lay down his life for the sheep (20:25-28). The Gospel tradition repeatedly emphasizes that the Lord of the universe (28:18-20) is humble and prefers to dwell with the humble, the "little ones" (12:19-20). If Jesus is meek, the people in whose lives he rules cannot be proud or self-centered either, for the kingdom belongs only to the meek (5:3, 5).⁴⁰

Conflicting Approaches to Scripture (12:1-14)

Cf. Mk 2:23-3:6; Lk 6:1-11. Matthew writes to disciples who believe their principles of biblical interpretation differ radically from those of the Pharisees (5:20; 9:13), and he has a crucial hermeneutical point to make in this narrative (12:7): transcultural principles and transformation take priority over situation-based rules (cf. 19:8). Whereas Matthew often abbreviates Mark's narratives (e.g., 9:1-8, 18-26), in this case he maintains most of Mark's material and adds some more material to the first debate (12:l-8//Mk 2:23-28).

Matthew uses here two of Mark's Sabbath controversy stories to illustrate the conflict between Jesus' rest and the Pharisees' rest (11:28); this conflict over the nature of the Sabbath further illustrates two different approaches to the law (5:20; cf. similarly Bacchiocchi 1984; Patte 1987: 167; Blomberg 1992a: 195). Jesus undoubtedly agreed with the Pharisees' view that God's law was an excellent yoke to bear (5:17-20), but he also believed that he offered a better interpretation of it than his contemporaries (cf. also Ferguson 1987: 409; cf. Jn 5:17-18): because he is the embodiment of divine wisdom himself, his yoke brings rest (11:28).⁴¹ These Pharisees illustrate the principle that Jesus was hidden "from the wise and learned" (11:25). This narrative illustrates for Matthew's audience various points about biblical interpretation appropriate for Jesus' followers.⁴²

First, these Pharisees provide a good example of exegesis if one wants to extrapolate the letter of the law the way a good lawyer might (12:1-2,14). Josephus emphasizes that the Pharisees were meticulous in interpreting the details of the law (e.g., War 2.162; Life 191), and the Gospel tradition confirms how critical issues of "lawfulness" were among them (12:4, 10; 19:3) and others (14:4). Those concerned to build a "fence around the law" usually make the law's requirements stricter (see comment on 5:21-48); Jesus instead focused (as other sages did sometimes, e.g., with the prosbul; see comment on 6:12) especially on the principles behind the laws.

One would not usually expect to find Pharisees in a Galilean wheatfield on the Sabbath;⁴³ this was hardly their usual habitat (Sanders 1985: 198, 265; idem 1990: 1, 20-21; Anderson 1976: 109) and makes sense only if they were looking for grounds to accuse the disciples (Jeremias 1971: 278-79; Stauffer 1960: 85, 207) ⁴⁴ But the case against Galilean Pharisees is an argument from silence in Josephus, when the Gospels and some slight strands of evidence (such as Jose the Galilean) may argue the contrary. One could thus argue that more Pharisees lived in Galilee than some of our sources suggest (Witherington 1990: 61, 66, with some evidence in Jos. Ant. 20.34-49), a surmise that could be reasonable in view of the limited extant literary sources on both Pharisees and Galilee. One could argue that Mark or his source updated local authorities into "Pharisees" (reasonable in view of Mark's Tendenz). One could also argue that these Pharisees were traveling with Jesus or seeking to test him. Perhaps most likely, most resided in Jerusalem, but some were active beyond it (Horsley 1995: 150-52, 256). Aside from the narrative's unusual setting, however, the rest of its portrayal of these Pharisees' reasoning makes sense without much explanation ⁴⁵

Excursus: Conflict Narratives

Although Matthew and John intensify Pharisaic opposition and some scholars attribute conflict stories with the Pharisees only to later Christians (Sanders 1990: 95-96; idem 1993: 217), the substance of these accounts is likely authentic. (1) First of all, the accounts must predate the major Jewish-Christian conflicts to which some wish to attribute them. Mark's accounts clearly precede the major breaches in the post-70 era (Witherington 1990: 60);⁴⁶ further, they would not have arisen in a period when Pharisees were not the Christians' primary enemies in the late 40s (Acts 15:5)⁴⁷ through the early 60s (Theissen 1991: 230-31),⁴⁸ and probably not much in the early period of the Jerusalem church either (cf. Acts 5:17, 33-34). (2) Yet some Pharisaic opposition in the early period existed and probably had earlier roots: some Pharisees in the earliest period joined ranks with the Sadducees to persecute Christians (Phil 3:5-6),⁴⁹ and it is unlikely that the conflicts simply began shortly after Jesus' cruxifixion.

Together these observations suggest authenticity: Some sort of conflicts appeared in the earliest Jesus tradition, but these were not conformed to the primary opponents of Christians in the early years after the resurrection, suggesting that the original opponents in these traditions may have been correctly transmitted. (3) Multiple attestation supports the thesis that Jesus did have Sabbath conflicts (Borg 1984: 139-43; Witherington 1990: 66). They appear in Mark (e.g., Mk 2:23-28), independently in John (Jn 5:1-9), and perhaps independently in special Lukan material (Lk 13:10-17); lack of clear attestation in Q (unless Matthew simply omits the tradition of Lk 13:10-17) is not surprising given how few narratives from Q appear in our Gospels.

One may note that Jesus' teaching more closely resembles that of the Pharisees than that of any of the other "parties" mentioned by Josephus (Sadducees, Essenes, or revolutionaries); yet dissimilarities are also striking (Harvey 1982: 51). But like most of his contemporaries, Jesus undoubtedly did not belong to any of these "parties," and in any case such a marginal kinship would hardly preclude conflict. Social conflict theory illustrates that conflicts become most severe among groups most closely connected (Stanton 1993: 98-102). Josephus faced life-threatening opposition from rivals within his own social class (e.g., Life 272-75, 302-3), and both such passages in Josephus and the history of other early Jewish groups such as the Essenes (violent conflicts with the priesthood, e.g., lQpHab 8.8-12; 9.4-7; 12.5; 4QpNah l.ll)⁵⁰ and Pharisees (conflicts with Sadducees, e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.17; m. Yad. 4:7; t. Hag. 3:35; Nid. 5:3; ARN 5A; 10B; b. Nid. 33b; Sukk. 48b) indicate the pervasiveness of intra-Jewish strife.

Moses explicitly forbade work on the Sabbath (e.g., Ex 31:13-14; 35:2; Ezek 20:20), and gleaning could certainly be regarded as work, as a form of "reaping" (prohibited in m. Shab. 7:2; though cf. m. Pe'a 2:7-8; Davies and Allison 1991: 307 cite Philo Vit. Mos. 2.22; p. Shab. 9c). Essenes (probably the strictest Jewish Sabbath-keepers) forbade so much as scooping up drinking water in a vessel (CD 11.1-2). (Gleaning from another's field was legal on other days — Deut 23:25; Ruth 2:2; most gleaners would have ignored strict regulations on gleaning such as p. Ma'aś. 2:6.) More than Philo, most Pharisees (though see Young 1992: 104 for some evidence for exceptions) must have forbidden picking standing heads of grain (12:1) or at least rubbing them to get to the kernels (Lk 6:1; Albright and Mann 1971: 149).

Yet just as Pharisees could disagree among themselves on some details of Sabbath law (t. Shab. 16:21-22; b. Shab. 5b, bar., 18b; Gen. Rab. 7:2), a Jewish teacher who rejected Pharisaic tradition could have interpreted the law quite differently from the Pharisees, as Jesus did. Whereas the law forbade preparing food on the Sabbath (Ex 16:22-30; 35:3; Jos. War 2.147; CD 10.9), it certainly did not forbid eating it (cf. Jos. Life 279), and Jewish people kept the Sabbath with joyous feasting (contrary to pagan views — Strabo 16.2.40; Mart. Epig. 4.4.7; Suet. Aug. 76; cf. Sevenster 1975: 130-32). Jewish tradition prohibited fasting on the Sabbath (CD 11.4-5; Jub. 50:12-13; Sanders 1990: 13 cites Jdt 8:6; Jos. Life 279; m. Ta'an. 1.6), which might leave Jesus' disciples no choice but to glean provided the urgency of their mission had detained them from preparing food the previous day (cf. Borg 1984: 154).

Matthew contends that God's law was not genuinely written in these Pharisees' hearts, emphasizing their hostile response to Jesus' violation of their known tradition (12:10, 14). In Hebrew Scripture, blatant breaches of Sabbath law were punishable by public execution (Ex 31:14; 35:2; Num 15:35); although Rome prohibited its subjects from executing criminals directly, many early Pharisees may have been frustrated by their inability to carry out capital sentences mandated in the Bible (no one forgot the biblical teaching — e.g., p. Meg. 1:6, §2). The Pharisees may, however, have come to terms with this limitation the way their successors and others in the later rabbinic movement did: by so narrowing the definition of capital offenses that executions were barely ever necessary anyway. The Essenes, though very strict and recognizing the appropriateness of capital punishment for even minor infractions like sleeping with one's wife (Jub. 50:8) or fasting (Jub. 50:12-13), in practice punished even intentional Sabbath infringements only with detention (see Sanders 1990: 18-19). Further, most Jews would have required one who transgressed the Sabbath law unintentionally only to offer a sin offering (Stauffer 1960: 205-6; t. Shab. 1:13). Even if these Pharisees are sure that Jesus is wrong, his appeal to Scripture should convince them that his "transgression" is "unintentional" (cf. Sanders 1990: 90).

No sect in early Judaism had rules that would have mandated Jesus' death for his Sabbath practices. Most would have agreed that plotting to kill someone who disagreed with them (12:14; cf. "taking counsel" in 22:15; 26:4; 27:1, 7) was premeditated murder, which the law forbade under penalty of death (Gen 9:5-6; Num 35:29-34; Deut 21:1-9). (By omitting Mk 3:4, Matthew omits the explicit irony of Mk 3:6 in Mt 12:14: it is against the law's intention to kill.) The Pharisees tolerated all sorts of disputes, including concerning varied interpretations of Sabbath law (cf. Riesenfeld 1970: 117-18); Pharisaic theory unequivocally opposed executing people for such disagreements, and Pharisaic practice normally concurred with theory on this matter. Yet these Pharisees are so enraged with Jesus that they resort to plotting his death — a heinous and obvious breach of the very law they purport to uphold (12:14).⁵¹ On the Matthean level, even their "accusations" (12:10) foreshadow those of the priestly aristocracy before Pilate (27:12), and perhaps the delatores (accusers to the court) who might ultimately betray Matthew's fellow disciples to Roman authorities.

Second, Jesus had based his ethics on Scripture, and Matthew contends that Jesus' ethics reflect a more biblically sensitive approach than those of his opponents (12:3-8). Various sources attest the strictness with which many Jewish pietists guarded the Sabbath; the Essenes, who were especially strict, show us how seriously some Jewish people in antiquity could take the Sabbath (see CD 10.14-11.18; Jub. 50; cf. Finkelstein 1972: 205-11). One could not even speak of work to be done after the Sabbath (CD 10.19), speak secular words (CD 10.18; cf. Is 58:13) or lift dust in one's house (CD 11.10-11). Probably the sectarian Scrolls do not represent common Judaism any more than the more lenient later rabbis do (pace Kimbrough 1966), but they do indicate one option within the Judaism of Jesus' day. Most Jewish people seem to have observed traditional limits on Sabbath day's journeys (CD 10.20-21; t. Shab. 1:3; b. 'Erub. 45a; Sukk. 44b; cf. Acts 1:12). One could not wear soiled garments (CD 11.3; cf. later Ruth Rab. 5:12); later rabbis even threatened divine judgment for playing ball on that day (Lam. Rab. 2:2, §4). Because Gentiles took advantage of the Sabbath to attack Jewish warriors (e.g., Jos. Ant. 12.4), exceptions were made for defensive warfare (e.g., Jos. Ant. 13.12-13), but pietists differed on how far to press even this exception (cf. Jos. Life 159, 161; Apion 1.210-12).

Jesus had thought deeply about Scripture, and provides various examples to make his case.⁵² But Jesus' growing popularity made his teaching a threat to those who felt that he did not uphold the appropriate academic and religious consensus of their circle. As these Pharisees well knew, a challenge to the behavior of the disciples was a challenge to the teacher who was responsible to train them in proper behavior (cf. Goodman 1983: 79; Daube 1972: 4-6; Harvey 1982: 38). Disciples' behavior reflected on their teachers (e.g., t. 'Ed. 3:4; in Greek circles, cf. Liefeld 1967: 222-24); teachers thus defended their disciples' honor, for their own honor was at stake (ARN 27A; 34, §76B). Yet in this culture dominated by honor and shame, Jesus was quite able to respond to their challenges and defeat them in rhetorical maneuvering. "Have you never read ... ?" (cf. 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31) is a strong insult toward those who claim to be experts in Scripture (so also, e.g., Malina 1993: 99). Jesus proceeds with a line of argument typical in ancient Mediterranean argumentation (cf. Robbins 1988: 21; Mack and Robbins 1989: 140).

Jesus' first example is the story of the breach of the law for David in an emergency — the man of God and his companions were hungry (12:3-4; cf. 1 Sam 21:1-6). Although his opponents may have insisted on beginning with an explicit legal text (cf. Borg 1984: 152-53), Jesus appeals instead to inspired narrative to show how God expected the legal statements to be qualified in practice, "a precedent for allowing hunger to override the law" (Sanders 1990: 20). For the Pharisees to have objected that the David story addressed forbidden food rather than the Sabbath (Borg 1984: 153; cf. ARN 32, §72B) would have missed his point; Jesus challenges not merely their interpretation of the Sabbath but their entire method of legal interpretation.⁵³ Because the high priest thought that David had companions with him (1 Sam 21:2-5), his actions indicate the kind of exceptions that both David and the high priest thought appropriate whether or not David was lying (he probably was). If Jesus uses narrative precedent to qualify legal texts in this way, Matthew surely provides here a hermeneutical key for many of Jesus' nonlegal teachings (radical, succinct statements usually unqualified); for example, one should compare Jesus' demands with his relative patience in not repudiating his disciples.

Jesus' second example is the law's explicit allowance for the Sabbath activity of priests in the temple (12:5-8; cf. Num 28:9-10). As noted above, the Pharisees probably would have rejected Jesus' argument about David (preserved in Mk 2:25-26) as an invalid analogy; thus Matthew here adds an argument his audience can safely use (Saldarini 1994: 129). After making his argument by example, Jesus proceeds with a qal wahomer, a traditional Jewish "how-much-more" argument (as often noted; see, e.g., Longenecker 1975: 69). Others constructed similar arguments; for instance, an early second-century rabbi contended that saving a human life takes precedence over the Sabbath, for even the temple service overrides the Sabbath (t. Shab. 15:16). Stricter Shammaite Pharisees (who predominated in Jesus' day) accused more lenient Hillelite Pharisees of "working" on holy days; Hillelites defended their behavior by analogy with the priests (Sanders 1990: 90). Others reasoned similarly from the biblical fact that the temple service overrode Sabbath regulations (cf. m. 'Erub. 10:11-15; t. Shab. 15:16; p. Rosh. Hash. 4:3, §3; Sanh. 4:6, §2).⁵⁴ The way ancient lawyers argued for exceptions was by showing that at least one exception was already implicit in the law (Quint. 7.6.5).

Yet Jesus ranks not saving a life but his own authority above the temple: if the temple service warrants suspension of the Sabbath, how much more the presence of one greater than the temple (12:6,41-42; cf. Jn 4:12; 5:46; 8:53), hence a greater locus of God's presence than the temple (cf. Stanton 1993: 130, following A. Schlatter)?⁵⁵ For Jesus as Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (12:8; cf. 22:44).⁵⁶ Jesus' self-claim was veiled enough to prevent accusations of blasphemy — especially since his opponents would not expect him actually to claim what he was claiming — but obvious enough to enrage them (cf. v. 14). (Because the Semitic expression "son of man" usually just means "human being," even many modern commentators have read Jesus' Son of Man statement here as a teaching about persons in general — e.g., Montefiore 1968: 1:44; Borg 1984: 155.) But in the whole context of Jesus' usage, and certainly in Matthew's usage, it seems more likely as a christological statement, as we have noted.

Jesus' third argument to validate his method of interpretation is an appeal to the prophets' proclamation: the law's principles take precedence over its rituals (12:7; cf. Hos 6:6). Everyone acknowledged that an emergency need, like a human life endangered (CD 11.16-17), especially that of a righteous person (e.g., b. Yoma 35b), warranted an exception to any ritual; but Jesus makes such exceptions the rule. Not merely human life but human need in general takes precedence over regulations. Kindness toward others' genuine need — for example, that of hungry disciples — precedes rules whose purpose was to please the God who values such kindness more highly (12:7; 9:13; cf. 4:2). With this third argument, Jesus has appealed to all three sections of the Old Testament, treating them with equal authority: the law, the prophets, and the writings.⁵⁷

Third, Jesus validates God's approval of his Sabbath activity by healing on the Sabbath (12:9-13). Jesus enters the synagogue (12:9); in this period Jewish people especially congregated in synagogues on Sabbaths (Safrai 1974/ 76f: 918). Accounts of healing withered or paralyzed hands always suggested great power, both in Jewish (1 Kings 13:6; Test. Sim. 2:12-13) and pagan (Epidauros inscr. 3 in Grant 1953: 56; Bultmann 1968: 233) texts. Jesus heals partly to attest God's endorsement of his ministry (9:4-7); would God heal through him on the Sabbath if God disapproved of his Sabbath ministry? A general rule of thumb among early Jewish teachers was that anything one could as well do before the Sabbath as during it does not override the Sabbath (t. Pisha 5:1).

But this time Jesus not only does not heal the man medically; he does not even lay on hands. Some teachers considered applying medicine to be work justifiable on the Sabbath only if a person's life was in danger (m. Yoma 8:6; cf. p. 'Abod. Zar. 2:2, §3). But the teachers themselves found ways to circumvent some of their regulations (m. Shab. 14:4; cf. m. Shab. 6:2), and many teachers probably permitted medicine if it had been prepared before the Sabbath (t. Shab. 12:12) or the act was medically urgent (m. 'Ed. 2:5; Shab. 22:6; Yoma 8:6; on saving a life Lachs 1987: 199-200 adds Mek. Shabbata 1, Laut. 3:197-99, on Ex. 31:13), which this act was not (cf. Sanders 1990: 13; idem 1993: 208). But Jesus acted as a man of prayer, not a pharmacist, and in this case (as we have noted) Jesus does not even lay hands on the man, which some might have considered work. Instead, he simply orders the man to stretch forth his hand, an act that was not considered work by anyone's standard; God alone performs "work" in this scene (12:13; cf. Danker 1972: 77; Sanders 1990: 21; Rhoads and Michie 1982: 84).

Even the strict majority Pharisaic school in this period, the Shammaites, would have violated their own standards of ethics to have punished Jesus harshly (at most a later rabbinic judge might have fined him or ordered a beating, which one rabbi occasionally — but rarely — levied against another). Although they prohibited prayer for the sick on the Sabbath, they never sought to kill the minority school at the time, Hillelite Pharisees, who permitted prayer on the Sabbath (t. Shab. 16:22; cf. Sanders 1993: 268). Of course, serious and sometimes violent conflicts did occur between Jewish sects (the Qumran Scrolls suggest that the Maccabean period was rife with these, even if Josephus chooses to report as little as possible). Nevertheless, differences in legal interpretation did not constitute highhanded breach of the Sabbath or warrant death. If these Pharisees are upset — contradicting their own Sabbath beliefs — this says more about them in this narrative than it does about Jesus' practice of the Sabbath.

But before healing the man, Jesus offers another "how much more" argument by analogy. Both "sheep" (e.g., 18:12) and "pits" (15:14) were common enough to lend themselves for illustrations.⁵⁸ Some people in the Mediterranean world dug camouflaged pits to capture wolves and other predators (cf. Ex 21:33-34; Jos. Ant. 4.283-84; Phaedrus 3.2.2; Longus 1.11), but though animals usually avoided pits (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2), these people sometimes had to rescue their own livestock from the pit, pulling them up by a cord or whatever was available (Longus 1.12; Hock 1988: 140). One's wagon could also fall into a ravine (Babrius 20.1), in which case one should grab the wheels (20.6) and lay the whip on the oxen (20.7). Some animals were accidentally trapped in wells (Phaedrus 4.9.3-12); other animals undoubtedly succumbed to Palestine's naturally rugged inland terrain (perhaps Deut 22:4). In contrast to the stricter Essenes (CD 11.13-14; cf. F. F. Bruce 1969: 73), the Pharisees and most Jewish people accepted the necessity of rescuing an animal on the Sabbath (cf. b. Shab. 128b, bar.; Theissen 197 8 : 82).⁵⁹ Yet "how much more" important is a person than a sheep? Although the hearers would have protested that the withered hand was less urgent (e.g., p. 'Abod. Zar. 2:2, §3; cf. Barrett 1967: 63) — the man had undoubtedly survived with the problem for some time — their tradition agreed that the man was more important than a sheep (see comment on 6:26). Jesus concludes with a principle that someone less scrupulous could use to justify almost anything he or she wanted on the Sabbath: "Therefore it is lawful to do what is good on the Sabbath" (12:12). (As Athanasius [Homilies 28, ACCS, 37] recognized, Jesus here reasons from the law itself. Pace modern Protestant antinomianism, however, it is quite doubtful that Jesus himself would have justified doing anything and everything on the Sabbath; cf. the similarly worded Jubilees 50:10-11, which clearly supports Sabbath observance.)⁶⁰

If the views of later rabbis provide any indication, many Pharisees would not have accepted miracles as an adequate way to attest divine endorsement for a teaching. Some Jewish teachers reportedly performed miracles to validate their halakah (b. B. Mes. 59b; p. Sanh. 6:6, §2; cf. Baumgarten 1983a), though others may often have told stories about such signs simply to praise the teacher's holiness (cf. Dibelius 1971: 145-46; Urbach 1979: 1:108-9). By contrast, however, most teachers regarded their tradition as more authoritative than miracles (e.g., t. Yebam. 14:6; cf. p. Sanh. 11:4, §1; Vermes 1973: 80-81). Unconcerned with the demonstration of God's power before them and simply looking for reasons to accuse Jesus (v. 10; cf. 26:4; 27:12), Jesus' opponents apparently do not listen to what he says.

In fact, for them Jesus' power and growing popularity simply make him all the more dangerous (cf. 12:23-24; Jn 11:48; 12:9-11). In contrast to the predominantly Sadducean aristocracy, the Pharisees were populists, like Jesus; they lacked sufficient political power even to enforce their desire for Jesus' death. That Jesus appeals to the same popular constituency that traditionally followed them probably threatens the sense of religious security and power they would never have admitted they had. But that one might wish to execute a capital sentence on one who was gaining the influence to lead Israel "astray" is not hard to believe. The Qumranites apparently believed that a rival sect, perhaps the Pharisees, wanted Qumran's teacher dead (Stanton 1995a: 31, citing 4QMMT; 4Q 171:3-10). Most frequently Jewish aristocrats who sought other Jews' lives did so not for theological reasons but as part of a power struggle (e.g., Jos. Life 302).

These Pharisees undoubtedly felt that they had good reason to reject Jesus' claims. If someone were working miracles without God's approval — and how could he have God's approval if he disagreed with God's Word?⁶¹ — then they could only conclude that he was doing supernatural feats as a magician by the devil's power (12:24).

The Spirit-Anointed Humble Servant (12:15-21)

Cf. Mk 3:7-12; Lk 6:17-19. Rather than contending with the Pharisees further, Jesus withdrew (12:15) and sternly warned those who were beginning to realize his power not to tell others about it (12:16; in the same context in Mk 3:12 it was the demons who recognized his identity and on whom he enjoined silence; the strong term appears in Mt 8:26). Thus Matthew freely renders Isaiah's words to say that Jesus would not "strive." Jesus would not risk extinguishing a wick on the verge of going out, and so far would he go in not breaking a reed (12:20) that he would offer his cheek to those smiting him with one (27:30; cf. Mic 5:1-2). Thus Jesus demonstrated that he preferred not to fight others when it was not necessary (12:19-20; cf. 10:23; Gen 26:14-22). His opponents thought him a youthful upstart, but he knew his identity and his call (cf. 3:17-4:10).

The quotation from Isaiah 42:1-4 in this passage especially looks forward to the conflict in the following narrative: whereas his opponents misinterpret his identity, his empowerment by the Spirit demonstrates that he is the chosen one of Isaiah's prophecy (12:18, 28). Matthew quotes more of the passage than the "Spirit-endowed" or "chosen servant" part, however, to emphasize the lowly character of Jesus' first coming (21:5) and especially the final line, which reinforces Matthew's theme of the Gentile mission (2:1-12; 4:15; 24:24; 28:19): Gentiles will hope in Jesus (12:21; cf. 12:18).

In this passage Matthew reads Jesus as Isaiah's "servant of Yahweh." Although Targum Jonathan (fifth century A.D., including earlier material) calls the servant "Messiah" in Isaiah 42:1; 43:10; and 52:13, though applying the suffering sections to Israel (F. F. Bruce 1963: 143n.l; Moore 1971: 2:327; Lourenco 1990; cf. Edgar 1958: 50 for other late references),⁶² Judaism in Jesus' day rarely applied the servant passages to the Messiah. After all, in context Isaiah 42:1 -4 refers to Israel (44:1, 21; 49:3). But it is not hard to see how Matthew interprets Isaiah 42; despite the skepticism of some of his modern critics, Matthew read the larger context. God's servant Israel failed in its mission (42:18-19), so God chose one person within Israel to restore the rest of his people (49:5-7); this one would bear the punishment (cf. 40:2) rightly due his people (52:13-53:12). As in 12:1-14, Matthew here provides a hermeneutical key for his entire Gospel; his interpretation of Isaiah may explain the Israel typology predominant in texts cited in the editorial asides of his infancy narratives.

Translating freely from the Hebrew, Matthew conforms the language of Isaiah 42 to God's praise of his Son in Matthew 3:17 ("my beloved ... in whom I am well pleased").⁶³ As Matthew pointed out repeatedly earlier in his Gospel (1:1; 2:15, 18; 3:15; 4:1-2), Jesus' mission is not a wholly new event, but one rooted in the history of his people. For Matthew the servant songs greatly define Jesus' identity (3:17; 8:17; 20:28). From this text Matthew reminds his readers that Jesus was not a political or warrior messiah for the present time; he humbled himself as a suffering servant until the time when he would lead "justice to victory" (12:20).

Charges and Countercharges of Sorcery (12:22-45)

Cf. 9:32-34; 16:1-4; Mk 3:22-30; 8:11-12; Lk 6:43-45; 11:14-32; 12:10; Jn 6:30. Convinced that Jesus is not God's agent and annoyed by the popular response to Jesus (12:23; cf. 7:28; 8:27; 9:8),⁶⁴ the Pharisees resort to the only other possible explanation for his supernatural power over demons (12:22; cf. 9:32-34): it comes from the devil (12:24). In a lengthy response, Jesus not only refutes their charge, but turns it back on them (12:25-45). People often thought magicians performed their acts through the help of spirit agents (cf. 1 Enoch 65:6; Ps-Philo 34:2-3; Asc. Isa. 2:5; cf. Sib. Or. 1.96; but especially magical papyri, e.g., PGM 1.88-89, 164-66, 181-85, 252-53; 2.52-54),⁶⁵ hence the charge here is that Jesus was a sorcerer (cf. also Jn 7:20; 8:48; 10:20; Aune 1987: 56). This is no small charge: magic was a capital offense (Meier 1980: 134; cf. 2 Bar. 66:2; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 7:13, §2).⁶⁶

The early Christians probably would not invent a charge against Jesus that was not already current (cf. Witherington 1990: 164), but they would surely find the narrative of the charge useful in their own day. This narrative describing Jesus' triumphant response to their charge provides ammunition for Matthew's audience, who undoubtedly confronted the same accusations about their ministry and that of their Lord (cf. Stanton 1993: 173-78, 190).⁶⁷ Rather than seeking to deny testimonies of Jesus' miracles, later Jewish sources continued to charge him with sorcery.⁶⁸ Because many associated magic with Egypt (e.g., ARN 28A; 48, §32B; b. Qidd. 49b; Ex. Rab. 9:6; 20:19; Horn. Od. 4.228-34; Lewis 1983: 95-96), Jesus' youthful stay in Egypt (2:13-19) was also used against him (see Dalman 1973: 33; Plummer 1910: 17). Perhaps equally relevant to Matthew's readers, later Jewish sources also complained that Christians, who were still working miracles well into the second century, were working them by Satan's power (Dalman 1973: 37-38; Herford 1966: 211-15; Bagatti 1971: 95-96). (In one of these later stories, an early second-century rabbi who was dying tried to convince another rabbi to let a Christian enter to pray for him; but the first rabbi died before he could finish his argument, and the second rabbi rejoiced that the first had died without being defiled by a Christian's prayer — Qoh. Rab. 1:8, §3.) But the Gospels nowhere portray Jesus' activity in magical terms (Kee 1983: 214-15); Matthew in fact explicitly argues against it (cf. Keener 1997b: 98-109, 117-18). As Philo and Josephus may have had to rescue the figure of Moses from those who may have exploited it in a magical direction (Gager 1994), some early Christian apologists may have responded to the same charge against Jesus. Matthew's portrayal of Jesus here communicates a number of significant points for his community in their own conflict with synagogue leaders who rejected Jesus as Israel's rightful king.⁶⁹

First, God's enemies may challenge the very activity by which God attests his servants (12:22-24). That Jesus can "know their thoughts" (12:25) further attests his power; but while Jewish teachers normally characterized as a prophet or pious man one who could know others' thoughts (e.g., t. Pisha 2:15; Mek. Shir. 7.17-18; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3; Jos. and Asen. 23:8; Lives of the Prophets 17.2), Jesus' enemies here can attribute Jesus' knowledge to the same source as they attributed his exorcisms.

Second, those who truly work against the devil's purposes are doing God's work (12:25-30). Jesus presents a world sharply divided into God's kingdom and the devil's kingdom (12:26, 28), and indicates through various arguments that one cannot be working for both kingdoms at the same time. Jesus first asks why the devil would work at cross-purposes with himself (12:25-26). Perhaps the devil might permit a few exorcisms to bring fame to a sorcerer and gain ground in the long run; Jesus' widespread expulsion of demons, however, constitutes no minor strategic retreat, but a wholesale assault on Satan's kingdom on earth. The necessity of concord or harmony for survival (Ps-Phocyl. 74-75; also a common topic of Greek speeches) and warnings about divided kingdoms (Test. Sol. 5:5; 15:8 — perhaps following Jesus; Horn. 11. 1.255-58; cf. Livy 2.60.4; 3.66.4; Sail. Jug. 73.5; Babrius 44.7-8; 48) represent common wisdom in ancient society.⁷⁰ The use of one spirit to drive out another (Lev. Rab. 24:3) was apparently rejected by Jesus (see comment on 8:17).

Jesus next questions why his opponents single out his ministry of exorcism while approving exorcisms performed by their own disciples (12:27). Given the reluctance with which later Christians might wish to emphasize the success of non-Christian exorcists (cf. Acts 19:13-16), this response has a good claim to authenticity (Witherington 1990: 164).⁷¹ Jewish exorcists were common and employed a variety of magical techniques (see comment on 8:17; cf. Meier 1980: 134-35), quite in contrast to Jesus, who merely commanded authoritatively and the demons obeyed in fear (cf. also Taylor 1935: 129). Jesus acted, he claimed, by God's Spirit (12:28), quite in contrast to his opponents who probably did not claim that the Spirit was available in their time (cf. Keener 1991b: 77-84).⁷²

Third, if Jesus was driving out demons by God's Spirit, this action constituted proof that the time of the kingdom was upon them (12:28).⁷³ Most Pharisees apparently believed that the prophetic Spirit had been quenched when the last biblical prophets had died, and that the Spirit would be restored only in the time of the kingdom (Keener 1991b: 77-84). Although many Pharisees apparently rejected miracles as proof of truth (Bonsirven 1964: 16), Jesus summons them to consider an alternative explanation for his miracles, namely, that the promised time of the Spirit and the kingdom have come on the scene. Indeed, the Greek construction here might be better rendered, "since I drive out demons by the Spirit, the kingdom has come on the scene." If the kingdom has not already "come" in some sense in this verse (which is possible; see, e.g., Dodd 1961: 28n.l; Witherington 1990: 202; Meier 1994: 413-23), it is at least quite imminent (cf. Sanders 1985: 134-36; idem 1993: 177).

Q probably envisioned Jesus as God's shaliah or agent (Witherington 1990: 214) expelling demons by God's "finger" (Lk 11:20); pace some scholars,⁷⁴ Matthew has plenty of reason to add "Spirit" here, and Luke's emphasis on pneumatology makes his omission of "Spirit" here unlikely.⁷⁵ Matthew strategically (and for all practical purposes correctly, in view of the ancient Israelite anthropomorphic language) interprets "finger of God" as "God's Spirit," showing that Jesus is the promised harbinger of the Spirit (12:18), the first agent of God's kingdom. This means that the earlier Gospel tradition saw Jesus' exorcisms (not just the Spirit's coming) as a sign of God's impending reign (Ladd 1978a: 48). This end-time interpretation of Jesus' exorcisms lacks parallels in magical exorcism texts (Theissen 1983: 278-79). That it also lacks substantial parallels in Jewish messianic and end-time expectation (cf. Sanders 1985: 134-35; pace Barrett 1966: 59; Betz 1968: 59-60) may support the authenticity of the saying; early Christians had no other available source for the idea than Jesus himself.⁷⁶ Yet it makes good sense: as the climax of history approaches, the forces of God's kingdom and the devil's are arrayed in battle against one another.

Fourth, Jesus had defeated the strong man, "binding" him (tying him up) so that he could plunder the possessions in the strong man's house. That is to say, Jesus invaded Satan's domain and defeated him so that Jesus could recapture the human lives that Satan had enslaved through demon-possession or other means (12:29; cf. Augustine City of God 20.7; Ladd 1978a: 48; Fenton 1977: 198-99; Jeremias 1971: 94). Far from being authorized by the demons' ruler, Jesus had authority over the devil — one spirit that no mere magical incantation could thwart (cf. Test. Sol. 6:8). Jesus does not speak here as a magician. That "no one plunders a strong man" was common wisdom (Ps. Sol. 5:3; Charlesworth 1985: 79); if Jesus' parable about binding alludes to specific earlier language, it is not to magical terminology but to God as the divine warrior delivering his people in Isaiah 49:24-25 (also Manson 1979: 86; Robinson 1982: 78; Hooker 1983: 37).

Since Jesus claims a specific act of binding prior to his ministry of exorcism, Matthew may expect his audience to recall the most obvious decisive conflict between Jesus and Satan in the Gospel, Jesus' defeat of Satan at the temptation.⁷⁷ Although ancient magical texts regularly speak of "binding" or tying up spirits magically so that one can rule them, Jesus' parable does not refer to magical binding.⁷⁸ Jesus is saying that his integrity before God in defeating temptation has given him power over Satan (cf. Acts 19:13-20). In establishing the first stage of his kingdom Jesus had already defeated the devil and had delegated his authority over evil spirits to those who were truly his followers, those submitted to his reign (Mt 10:8). The final "binding" of Satan in early Jewish and Christian eschatology awaits the devil's future defeat (cf. 13:30; Rev 20:2; Twelftree 1986: 391-92; idem 1993: 117), perhaps suggesting that his binding before the end of the age may have caught him by surprise (cf. 8:29).⁷⁹

Finally, this list of arguments concludes with Jesus' warning that whoever was not on his side was on the other side (12:30). This saying (already located in the comparable section in Q — Lk 11:23; cf. Mk 9:40) also reflects common wisdom in both Greek (cf. Suet. Julius 75; Plut. Sayings of Kings, Peisistratus 3, Mor. 189C) and Jewish (cf. Flusser 1988: 510-11, who wrongly postulates dependence) life. Jesus allows no would-be disciples to straddle the fence: one either follows him or opposes him, just as one does with the devil.

Third, a heart can become so hard against God's evidence that conversion becomes impossible (12:31-32).⁸⁰ Jewish teachers acknowledged that deliberate sin against God's law ("sin with a high hand" — cf. Num 15:30-31; Deut 29:18-20; CD 8.8), such as deliberate blasphemy against God, was unforgivable (Jub. 15:34; 1QS 7.15-17, 22-23; p. Hag. 2:1, §9; cf. Heb 6:6); some recognized that atonement could purify even these sins, but only for the genuinely repentant (CD 10.3; Jas 5:19-20; p. Shebu. 1:6, §5; Ruth Rab. 6:4). Even such a sin as Peter's denial of Jesus (26:69-75) does not count in the unforgivable category (28:10-20), however; the context of "blaspheming against the Spirit" here refers specifically to the sin of these Pharisees, who are on the verge of becoming incapable of repentance. The sign of their hardness of heart is their determination to reject any proof for Jesus' divine mission, to the extent that they even attribute God's attestation of Jesus to the devil.⁸¹

Fourth, one's words for or against God's purposes reveal one's character and in the judgment will testify for or against the person who utters them (12:33-37). That one's speech reveals one's heart (also 15:11) may represent conventional wisdom;⁸² one ancient story line also apparently recognized that one could ruin one's own defense in court and be convicted by one's own words (Lk 19:22; Num. Rab. 16:21). Jewish wisdom regularly exhorted appropriate use of one's tongue (e.g., Sir 4:29; 20:18; Syr. Men. Sent. 301-13; Ps-Phocyl. 20; m. 'Abot 1:15, 17; 3:13; ARN 1, 26A; Philo Conf. 34), and Jewish teachers naturally recognized that one would be accountable for one's words as well as deeds on the day of judgment (Hagner 1993: 350; 1 Enoch 100:9, MSS; b. Sanh. 90a).⁸³ At least some groups regarded "idle" or "vain" words as profane on a day holy to the Lord (CD 10.18; cf. Is 58:13); others contrasted vain words with discussion of Torah (e.g., ARN 31, §66B; b. Ber. 28b, bar.; cf. Gen. Rab.91:10; for examples, Qoh. Rab. 1:8, §1; see comment on 9:11). Jesus here indicates that even such careless words spoken without thought will testify concerning one's character on the judgment day. On the day of judgment (cf. 7:22; 10:15; 11:22; 1 Jn 4:17; Jude 6) each person will give account to God (cf. also Rom 14:12), one's words often revealing the character of one's heart (Mt 15:11). In this context, Jesus is saying that one expects people like these Pharisees to be the kind of people who would blaspheme the Holy Spirit because their hearts are so corrupt, though they appeared righteous to most other observers (cf. Lk 16:15). Indeed, in Matthew's narratives, the religious leaders prove utterly du-plicitous, expressing their genuine views about Jesus only when speaking among themselves (Powell 1996: 171-76).

Fifth, God has already provided the world sufficient evidence that he has the right to expect faith from those who have heard the truth (12:38-42). The request for a sign (cf. 16:1-4; Jn 6:30) revealed the evil character of that "generation's" hearts (cf. 11:16; 16:4; Deut 32:5; Dalman 1929: 52-53);⁸⁴ Jesus had already been providing signs, and his opponents were disputing their validity (12:22-24). The demand for a sign may recall Pharaoh's challenge to Moses for a sign (Ex 7:9; Allison 1993b: 236).⁸⁵ The whole of 12:39-45 constitutes Jesus' response to his opponents' charges ("generation" in 12:39,45, frames the section).

Jesus explains that his generation needs no greater sign that he is from God than his own message. He first insists that the only sign the sign-seekers would be given was the sign that God supplied the Ninevites: Jonah's restoration after three days on the edge of death (12:39-40).⁸⁶ One should keep in mind, however, that the Ninevites did not witness Jonah's resuscitation for themselves; indeed, there is no evidence that he even recounted it to them (Jonah 3:1-4; cf. 3 Macc 6:8; Justin Dial. 107). The Ninevites experienced the effects of a divine sign they never recognized, and this may well be Matthew's point (not clear in Lk 11:29, 32): the Ninevites repented without recognizing a sign, whereas Jesus' opponents were too hard-hearted to repent despite the many signs he had been giving them (cf. 11:20-24; Jonah 1:16; 4:2). All the Ninevites needed was Jonah's preaching of the truth, yet Jesus was greater than Jonah (12:41; cf. 12:6).⁸⁷ Jonah's reluctance to see pagans repent lest Israel be condemned by comparison (Mek. Pisha 1.80-82; cf. Jonah 3:10-4:2) underlines the relative responsiveness of Gentiles, fitting Matthew's theme.

Jesus' second example is that Solomon's wisdom⁸⁸ was enough to prove his divine appointment, and that a distant queen heard and came to him (as some Gentile seekers had done with Jesus — 2:1-12; 1 Kings 10:1-13).⁸⁹ Yet one greater than Solomon was there.⁹⁰ The images of the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba rising up (being resurrected — 16:21) to condemn Jesus' generation in Israel at the judgment would have horrified Jesus' hearers, many of whom expected Israel's final vindication against the nations at that judgment day. Indeed, if God accepted Nineveh's repentance, surely he would accept Israel's (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:11).

At the same time, however, some early Jewish readers could respond to the book of Jonah as if it threatened Israel's judgment by Nineveh's comparatively quick repentance (Mek. Pisha 1.81-82). Jewish traditions attested in some rabbinic sources indicate that Gentile converts to Judaism would testify against the nations in the judgment (Lev. Rab. 2:9; Pesiq. R. 35:3); the repentant poor would testify against those who used poverty as an excuse against repentance; the repentant rich and so forth would do likewise (e.g., ARN 6A; 12, §30B; b. Yoma 35b; 3 Enoch 4:3). Jesus employs his people's traditions to show them their own need (cf. 12:27). Matthew here reemphasizes the Gentile mission: those who know little about Israel's God (like the Ninevites or the Queen of Sheba, or the

Magi earlier in his Gospel) are often least arrogant and hence most responsive to the gospel. (The context of the Queen of Sheba in 1 Kings 10, as with the Ninevites in Jonah, is an Israelite's witness to the nations.)

Finally, by rejecting the transformation effected by God's reign Jesus' opponents would become worse than the way they had started (12:43-45). Although this paragraph occurs in the same general context in Luke, Matthew specifically places it within the discussion of "this evil generation" (12:39, 45) and uses it to conclude Jesus' response to his opponents. Whatever else the parable might say about exorcism, Jesus' point is what it says to that generation: although Jesus was exorcising the generation, its evil leaders were setting it up to be demonized all the worse by rejecting Jesus' reign (cf. Jeremias 1972: 106; Argyle 1963: 99).

The story includes many clearly Palestinian elements (Jeremias 1972: 197-98; cf. Bultmann 1968: 164), and the story line is quite basic. When an unclean spirit leaves a person and enters the desert seeking a place to dwell (for desert haunts for some demons, cf. 4:1; cf. Is 13:21; Tob 8:3; 2 Bar. 10:8; Test. Sol. 5.11-12; Kraeling 1951: 28; for wandering, cf. the tradition preserved by Yemenite Jewish exorcists in Hes 1964: 375), it finally returns with seven times the original force and the man ends up worse than before his exorcism.⁹¹ If one translates the passage literally, the sentence is conditional: the demons will return if the house is left empty (Jeremias 1971: 154). Were Jesus' opponents accusing him of being in league with Satan through his exorcisms (12:24)? Jesus here returns the charge: it is they, not he, who are redemonizing their generation, for they leave the house empty in which God, the only true alternative to the devil, should reign (cf. 23:38-39). (Returning charges was acceptable rhetorical practice, but could intensify one's opposition, e.g., Plato Apology 35D; Acts 7:53.)

Jesus' True Family (12:46-50)

Cf. Mk 3:31-35; Lk 8:19-21. Not only the religious leaders (12:24, 38), but Jesus' own family doubted him (Mk 3:21-31, bracketing the Pharisees' attack; cf. Jn 7:5). Given the role of "James the Lord's brother" in the later church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19; 2:9; Jude 1), one would rather expect the early Christians to have emphasized his virtues and so avoid the charge of nepotism (cf. Jos. Ant. 4.26-28, 34, 58). The stark portrayal here is not apt to reflect an invention of the early Jewish Christians who honored James and provided the bulk of the Matthean community. Nor should we think Matthew would have invented it (even had he not found it in Mark), as it does not cohere easily, without explanation, with his own portrayal of Jesus' faithful mother (1:18-25) or Jesus' emphasis on honor of parents (15:4). But the account could nevertheless prove encouraging to those facing familial ostracism (10:21, 35-37), and illustrates that Jesus follows the same principles he demands of others (8:21-22).

People often brought reports to teachers (e.g., p. Hag. 2:1, §10); here are-port is brought to Jesus about his family standing outside wishing to meet with him (12:47). Relatives normally sought to conceal other relatives' behavior that would shame the whole family, hence their concern in Mark 3:20-31 (cf. Malina 1993: 80). Their opposition to or disbelief in Jesus is less clear in Matthew than in Mark, perhaps because of the shame of the family's unbelief, especially after Mary's experiences in Matthew's infancy narratives (1:18-2:23). Whether or not Matthew has intentionally toned down the offense of Jesus' family, Jesus' refusal to place his physical family first is no less clear here than in Mark.⁹² Even in traditional Greek (Demosth. Against Stephanus 1.53) and Roman (Dupont 1992: 106-8 on clan ties) cultures, family ties were paramount. Being perceived as antifamily was a much greater danger then than it is today (cf. Derrett 1973: 39); yet Jesus followed the practice he had demanded of others (8:21-22; 10:37): the kingdom of God comes first. Allegiance to God's will (7:21; 21:31; 26:42) is what makes one Jesus' true brother, sister, or mother (25:40; 28:10).⁹³

———————————————————

1. Meier 1994: 130 accepts the sayings, but, noting the divergent wording of the narrative, suspects that the wording for the setting may be secondary. Nevertheless, Matthew and Luke agree on the basic content of the narrative structure (Meier concurs), so either oral tradition or a written narrative must provide the framework for these otherwise isolated sayings; Jesus worded his sayings for memorization and transmission, but traditionaries felt more freedom to retell narratives in their own words (see the Introduction). The narrative structure also makes historical sense (see Davies and Allison 1991: 244).

2. Fitzmyer thinks "Coming One" alludes to Mai 3:1-4 (cf. Lk 3:15-17); Witherington asserts that if this suggestion is correct then Jesus replaces that model with a more Isaianic one, but he also stresses one of Fitzmyer's other suggestions, a background in Zech 9:9 LXX and Qumran texts (1QS 9.11; 4QPBless 3; Witherington 1990: 43). Yet the title appears characteristic to John in the tradition (Mt 3:11; though cf. 11:14).

3. See Meier 1994: 832-37 for a thorough and convincing case that the claim to raise the dead goes back to Jesus (for the authenticity of the section, see also 130-37).

4. The narrative may also contribute to the radical distinction between fallible disciples and their Messiah, though Matthew's disciples provide a foil for Jesus less stark than do Mark's.

5. Many of those Jesus touched and healed in these narratives were ceremonially unclean, therefore not to be touched; indeed, even blemishes excluded one from holy service (Lev. 21:23; m. Bek. 7; CD 6-7, 15; 1QM 7; in Greek cults, see Ferguson 1987: 141; Plut. R.Q. 73. Mor. 281C). Some therefore suspect that John objected to Jesus' violation of ritual purity regulations (cf. Johnson 1977: 133). In view of the narratives themselves, however, most scholars who accept both accounts of John in Matthew believe that it was the discrepancy between John's promise of fire-baptism and Jesus' ministry of "mere" healings that disturbed him (Dibelius 1949: 77; Ladd 1974b: 42; F. F. Bruce 1978: 20; Gundry 1982: 206; Witherington 1990: 43; Davies and Allison 1991: 244; Hagner 1993: 300; Meier 1994: 132)

6. Because these verses are likely authentic, Sanders thinks that the historical Jesus did see his miracles in terms of Is 35, hence either that he was fulfilling the prophets' hopes or that their eschatological promises would soon be fulfilled (1993: 168; cf. also Witherington 1990: 44).

7. For "seeing" and "hearing" together, cf., e.g., 13:13; Jer 23:18; Acts 2:33; 4:20; 8:6; 22:15 (the Lukan usages may follow Lk 7:22Q); Rev 22:8.

8. If the Baptist sect later provided competition, Jesus' positive evaluation of the Baptist rather than Christian imagination would seem most likely to stand behind the Gospel tradition praising John (cf. Witherington 1990: 34, following Wink 1968).

9. Davies and Allison 1991: 247 suggest that the reeds evoke the yam suph, Sea of Reeds, in Ex 14—15, hence "Did you go out into the wilderness to see a man repeat the wonders of the exodus?" (cf. people who did so in Jos. Ant.20.97-99); but this, along with their suggestion that royal attire might suggest messianic expectation, makes too specific a potentially broader allusion (tall reeds typically swayed in the wind — Hepper 1992: 70). Still less likely is a misunderstanding of the Aramaic (Schwarz 1996). For a survey of other interpretations (including Aesop's fable Reed, later recurring in rabbinic texts), see Theissen 1991: 27. Some views presuppose that Jesus here depicts John as a reed, but the text indicates that Jesus depicts a reed as what John was not.

10. This model would also appeal to hellenistic readers mistrustful of mendicant philosophers' motives, hence impressed by simplicity (Liefeld 1967: 246, citing Philost. V.A. 1.33; 2.25; 3.50-51).

11. Theissen 1991: 28-41 suggests that even the "reed" is a backhanded allusion to Antipas, arguing for the reed as Antipas's emblem on coins before A.D. 26 (33-34). Although the allusion itself could be broader, the context offers some support for Theissen's proposal, and if he is right, the saying must have originated in Palestine while the memory of Antipas's reed emblem remained fresh — probably in the late 20s, i.e., the time of John's ministry (cf. pp. 39-41).

12. The formula quotation resembles those in Qumran (Davies and Allison 1991: 249 cite CD 1.13; 19.16; 16.15; 4QFlor 1.16; 4QCatena a 1-4.7; 5-6.11; lQpHab 3.2, 13-14; llQMelch 2.15), which might suggest transmission in a source sympathetic toward the Baptist before Q, or may have echoed the language of wilderness sectarians appropriate to speaking of John — or may simply represent one of the standard cultural options preferred here by coincidence or as characteristic of Jesus' style (from Mark; cf. Mt 21:13; 26:31; cf. perhaps "it was said" in 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43).

13. The debate as to whether John belonged to the old or new order may owe more to the ambiguities of Greek grammar than to either Matthew's or Luke's peculiar constructions of salvation history. Both probably envisioned John as somewhat transitional and viewed the newness of God's kingdom in terms of salvation-historical promise and fulfillment rather than a radical discontinuity with God's past historical acts. One's reading of the rest of the Gospel, rather than grammatical matters, will decide one's reading of this passage: some see here the continuing validity of the law (Barth 1963: 64; Vermes 1993: 20), others its fulfillment and completion (Meier 1980: 123).

14. This is a central argument for Crossan 1991a: 237-38, who thereby seeks to oppose Jesus to John's apocalyptic message. The suggestion that Jesus, the disciple of an apocalyptic seer and the teacher of an eschatological movement, was himself antieschatological, dismisses all available evidence to support a theory without evidence and strains our sense of historical plausibility. Later Christians would not likely have conformed Jesus to John (the competition), but his own contemporaries sometimes compared him with John or with Elijah (16:14), who in Gospel tradition was the background for John (3:4; 11:14; 17:12), despite John's lack of signs; they viewed both as prophets (e.g., 21:11,26, 46).

15. E.g., Dion. Hal. 6.81.3; probably Babrius 102.12. Llewelyn 1994: 130-62 shows that this is a frequent sense of the term in legal complaints (e.g.. P. Oxy. 49.3468; P. Hal. l.col. 8, lines 166-85; P. Lond. 1.45; 2.401; P. Tor. 3; Athenian law on pp. 147-51).

16. Jesus' opening words about the kingdom and "force" may well be in the middle voice ("the kingdom has been forcing its way forward"; cf. Jos. Ant. 20.206; see Hunter 1944; 55; Ladd 1974b: 71; Young 1995: 49-55); "violent persons seizing the kingdom," however, must refer, positively or negatively, to human activity in response to God's. In the end, Schnackenburg 1985: 101 rightly observes that the original sense of 11:12-13 is obscure ("dunkel"); for a survey of various views, see Hagner 1993: 306-7.

17. Many see the reference either to disciples storming their way into the kingdom or at times of their "forcing" or "pressing" the kingdom to come (cf. A. B. Bruce 1979: 173; Argyle 1963: 86; Vermes 1993: 140; Papone 1990; Häfner 1992).

18. Scholars frequently object that the language of violence here is always used negatively (France 1985: 195), but Jesus' parables show that he did not scruple to employ shocking images for the advance of God's reign, such as brutal tyrants (Mt 18:25, 34), unjust judges (Lk 18:2), an unexpected thief (Mt 24:42-43), and perhaps a naively benevolent landowner (Mk 12:6).

19. For a defense of the basic authenticity of 11:16-19, cf., e.g., Koenig 1985: 20-21. See also Meier 1994: 150: early Christianity did not seem highly tolerant of "sinners," so one should accept (on the criterion of discontinuity) that Jesus ate with them, hence the probable authenticity of the charge in 11:18-19.

20. In a wide variety of ancient texts, both Greek and Jewish, children's games convey the image of inconsistency; see Flusser 1981: 151-53, summarized in Jones 1995: 268. For children's fickleness, see also Epict. Disc. 3.15.12.

21. Flutes were, of course, also used for mourning (e.g., 9:23; Sib. Or. 3.488; this would fit the parallel with the dirge) and for workers, e.g., as they treaded grapes with their feet (Lewis 1983: 125; Select Papyri 1:64-67). But the conjunction with dancing indicates antithetical rather than synthetic parallelism with the dirge-singers (cf. analogous contrasts in Eccl 3:4; Eurip. Alcestis 343-47; Propertius Eleg. 2.7.11-12), hence presumably a wedding (cf., e.g., Jer 31:13; b. Ketub. 17a); wedding joy was the opposite of mourning; see comment on 9:15.

22. Such a charge shamed the family (Prov 28:7). Greek philosophers, including Plato (cf. Lodge 1928: 27-31, 65, 343-54), also condemned gluttony and enslavement to the belly (Epict. Disc. 2.9.4; Sen. Dial. 7.20.5; Ep. ad Lucil. 60:4; Plut. Pleasant Life Impossible 3, Mor. 1087D; Diog. Laert. 2.34; Philostr. V.A. 1.7; cf. Hor. Ep. 1.18.21-25; Juv. Sat. 2.114; Mart. Epig. 2.40; 3.17.3, 22.1-5; 5.70, 74; 7.20; 11.86; 12.41; Ach. Tat. 2.23.1; gluttony and drunkenness in Plut. Educ. 7, Mor. 4B), and one of the vices the Diaspora Jewish philosopher Philo condemns most strongly is gluttony and its source, a person accommodating the "belly," the place of irrational desire (e.g., Opif. 158-59; Leg. Alleg. 3.159; Migr. 66; Som. 2.155; Spec. Leg. 1.192, 281: 4.91; cf. Wolfson 1968: 2:225-37; cf. also 3 Macc 7:10-11; 4 Macc 1:3; Phil 3:19; Syr. Men. Epit. 6-8; Test. Mos. 7:4; Apoc. Elijah 1:13); the two forms of gluttony are eating and drinking (Philo Som. 2.155; cf. Spec. 1.148). Aristocratic Romans were known for gluttony (Barrow 1968: 26).

23. Jeremias regards Wisdom here as a periphrasis for God, suggesting that Luke's addition of "of God" in 11:49 (par. Mt 23:34) is secondary (1972: 162; 1971: 10). Luke's "children" (7:35) may also be secondary (cf. Sir 4:11), but the sense is much the same as here: wisdom is vindicated by her deeds, i.e., the deeds of her children. Witherington 1990: 51 -52 sees pre-Matthean Wisdom Christology here; he may be correct (though I am skeptical of his argument here, revised in his later work, that Matthew does not emphasize Wisdom Christology elsewhere; cf. Deutsch 1990). Pheme Perkins and others argue that in Q Jesus sees himself as Wisdom (Mt 11:19, 25-30; 23:34, 37-39), and that Paul's christological hymns reflect the same Christology (Thompson 1985: 251-52, citing Fuller and Perkins 1983: 55, 63; see Thompson 1985: 261).

24. Theissen 1991: 49 notes that whereas Bethsaida is well known (Mk 8:22, 26; Jos. Life 399; War 2.168; Ant. 18.28; Pliny N.H. 5.71; Ptolemy Geography 5.16.4), Chorazin is otherwise barely known apart from modern excavations there (Euseb. Onom. 333; perhaps b. Menah. 85a, but cf. t. Menah. 9:2). Adinolfi 1994 argues that few Greek and Roman authors except Pausanias know much of the cities around the Lake of Galilee, including Bethsaida; Arav and Rousseau 1993 contend that Bethsaida was forgotten after the Roman destruction. Later Christians would probably not invent such a tradition.

25. Rejection after a miracle may be a form of negative acclamation, but otherwise it is virtually unparalleled outside early Christian texts (Theissen 1983: 72).

26. One should not make too much of the poetic rhythm, which frequently appears in ancient prophecy, including (albeit in specified meter) Pythian utterances (e.g., Diod. Sic. 7.12.1-6; 9.3.1-2; 9.16.1; 9.33.2; 9.36.2-3; 16.91.2; 34/35.13.1) and sayings of the oracle of Dodona (Dion. Hal. 1.19.3); the Odes of Solomon also contain much parallelism.

27. Also pace Bultmann, the prophecy looks back on only the Galilean ministry as completed, and that only in Matthew's redaction (Theissen 1991: 51n.73).

28. Other Jewish texts condemned those who wanted to "ascend to heaven" semiliterally (Gen 11:4; Sib. Or. 3.100) or figuratively (Jer 51:53; Ps. Sol. 1:5; 1 Enoch 45:2; cf. Virg. Aen. 7.99-100, 272; 12.795; Sail. Catil. 53.1) and promised that the arrogant would be cast to the earth or the grave (Sib. Or. 4.109-11), sometimes explicitly that they would be cast down from heaven (Lam 2:1; Ezek 28:8-10, 17; Jub. 24:31; Sib. Or. 5.72; Gk. Ezra 4:32; Apoc. Elijah 4:11).

29. The Wisdom character of 11:25-27 suggests that these verses constitute a single unit in the Gospel tradition (Witherington 1990: 222).

30. "Before the Father" was not unusual Jewish language; see Jeremias 1971: 10; McNamara 1972: 95; cf. Mt 18:14. "Revealing secrets" is expected Wisdom language even when speaking of human secrets (cf. Sir 27:17; 42:1).

31. The Gnostic interpretation falters severely on the phrase, "no one knows the Son but the Father" (Witherington 1990: 224).

32. E.g., Stauffer 1960: 165-66; Grant 1966: 152; Suggs 1970: 71-108; Yamauchi 1973: 35; Witherington 1990: 221-22.

33. Vermes 1993: 162, while agreeing that the Q logion behind 11:25-27 has a Palestinian origin, doubts its authenticity because he says receiving and transmitting revelation (here and in 16:17) are foreign to Jesus' teaching; but if Jesus' contemporaries could apply this language to the mysteries of Wisdom (and Vermes admits they could; cf. also n. 12, where he cites 1QS 1.9; 5.9; 8.1; 9.13; CD 15.13; lQpHab 2.2-3; 7.5-6; 4Q381 1.1-2), Vermes can exclude the possibility of Jesus the sage speaking likewise only by circularly excluding the evidence of 11:25-27; 16:17. Dunn 1975 allows that Jesus may have spoken 11:27 but remains uncertain.

34. One might appeal here to Wis 2:13, 16, 18 (cf. 7:27), in which Wisdom makes people "sons" of God; but while this may constitute a primary background, it does not limit how Jesus could have reapplied the expression, especially if he functions here as the divine revealer, hence as Wisdom herself. A Jewish audience would recognize Wisdom as God's child; partly because Wisdom was a female figure (cf. the term's gender but also her figurative portrayals, e.g.. Prov 8-9), partly because later rabbis usually reserved the "son" image for Israel, Wisdom/Torah became God's "daughter": Sifre Deut. 345.2.2; b. Sanh. 101a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:9; Ex. Rab. 29:4; 33:1; Num. Rab. 12:4; Song Rab. 3:10, §2; 8:11, §2; Pesiq. R. 20:1-2. Hengel rightly regards this personification of Torah as God's daughter as equivalent to Philo's identification of Logos as God's son (1974a: 1:171).

35. Suggs 1970 probably did overstate the case in Matthew (see Pregeant 1996), but it should not for that reason be understated. Davies and Allison 1991: 222-25, 231 find the language of "exclusive and reciprocal divine knowledge" in the figure of Moses (Ex 33-34; Num 12; Deut 34; also Allison 1988). They acknowledge the Wisdom language in the context, but seek to keep both backgrounds by noting the idea of the king as embodying a living law (228-29, citing three references in Stobaeus and Moses as living Torah in Philo Mos. 1.162; cf. 2.3-5). I suspect, however, that Wisdom language, which is closer and more widespread in this exalted form, would strike Jesus' hearers first. A primary allusion to Is 61 (Charette 1992a) seems even less likely. Tuckett 1966; 280 thinks that in Q Jesus was an envoy of Wisdom, not yet identified with Wisdom, but the identification is surely quite early (1 Cor 8:6).

36. The yoke of God's law or God's kingdom appears throughout ancient Jewish literature in a variety of ways (often in contrast with the yoke of worldly rule); see, e.g., Jer 5:5; Ps. Sol. 7:9; 2 Bar. 41:3; m. 'Abot 3:5; Ber. 2:2; t. B. Qam. 7:5; Sifra Shir. pq. 12.121.2.5; Behar par. 5.255.1.9, 11; Sifre Deut. 344.4.2; b. Ber. 12b, 13b, 14b-15a; Mo'ed. Qat. 16b; p. Qidd. 1:2, §24; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:18; Gen. Rab. 67:7; Ex. Rab. 15:11; Num. Rab. 19:26; Lam. Rab. 3.27, §9; Pesiq. R. 21:16; cf. also Maher 1975: 98-100; Urbach 1979: 1:400-419.

37. Pace Stanton 1982; idem 1993: 366-77; and Gundry 1982: 220, though Gundry's own evidence points to Matthew's changes of Sirach.

38. Hagner 1993: 323 sees in 11:28 an allusion to Yahweh's giving rest (Ex 33:14) that goes beyond Wisdom. This is possible, but the language can be explained simply as an allusion to divine Wisdom.

39. Making the same point. Garland 1993: 133 emphasizes the impact of the image: "Jesus treats his disciples as yokefellows rather than as camels and donkeys to be loaded down (23:4)."

40. The eschatological survivors will be the "meek and lowly" who submit to God's decrees (Zeph 3:12 LXX, with the same expression; on gentleness, cf. Mt 5:5; 21:5; Zech 9:9; on humility, 18:4, 23:12). Moses provides the model for a meek leader who remains firm because he acts under God's authority (Num 12:3; cf. generosity to enemies in Jos. Apion 2.211-13; acting like part of the multitude in Ant. 3.212; cf. Sirat and Woog 1992); later rabbis extolled Hillel's gentleness (b. Shab. 31a). Paul's depiction of his own meekness and gentleness in terms of those of Christ seems to allude back to this saying of Jesus (2 Cor 10:1; cf. Eph 4:2).

41. It is highly unlikely that Matthew views himself as relaxing the Sabbath in this passage (Sigal 1986: 158; pace Stanton 1993: 204-5). Matthew is clearer in his affirmation of biblical law here than Mark is (Goulder 1974: 17-18; Overman 1990b: 80-82; Segal 1991: 6-7); such clarity would be important among his community, which probably had to respond to non-Christian Jewish charges of antinomianism.

42. Some suggest that Mark constructed Jesus' conflicts with some of the Pharisees simply on the basis of conflict the early church was experiencing. Yet long before Mark, Jewish Christian writers report conflict between Palestinian Jewish-Christians and some of their contemporaries (e.g., 1 Thess 2:14-16), and we know of at least one Pharisee who actively persecuted Christians (Phil 3:5- 6). Acts suggests that conflict with Pharisees decreased for a time, and that with Sadducees increased, after Jesus' resurrection (e.g., Acts 4-5; 15:5; 23:6-9). Matthew and especially John amplified Mark's reports about the Pharisees, but Mark addressed a Diaspora audience that would know the Pharisees only from the Jesus tradition. Scholars may question the reliability of such evidence, but when they reject all the evidence we do have and construct a theory without textual evidence that runs against all our textual evidence, one suspects that they value their theory more highly than the data at hand (see more fully the case in Stanton 1995a: 184-85). On a literary level, however, Jesus' conflict with the Jewish authorities is certainly central to Matthew's plot (Kingsbury 1992).

43. Public prayer and study of Torah must have consumed some of each Sabbath (Jos. Apion 1.209; 2.175). Even in more hellenized cities, around 6 p.m. Friday evening religious Jews left secular activities, including political assemblies, and began their Sabbath dinner (Jos. Life 279). Most Jewish people seem to have observed traditional limits on Sabbath day's journeys (CD 10.20-21; Acts 1:12; cf. Num. Rab. 2:9; Ruth Rab. 6:4; for circumventing by means of Sabbath residences, see, e.g., p. Ma'al 2:3; m. 'Erub. passim). Bowker (1973: 39) suggests that the Pharisees made use here of their permitted Sabbath day's journey (something Sadducees apparently prohibited), about 1,100 meters (2,000 cubits, based on Num 35:5; m. Soţa 5:3; m. "Erub. 4:3; 5:7; b. 'Erub. 45a; Sukk. 44b; Lake and Cadbury 1979: 10); perhaps seeing Jesus take his disciples to the fields, they confronted them there. Davies and Allison 1991: 307 cite b. Shab. 127a for a rabbi in the field on the Sabbath. Witherington 1990: 67 suggests that Mk 2:24 does not actually identify the Pharisees' location (Matthew is more explicit, but elsewhere abbreviates accounts by omitting clarifying details, e.g., omitting messengers in 8:5-8; 9:18-19). Wheat was ready for harvest and gleaning in April (Stauffer 1960: 84).

44. Powerful Jerusalemites could send aristocratic delegations, which could include Pharisees, to Galilee (Jos. Life 21. 28-29, 72-73, 196).

45. Casey 1988 (see especially p. 20) accepts the account as authentic; Sanders 1990: 21; idem 1985: 265 accepts the exchange as authentic, rejecting only its narrative frame.

46. Morton Smith and Jacob Neusner think that Pharisaism was much less significant in the pre-70 period, and that Josephus magnified it in his later Antiquities, when Pharisaism was more popular. But cf. War 2.163, and note that Josephus may have had apologetic reasons to downplay the Pharisees' role in his earlier War (Witherington 1990: 83-84, following Dunn).

47. One could postulate a Sitz im Leben for polemic against a Pharisaic faction within the church in the late 40s (Acts 15:5). but would such polemic generate stories about enemies of the earthly Jesus, and if traditionaries took that much liberty, would they not introduce current controversies like circumcision?

48. Theissen's evidence for Pharisaic toleration in the 60s (Jos. Ant. 20.200-201; cf. War 2.162; Life 191) and late 50s (Acts 23:9) is fairly secure, as is his evidence for some hostility in the 30s (Acts 7:54-60; Gal 1:13, 23). His evidence for hostility in the early 40s (Acts 12:2 with Jos. Ant. 19.332; 1991: 231-32) is less secure.

49. This is our earliest extant Christian mention of Pharisees, unless one dates Mark before the mid-50s. Cf. Acts 9:1-2.

50. The "Wicked Priest" has been identified with Jonathan (Rost 1976: 163), John Hyrcanus (Brownlee 1956-57a: 13-15), or "the false priesthood of the Temple at any time between the Maccabean period and the fall of the Hasmonean dynasty" (Fritsch 1956: 83-84). Some have identified the "Young Lion" of 4QpNah 1.5 with Alexander Jannaeus (Allegro 1956a: 92; Eisenman 1983: 35); others contend that a specific identification is impossible (Rowley 1956a); and still others choose even Pontius Pilate (Thiering 1981a; 70, with little support). As the original teacher of righteousness became a model for the future one (CD 6.10-11) and the title probably applied to all his successors (Buchanan 1977), the identity of the original "Wicked Priest" may have applied to the high priesthood in perpetuity. Overman 1996: 224 cites 4QMMT as a sample of halakic debates at Qumran.

Some scholars find clues of Essene antagonism toward Pharisaism (Roth 1960b: 65; idem 1960c; Dupont-Sommer 1969: 33) or Pharisaic or rabbinic opposition to the Essenes (Lieberman 1951: 396-400). The rabbis nevertheless reflect legal or cultural traditions often shared with Qumran, though reasons for those parallels are debated (e.g., Baumgarten 1958b: 256; Neusner 1973; Schiffman 1983).

51. Sigal 1986: 141-42 suggests that the tradition reflects the Hebrew lemahrim oto, "to place him under the ban," misunderstood by the translator in its earlier biblical sense as "destroy." Such a suggestion is not impossible, but is highly speculative.

52. Jesus' application of traditional Jewish methods of interpretation is generally acknowledged (e.g., Hicks 1984), but some contend that Jesus applied these methods very differently than his trained opponents did; according to this view, Jesus produced analogies they would have rejected and thus provoked their anger (Cohn-Sherbok 1979).

53. The general principle in his illustration also remains relevant whether it contains an implicit claim to Jesus' Davidic descent or not. That no connection between Jesus and David is developed here (pace, e.g., France 1985: 202) suggests authenticity rather than a creation of later Christians (Witherington 1990: 67). Other interpretations also exist: if the view that David's act occurred on the Sabbath (b. Menah. 95b; Yalqut on 1 Sam 21:5) reflects tradition contemporary with Jesus (which is quite uncertain), this tradition might be relevant; Vermes 1993: 24 suggests an extrapolation of hunger to starvation, hence death.

54. Similarly, if slaying the Passover lamb overrides the Sabbath, so also do other Passover preparations (t. Pisha 5:1; some disagreed — 4:13); preparations for Sukkoth override the Sabbath (t. Sukk. 3:1); if circumcision suspends the Sabbath (and it does — t. Shehitat Hul. 6:2; Mek. Amalek 3.109-10; Sifra Taz. pq. 1.123.1.8; b. Hul. 84b, bar.; p. Ned. 3:9, §2), how much more does saving a life (b. Yoma 85b; cf. Jn 7:22-23; b. 'Arak. 7a). France 1985: 203 notes that some (in m. Menah. 10:3, 9, the Sadducees) rejected the Pharisees' exceptions, too. Davies and Allison 1991: 314 point out that priests "profaning" the Sabbath is apparently traditional language, and list other exceptions in Jos. Ant. 14.63; m. Ned. 3:11; Pesaḥ. 6:1-2; t. Pesaḥ. 4:13. Arguments over which commandment takes precedence when two are in conflict were common (Vermes 1993: 22 on Mk 3:4).

55. The use of comparisons in 12:6, 40-42 reflects standard argumentation in Greco-Roman rhetoric (Stanton 1993: 77-80).

56. Saldarini 1994: 131 suggests an allusion to Lev 23:3, a "Sabbath to the Lord," i.e., Yahweh. Equally speculatively, Witherington 1990: 246 (who regards Mk 2:28 par. Mt 12:8 as redactional summary — 67) suggests a contrast with the evil figure who changes times and law in Dan 7:25 (cf. Jos. Ant. 10.276).

57. Although it appears in Ben Sira's prologue and Cohen 1987: 187 sees it in Josephus and Philo, the three divisions became especially prominent among the rabbis (e.g.. ARN 14A; b. B. Bat. 13b, bar.; B. Qam. 92b; Sanh. 90b, 106a; p. Meg. 1:5, §3; Ned. 3:9, §3). Later rabbis also liked to produce proofs from all three divisions (e.g., b. 'Abod. Zar. 19b; Mak. 10b).

58. Assuming that Jesus used the usual halakic example found in rabbinic texts (oxen typically fell into pits, e.g., m. B. Qam. 5:5-6), Hilton and Marshall 1988: 91 suggest that Luke's "ox" is more original and that Matthew changed the illustration to a sheep because it is less likely to die in such a fall than a heavier animal would be.

59. The strict legal teaching in the later sources was not that one might "pull" it out, however; one merely made a way for it to climb out (Goulder 1974: 18; Gundry 1982: 227).

60. The principle here is also somewhat more clearly defined than Mark's "The Sabbath was made on account of humanity, rather than humanity on account of the Sabbath" (Mk 2:27), despite the abundant Jewish parallels to this statement (cf. Smith 1951: 138; Jeremias 1971: 18; Vermes 1993: 24; pace Witherington 1990: 68) and similar logical constructions in Jewish literature (e.g., 2 Macc 5:19; 2 Bar. 14:18; Deut. Rab. 3:1; Pesiq. R. 23:9; cf. Crates Ep. 24, to the Thessalians). Witherington 1994: 169 suggests that Jesus' statement in Mark 2:27 may counter the sort of saying that appears in Jub 2:18ff. Matthew may wish to avoid an ambiguity that could be exploited by those charging his community with antinomianism (cf. 5:17).

61. It is questioned today to what extent the Pharisees identified God's Word with their tradition in this period (in contrast to later traditions about the oral law; on today's dispute, e.g., contrast Sanders 1990: 97-130 with Baumgarten 1972). But as in much popular religion today, the line between what Scripture says and what interpreters assume it means may to them have been rather thin.

62. Ådna 1992 argues that this Targum's triumphant Messiah simply follows a traditional Jewish hermeneutic. Doeve 1954: 147-48 links Is 52:13-53:12 with Dan 7:13-14 based on early Jewish hermeneutical methods. Among eighteen people called "servant" in Scripture, one is Messiah, in Is 42:1 (so ARN 43, §121B; cf. Pesiq. R. 31:10; on Targ. Ps-Jon. to Is 53, see Koch 1972); other Jewish sources also portray the Messiah as God's servant (2 Bar. 70:9). For relatively early possible messianic interpretations, including possible application to Qumran's Teacher of Righteousness, see Schoeps 1961b: 134-39; Dupont-Sommer 1973: 361-63; Brownlee 1956/1957a: 18-20; Zimmerli and Jeremias 1957: 57-60. But other views of the Isaianic servant are probably more common; one rabbi saw Moses as the suffering servant, atoning by not entering the land (Davies 1974: 60), and the title "servant" can refer to Israel (Ps. Sol. 12:6; 17:21). That it originates with Jesus seems probable (Taylor 1955; Zimmerli and Jeremias 1957: 93; cf. Schweizer 1963: 257).

63. Cf. Gundry 1982: 229; Schweizer 1970: 37-38; Stendah 1 1968: 110; on his targumist sort of reading, cf. Tassin 1990.

64. The "Son of David" acclamation might relate to the association of Solomon with exorcism; see Jos. Ant. 8.45-49; incant. text 47.1-3; 48.4-5; 50:8; 51; Test. Sol. passim, e.g., 5:10; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3; semipagan texts in PGM4.850-929 (citing "gods" in 4.852-53, 886); 3039-41; cf. also b. Giţ. 68ab; OTP 1:948. Cf. David and exorcism in 1 Sam 16:14-23; 18:10; Ps-Philo 60; Smith 1978: 79 also links Solomon, the "Son of David," and exorcism. But the title's primary usage is messianic (see comment on 1:1).

65. For other possible associations between sorcerers or diviners and demons, cf. CD 12.2-3; b. Sanh. 67b.

66. Essene rules may illustrate the seriousness of the offense: although the Essenes toned down the Bible's capital offense for Sabbath violation (CD 12.4-5), which they nonetheless took quite seriously, they still regarded speaking by demons as a capital offense (CD 12.2-3).

67. Traveling teachers in the Greek world likewise had to distinguish themselves from charlatans, e.g., Dio Chrysostom from disreputable Cynics and Apollonius from magicians (Liefeld 1967: 285-87); Mark's narrative likewise uses tradition to contrast Jesus' true source of power with the charge (cf. Mansfield 1987: 62).

68. On Jewish accusations that Jesus was a magician, see also Justin Dial. 69:7; b. Sanh. 43a; 107b; Klausner 1979b: 27-28, 49-51, 293; Dalman 1973: 45-50; Herford 1966: 50-62; Gero 1978; Yamauchi 1986: 90-91; Horbury 1984: 183-95; Stanton 1995a: 156-58 (Stanton also treats the standard accusation as a form of deviance labeling to maintain social control). The earliest Jewish and pagan sources reflecting this view admittedly date from the second century (Aune 1980: 1525; Flusser 1988: 635), but several reasons suggest that the later charge reflects a first-century one: (1) no potentially relevant sources predate the second century anyway; (2) charges of magic are common in societies that accept its existence (see Mbiti 1970: 262); (3) Gospel texts would probably not respond to a nonexistent charge (Sanders 1985: 166); and (4) Mark and Q independently attest the charge (Stanton 1995a: 161-62); (5) fitting Jesus into the ancient category of "magician" would be easy enough if one ignored other features of his ministry, which his opponents did (cf. at length Smith 1978; for critique, e.g., Yamauchi 1986: 95-96; Blomberg 1986: 449). Pagans often viewed Christian exorcism as Egyptian or Jewish trickery (Edwards 1989).

69. Mt 12:28/Lk 11:20, Q material, demonstrates that where Mark depends on an earlier source like Q, Matthew, Luke, or both feel free to add appropriate material from the original source. This multiple attestation also favors the authenticity of the passage. Twelftree 1993: 98-113 regards much of the account as historically reliable.

70. Davies and Allison 1991: 336 suggest that the words may even be proverbial (cf. Soph. Antig. 672; Philo Decal. 152; Cic. Lael. 7.23; on Satan's "kingdom" they compare 4Q286 10 2.1-13; 4QAmram b fr. 2; Test. Dan 6:1-4).

71. "Sons" (NIV wrongly renders this as "people," but NRSV rightly understands it as "exorcists") could mean "apprentices" or "disciples" (cf. Jeremias 1969: 177). "They will be your judges" (12:27) might mean that these exorcists would testify against Jesus' accusers' inconsistency at the judgment (12:41-42). Although the sources are rare and late, one may note in passing that some later teachers even felt that good demons existed, and those who knew the law well could teach rabbis (Alexander 1980: 36). Shirock 1992 makes a good case in favor of the classical Christian view that the "sons" are Jesus' disciples; but Pharisees would hardly be persuaded by a self-evident appeal to disciples' exorcism, and early Christians had polemical reasons to interpret as Shirock does.

72. Beelzebul (cf. 10:25) is probably a corruption of a pagan deity's name (2 Kings 1:2), but he appears as the prince of the demons in the third-century Test. Sol. 3 (perhaps through Christian influence). Davies and Allison 1991: 335 provide parallels for "ruler of the demons" (Jub. 48.15; 1QM 17.5-6; Test. Dan 5:6; b. Pesaḥ. 110a; cf. also our citations under Mt 4:9; Charles 1902: lxxxiii).

73. The authenticity of 12:28 is usually assumed today, and some scholars also hold 12:27 and 12:28 together in the tradition (Davies and Allison 1991: 339).

74. E.g., Rodd 1961; Dunn 1975: 45-46; Menzies 1991: 186-89.

75. E.g., Gundry 1982: 235; Schweizer 1975: 287; Witherington 1990: 201; Davies and Allison 1991: 340; Allison 1993b: 237.

76. The association of the Spirit with miracles other than prophecy was also rare in early Judaism (Menzies 1991: 57).

77. So, e.g., Jeremias 1972: 122; Weiss 1971: 81; Rhoads and Michie 1982: 42; pace France 1985: 210.

78. Incantations for warding off demons are at least as old as the Egyptian Book of the Dead (e.g., Spells 40, 41, 136) and Persian sources (Olmstead 1959: 18, citing Vid. 8:21; 20:7). Although "binding" had wider figurative usages (e.g., 22:13; Plato Cratylus 403C; cf. sympathetic magic in PGM 12.160-78; mummification in PDM 14.256) and sometimes referred to demons' present or future imprisonment (1 Enoch 10:4-6, 11-14; 13:1; 14:5; 21:3-4; Jub. 10:7; Test. Levi 18:12; Rev 20:2; cf. 1 Enoch 22:11; 90:23; Deut. Rab. 1:22; Mt 22:13), it became common in magical exorcisms (e.g., Tob 8:1-2; Smith 1978: 127; Twelftree 1986: 385; cf. Test. Sol. 3:7; 18). "Binding" demons appears as part of magical texts in Aram, incant. text 3.2, 7; 5.1-2 ("conquered ... bound"); 5.3-4 ("I am binding you with the evil and strong spell"); 10.1 ("Wholly bound and sealed and tied in knots . . . that you .. . depart from the house"); 27.2-3; 47.1-3; cf. PGM 3.99-100; texts also speak of demons binding persons (e.g., Tob 3:17; Deissmann 1978: 304-7); in Horn. II. 5.385-91 mortals bind Ares in ajar. One could also "bind" demons to manipulate them to do one's will in sorcery (e.g., PGM 4.384-85. 2246-48; 101/1-3; cf. also conveniently in Kraemer 1988: 108-9; cf. Alexander 1980: 36-40), or use such demons to "bind" people (e.g., PGM 4.355-56, 376-83, 395; 7.912-13; 15.1; 32.1-19; 101.8-9, 16-17, 36; IG 3.97.34-41 in Lefkowitz and Fant 1988: 258, §251).

79. Jesus thus believes that his exorcisms prefigure the end, although few texts indicate that eschatological exorcism was a standard expectation (Twelftree 1993: 217-24, 228).

80. For a discussion of the authenticity of the blasphemy against the Spirit saying, see Marshall 1974: 77-78. Apart from its context in the Didache (11:7), none of Boring's arguments that this must be a prophecy later than Jesus himself bears any weight (pace Boring 1982: 159-60; Theissen 1978: 28). Gos. Nic./Acts of Pilate 4:3 (Boring 1995: 88-89) presumably echoes Jesus' saying, though it purports to indicate Jewish tradition.

81. Blaspheming Jesus directly may not have counted as harshly during his earthly ministry on account of the messianic secret (France 1985: 210). "Will be forgiven" may reflect an Aramaic construction meaning forgiveness in the present rather than only in the future (Gundry 1982: 237). On the Jewish doctrine of two ages, cf., e.g., 13:22; Eph 1:21; Lk 18:30; 4 Ezra 7:50; t. Ta'an. 3:14; Sifre Num. 115.5.7; Sifre Deut. 29.2.3; ARN 12A; 22, §46B; b. Yoma 87a; p. Hag. 2:1, §16; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:2; 9:1; Gen. Rab. 1:10; 59:6; 90:6; Ex. Rab. 30:19; 47:3; Lev. Rab. 3:1; Deut. Rab. 2:31; Song Rab. 2:2, §6; Pesiq. R. 16:6; 25:2; cf. also Ferch 1977: 135-51. God would punish blasphemy (1 Enoch 96:7); some Jewish circles considered apostasy from the covenant an unforgivable form of blasphemy (Jub. 15:34). Qumran regulations made deliberate rebellion against the community unforgivable (1QS 7.15-17, 22-23); the Watchers, whose rebellion against God had been deliberate and total, were also beyond forgiveness (1 Enoch 12:5). Some later teachers felt that atonement was efficacious for the repentant — hence unavailable to those who cast off the covenant in which repentance was possible (p. Shebu. 1:6, §5; cf. Hag. 2:1, §9). Probably reading the blasphemy against the Spirit in light of Heb 6:4-6, some early interpreters understood it as one deliberately rejecting grace, as distinct from falling into error (Origen First Principles 1.3), though blasphemy could be forgiven if followed by repentance (Augustine Sermons on NT Lessons 21.35, ACCS, 46-47; cf. 1 Tim 1:13,20).

82. For this point, cf. Bultmann 1968: 108n.l; Dalman 1929: 227; Manson 1979: 60; Lachs 1987: 213.

83. Attention to one's speech (often including recommendations to silence) was part of broader Greco-Roman (e.g., Gnomologium Vaticanum 459 in Malherbe 1986: 110; Pythag. Sent. 14, 16, 22 in ibid. 110-11; Isoc. Demon. 34; Sen. Dial. 5.10.1; Dio Chrys. 32d Disc. 2; Plut. Educ. 14, Mor. 10F; Aul. Gel. 1.15; Diog. Laert. 1.69-70, 87, 92, 104; 7.1.24; 7.5.172; contrast Diog. Laert. 5.40) and ancient Near Eastern (e.g.. Ahiqar 98-99, Sayings 15-16; "Ani," ANET 420; "Amen-em-opet," ANET 424; Prov 12:18; 21:23) wisdom.

84. "Adulterous" (12:39) could refer to immoral hearts (susceptible to lust and divorce, 5:27-32) or, more likely, as often in the Hebrew Bible, apostasy from their covenant with God (e.g., Is 1:21; Hos 1:2; 2:2; 4:15, 18; 9:1; Jer 2:20; 3:1, 6; Ezek 16:33).

85. Allison 1993b: 237-38 doubts that Matthew wishes to emphasize the allusion strongly given his omission of Q's "finger of God" in 12:28 (cf. Ex 8:18-19), but it may just be that Matthew's need to stress the Spirit took precedence over the Moses allusion there.

86. Jesus' contemporaries seemed more interested in Jonah's experience with the fish than in other features of his book and might therefore understand Jesus as referring to that episode (France 1985: 213); others think that the sign in the Q version meant only Jonah's preaching (Vermes 1993: 57-58). "Three days and three nights" (Jonah 2:1; cf. Hos 6:2) was standard Jewish language covering a period including any parts of three days (references in Gundry 1982: 244-45; Vermes 1993: 58-59). Jewish teachers apparently accepted the witness of one's death only after three days had passed (Dalman 1929: 188): but "three days" may simply represent a short period (e.g., Jos. Life 205, 229, 268). Some Jewish sources apply the "heart of the earth" to the realm of the dead (Gundry 1982: 244, who also compares Jonah 2:3; but cf. Ezek 28:2).

87. Matthew might also expect his community to recall that Jesus prophesied Jerusalem's destruction (23:38-24:2) as Jonah prophesied Nineveh's, but the specific tradition that Jonah also prophesied Jerusalem's demise (cited by Schmitt 1978) is later and too narrow. Jonah appears more positively in later rabbinic texts than in early ones; see Zucker 1995.

88. Josephus concurs that it was internationally famed (Apion 1.111-15; cf. 1 Kings 4:34) but makes Moses the wisest man in history (Ant. 4.328); nevertheless, he portrays Solomon very favorably for a hellenistic audience (Feldman 1976).

89. That later Jewish traditions amplify her paganism (Test. Sol. 19:3) is probably irrelevant. Origen and Jerome viewed her as a black African (Felder 1989: 12-13; Snowden 1970: 202-3); Jesus' contemporaries viewed her as African, queen of Egypt and Ethiopia (Jos. Ant. 8.159, 165, 175; Lives of the Prophets 1.8/12 [Schermann 76.13-14, §24]; Scott 1994: 536n.203); Twelfth Dynasty Egyptian sources reportedly speak of a Saba as capital of Kush, i.e., as Meroe (Adamo 1986: 139; cf. Jos. Ant. 2.249). Both Ethiopian and Arabic (Manson 1979: 91) traditions about her claim her for themselves; for further discussion, see Felder 1989: 22-36; Hansberry 1981: 33-58; Adamo 1986: 137-44; C. J. Sanders 1995. In any case, no one disputes that South Arabians and East Africans derive from genetically similar stock (cf., e.g., Rashidi 1988: 23-24). "Queen of the south" may suggest for Nineveh the antithetical title "king of the north," which may recall great evil (Dan 11:6, 8, 11; Theissen 1991: 44-45).

90. Vermes 1993: 61-66 doubts that Jesus often used pesher interpretation such as is found in the Scrolls, where its function was (he claims) apologetic rather than didactic; but I believe the pesharim include clear didactic elements (even the apologetic was retained within the community, for purposes of self-definition), and Jesus' application of texts to his own (climactic) generation is multiply attested (e.g., Mt 23:35-36//Lk 11:51; Mk 4:11-12; 14:27; Mt 26:54; Lk 4:18-19; 24:44; Jn 15:25).

91. "Sevenfold" represents the rhetoric of amplified punishments (Gen 4:15, 24; Lev 26:18; Ps 79:12) or other amplifications (1 Enoch 72:37; 91:16; cf. Test. Sol. 8:1). For the possibility of demons returning, Davies and Allison 1991: 361 cite Mk 9:25; Jos. Ant. 8.45; Philost. V.A. 4.20; Acts Thom. 46; for a person as a demon's house, they cite Test. Naph. 8:6; b. Giţ. 52a. Cf. also magical incantations to make a spirit "dwell" or "remain" (PGM 4.709-10).

92. In contrast to much later tradition, this passage probably refers to Jesus' younger siblings physically (1:25); see most fully and fairly Meier 1991a: 318-32. Benassi 1957 notes that the Semitic expression could mean that Jesus' family members are such not merely by human bonds, but especially because they obey the Father. In any case, Jesus is not repudiating his earthly family altogether but declaring priorities graphically (and inescapably offensively). Although Jesus could "stretch forth his hand" to rescue (14:31) or touch the untouchable for healing (8:3), here he does so demonstratively, in typical rhetorical fashion (cf. Acts 26:1; Ap. Rhod. 1.344). Augustine contended that Mary's earthly mothership to Jesus was less important to her than being his disciple (Letter 243 to Laetus), and Christians should prefer spiritual kinship to fleshly (On Virginity 3; Tractate 10.3.2 on John, ACCS, 48-49).

93. Saldarini 1994: 120 treats the fictive kinship terminology in terms of congregations functioning as households by meeting in homes, "as did many synagogues in the first century." Many used such kinship terminology in broader Greco-Roman antiquity, e.g., for coinitiates (Burkert 1987: 45), fellow teachers (Sifre Deut. 34.5.3; b. 'Abod. Zar. 18a, bar.); fellow Jews (Tob 5:10; 6:10; 7:3; 2 Macc 1:1; cf. Acts 9:17), friends (e.g., Marc. Aur. 1.14; Plut. Many Friends 2, Mor. 93E; Ahiqar 49, col. 4; CPJ 3:41, §479), allies (1 Macc 10:18; 12:6, 10, 21; 14:40), or even prospective guests (Test. Abr. 2B); waxing more philosophical, for fellow humans (Diod. Sic. 1.1.3) or sharers in virtue (Diog. Laert. 6.1.12). For mother imagery as expressions of endearment toward older women, see, e.g., Rom 16:13; Diod. Sic. 17.37.6; inscription in Horsley 1987: 34 (toward his stepmother).

↑ Back to top