A Prophet Visits His Hometown (13:53-58)
A Prophet Visits His Hometown (13:53-58)
Cf. Mk 6:1-6; Lk 4:16-30; Jn 4:44; 6:42; 7:15. Himself greater than a prophet (5:12; 11:11-14), Jesus would face rejection greater than the prophets had (23:29-36). Like Jeremiah (1:1; 11:21-23), Jesus faced the rejection of those closest to him by the ties that usually mattered most in his society — geography and blood (13:53-58; cf. 10:21, 35; 12:46-50). These accounts of breaking traditional ties frame the kingdom parables (12:46-13:58), forcefully illustrating the message of those parables: the kingdom comes in an obscure way like a mustard seed, and only those with the eyes of faith will recognize it. How could anyone believe that God had stepped into history in the person of a young man who had spent most of his life in their own community?
First, the people among whom he had grown up were unprepared to embrace his "wisdom and miraculous powers" (13:54; cf. Jn 6:42; 7:15). John had nearly stumbled over the character of Jesus' mission (11:6); that Pharisees (15:12) or his townspeople (13:57) would do the same is hardly surprising. Jesus did not easily fit any single categories they had for him. In this period, divinely provided wisdom and the power to work miracles usually represented two basically distinct categories of "heroes" in the ancient Mediterranean (e.g., Holladay 1977); like only very rare Jewish figures before him, Jesus combined the two (cf. Jos. Ant. 8.42-49; 18.63). Yet his townspeople1 did not expect either model from him; Jesus seemed too ordinary for that; he was just the carpenter's son.2 Large families were common (e.g., Lewis 1983: 70; on Jesus' siblings, see comment on 12:46-50). In a town of at most 1,600-2,000 inhabitants (Meyers and Strange 1981: 56) and probably around five hundred inhabitants (Stanton 1993: 112; Horsley 1995: 193), everyone would have assumed that they knew Jesus already (cf. Lk 13:26-28); indeed, Nazareth was a small town from which even Nazarenes, like other Galileans, would not expect a great prophet (2:23; cf. Jn 1:46). They never expected the kingdom to come in a hidden way or to come as close to them as it did; hence, as Matthew continues to reiterate (cf. 2:1-12), those closest to the kingdom did not recognize it, and it passed them by. They questioned the source of his wisdom, but wisdom would be vindicated by her works (11:19), even if those closest to the works rejected them (11:20-24).
Second, Jesus offers a principle that applies to other servants of God, too: prophets will be rejected (13:57; Mk 6:4; cf. Lk 4:24; attested possibly independently in Jn 4:44). As the Johannine tradition underlines, "If the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you" (Jn 15:18). Jesus' contemporaries already knew and emphasized that prophets were rejected (23:37; Acts 7:52, 58),3 and some recognized the difficulty of accepting a prophet who had grown up in one's community (Jer 1:1; 11:21-23; 12:6; Daube 1973: 10). But whereas Jesus' fellow Nazarenes undoubtedly knew such a principle, they apparently never thought to apply concretely with Jesus what they professed abstractly about the prophets of old. If Gnilka (1997: 69) is correct that many Nazarenes died in the Judean-Roman war, and if Matthew's audience is aware of their demise, the tragic irony of Nazareth's rejection would resemble that with Jerusalem (23:37-38).
Finally, human unbelief limits God's activity (13:58). Mark says that Jesus could not do a miracle there because of their unbelief (Mk 6:5; Montefiore 1968: 1:119 regards this admission as a mark of historical accuracy). Mark probably means that Jesus refused to act as a mere magician but demanded faith (Goppelt 1981/82: 1:148; cf. Lane 1974a: 204); elsewhere suppliants came to Jesus, but here, perhaps out of pride, they may have failed to demonstrate faith by coming (Aune 1980: 1536). Matthew, however, clarifies the wording: Jesus would not act because of their unbelief.4
A Prophet Martyred (14:1-12)
Cf. Mk 6:14-29; Lk 3:19-20; 9:7-9; Jn 3:24. While dramatically abbreviating Mark's account of John's execution, Matthew retains the primary function of Mark's narrative: John's death foreshadows the imminent martyrdom of Jesus and those who, following him, proclaim righteousness (Mt 5:12; 17:12; cf. Mk 6:7-30; cf., e.g., "seize" and "bind" — 14:3; 21:46; 26:50; 27:2). The parallels between the two missions have been building toward this climax: John introduced Jesus, proclaiming the same message that Jesus would (3:2; 4:17). After Jesus promises persecution and speaks of prophets (10:17-42), he praises John in prison as his ally (11:2-19); narratives about those who reject Jesus follow this account (11:20-25; 12:1-14). But nowhere does John's fate prefigure that of Jesus so clearly as here: if Jesus himself proves to be a "prophet without honor" among his people (13:53-58), what is to keep him (or his followers) from the fate of John the Baptist (14:1-12)? (Ancient literature had long employed various forms of foreshadowing; for example, Agamemnon's death when he returned home built suspense by warning what Odysseus could face when returning home — Horn. Od. 13.383-85.)
Views of historicity vary. Meier 1994: 171-76 is skeptical of the account, citing Mark's "legendary tone" plus differences with Josephus. But "legendary" is a tricky category; if we allow the Gospels to tell a story about the Herodian court to begin with, many items will support historical verisimilitude (including the character of Herodias in Mark), though some details of the account5 appear more questionable. Theissen 1991: 81-97 thinks that the story behind Mark was a popular account originally not preserved just among Christians, a tradition also standing behind Josephus. But it appears more likely that Josephus and Mark depend on different traditions of a common event.6 From a purely historical standpoint, we can be certain that Antipas7 had John executed for preaching that he took as undermining his honor; other details must be debated point by point and on the basis of where one assigns the burden of proof (see the Introduction to this commentary).
First, Herod Antipas remained unsettled about his execution of John (14:1-2). Probably Antipas believes that John has "returned from the dead" in the temporary sense exhibited in some biblical resuscitations (1 Kings 18:21-22; 2 Kings 4:34-36) rather than in the end-time sense of the final resurrection, which Jewish people generally understood as a corporate event (Dan 12:2; cf. Mk 9:10). Although some Jews apparently explained Jewish doctrines to Greeks in terms of reincarnation (Jos. Ant. 18.14; War 3.374; cf. Plato Meno 81BC; Plut. Divine Vengeance 32, Mor. 567EF; Sallustius, Concerning Gods and the Universe 20),8 the view was not predominant in Judaism and it is unlikely that Herod is thinking in such terms here (John could hardly have been reincarnated and then grown to adulthood again in a few months or even years). Although Antipas had executed John, he knew that John was a righteous man and feared his influence.
Second, the powerful can mistake moral reproof for more disruptive political challenges (14:3-4). Antipas, son of Herod the Great (2:1) and a Samaritan wife, hence Archelaus's full brother (2:22), had functioned as "tetrarch" over Galilee and Perea since about 4 B.C.9 He had engaged in a politically prudent marriage with a Nabatean princess, perhaps seeking to secure further loyalty from Nabatean subjects within his territory of Perea (Kraeling 1951: 89). (If she held to traditional Nabatean paganism, her faith was far from Jewish; cf. Jones 1989; Schluntz 1998; Lindner 1990.)
Yet Antipas's lust undercut his political prudence. When Antipas planned to divorce his first wife to take his brother's wife (Jos. Ant. 18.109-19),10 he violated not only Matthew's teaching on the moral indissolubility of marriage (5:31-32) but the Mosaic law concerning incest (Lev 18:16; 20:21; Jos. Ant. 18.136; cf. Ant. 17.341); many Greeks also felt that such behavior invited divine wrath (Hesiod W.D. 328-29, 333). (Notably Matthew, in contrast to Mark, nowhere recognizes the validity of Antipas's new marriage union.) John thus publicly reproached a public example of immorality. But apart from its political repercussions Antipas was doubtless little concerned about Jewish morality (Jos. Ant. 18.38; Horsley 1995: 65), and what John viewed in moral terms, Antipas undoubtedly saw as a potential political threat, undermining the security of his people's allegiance (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.118; Kraeling 1951: 85,90-91,143-45; Stanton 1995a: 174; Hengel 1981b: 36). The political threat was particularly acute because his affair with Herodias was already destabilizing his kingdom; Antipas's plans to divorce his first wife had provoked trouble with her father, the powerful Nabatean king Aretas (on whom cf. 2 Cor 11:32-33; on the Nabateans, see, e.g., Kraeling 1951: 88-89; Hammond 1991; Matthiae 1989; McKenzie 1988). This trouble later led to war and public humiliation for Antipas (Jos. Ant. 18.113-14, 124-25). That many Nabateans in Perea presumably remained loyal to Aretas further extended the embarrassing political implications of Herod's affair. A prophet harping about the tetrarch's misbehavior was therefore politically dangerous.
John's society did not recognize freedom of speech; publicly denouncing a ruler's character was often suicidal (in Rome, even private criticism of some emperors led to executions). Israel had a long-standing tradition exempting prophets from such punishment that only the most vicious rulers ignored; unfortunately for John, Antipas proved to be such a ruler. In another case the government might temporarily act as more sensitive to justice than the masses are (cf. 27:24-25; aristocrats normally viewed themselves as morally superior to the masses), but in this case John's popularity with the people temporarily protects him from the power of a politician (14:5; cf. 21:46). After John's execution, when King Aretas soundly defeated Antipas in war to avenge Antipas's rejection of Aretas's daughter, many people felt that Antipas's loss was divine judgment for the execution of John that by this point had occurred some years before (Jos. Ant. 18.116-19).11
Third, Antipas ensnared himself in deeper sin because of lust and oaths (14:6-7). In the Greco-Roman world, attendance at birthday celebrations was expected (e.g., P. Oxy. 1214; 1676.10-12; P. Fay. 114.19-20), especially if thrown by a person of status (Aul. Gel. 19.9.1; cf. P. Lond. 1912.29-30). (One may think of Pharaoh's birthday party in Gen 40:20-22, where one of his officials lost his head.) In this period such birthday parties, which normally involved excessive drinking, were a Greek and Roman rather than a Jewish custom, but Antipas readily accommodated the Greco-Roman custom (cf. also Jos. Apion 2.204; m. 'Abod. Zar. 1:3; Safrai 1974/76b: 767; though cf. the interpretation in b. 'Abod. Zar. 10a); his full-brother Archelaus had also been known for drunken parties (cf. Jos. War 2.29).12 According to Josephus's briefer account of John's execution, this scene must take place at Herod's famous fortress Machaerus in Perea (see Pliny N.H. 5.15.72), where Antipas's first wife had escaped to her father (Glueck 1960: 192), where many Nabateans lived, and near where John had often preached (cf. Kraeling 1951: 9-10, 92-93). This fortress included a dungeon where John was kept, and separate dining facilities for men and women (thus Mark notifies us that Herodias's daughter "went out" to confer with her mother — Mk 6:24; Manns 1981; Riesner 1984b), as readers in the eastern Mediterranean would assume (Corn. Nep. Preface 6-7).
Nearly all Jews would have found Herod's lust disgusting: because the girl was the daughter of a woman with whom Antipas was sleeping, desire for her constituted desire for incest whether or not he was married to her mother (cf. Lev 18:17; Amos 2:7). According to some accounts the girl, Salome, may also have been between six and eight years old; more likely, she was a virgin of marriageable age (twelve to fourteen), but possibly already betrothed or married to Philip the tetrarch (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.137; Hoehner 1972: 155-56; Theissen 1991: 90-91; Kraeling 1951: 87). Besides, though dancing was a regular feature of such drinking parties (Babrius 80.1 -2), only in a drunken stupor would one invite another member of the royal family to engage in such a sensuous hellenistic dance (cf. Lane 1974a: 221; Nineham 1977: 175; Hoehner 1972: 157; Esth 1:11). Her dance is, as one commentator notes, "an improbably bizarre touch, which could forthwith be dismissed as fictional, were it not a known fact that the excesses of the Herodian court were in most respects quite notorious" (Anderson 1976: 166).13 Stories of rulers who offered women whatever they wanted (14:7), even part of their kingdom (Esth 5:3; Parthenius L.R. 12.1; Soph. Oed. Rex 580-81; Mk 6:23 — though Antipas as a Roman client could not actually grant this request; cf. Mk 10:40), indicated how overpowered the ruler was by desire for the woman. (The implied contrast betwen Esther and Salome in Mark underlines how much power this women had, for good or for ill.)
The Greeks and Romans had stories about mortals or deities who regretfully granted deadly requests on account of their oaths (Ovid Metam. 2.44-46, 101-2; 3.287-91, 295-98, 308-9). Jewish scholars had devised ways to release people from oaths that would lead to more evil, so most religious teachers would not have faulted Herod for breaking his oath: life took precedence over oaths (cf. 1 Sam 25:22, 34; Ambrose Duties of the Clergy 3.12.76-77; ACCS, 86). But Antipas was concerned about more than the oath itself. Once Herod has given his oath in front of the dinner guests, his "honor" is at stake (cf. Esth 1:10-19; Jos. Ant. 18.299); here short-range political considerations take precedence over long-term ones, but Antipas remained captive to considerations of what others thought (cf. Derrett 1965; idem 1970: 341-42). In this account Matthew graphically illustrates his earlier warnings against the dangers of anger as murder and the evils of lust, divorce, and oaths (5:21-37).
Fourth, Matthew emphasizes that those who speak for righteousness can gain powerful enemies (14:8). John's execution foreshadows Jesus' execution (17:12-13) and the price followers of Jesus must likewise pay (16:24). Antipas and Herodias had wronged Antipas's brother Philip by taking the man's wife; this was an act of adultery in God's sight (5:31-32), and also qualified as incest under the Mosaic law (Lev 20:21; "they will be childless" probably implies their immediate execution). But Herodias wanted vengeance on John for daring to denounce her sin publicly; a member of Herod the Great's royal family would never have tolerated John's audacity (cf. Mk 6:19). (Herod the Great himself executed some Pharisees for instigating the removal of his eagle from the temple in Jerusalem — Jos. Ant. 17.160-67.) John must have known that if Antipas's new wife wanted his death, she would ultimately have more influence with Antipas than John would. Naturally Salome, being a minor, would seek her mother's counsel on the gift she should request.
Fifth, John's friends and enemies react in different ways (14:11-12) to his martyrdom (14:9-10). Jewish law forbade execution without trial and would not behead a person (Argyle 1963: 111; Gundry 1982: 289);14 but the Romans had granted Antipas capital jurisdiction (Stauffer 1960: 209), and he granted execution in the least painful Roman style (cf. O'Rourke 1971: 174; cf. Jos. Ant. 17.276).15 The delivery of John's head on a "platter" provides a grisly conclusion to the feast presupposed by a birthday party (14:6) and dinner guests (14:9). This cavalier treatment of the prophet would have revolted Matthew's audience, as it would have revolted most readers in the Roman world, though it was far from unheard of (Livy 39.42.8-39.43.5; Appian C.W. 4.4.20; Tac. Ann. 14.57, 59, 64; Suet. Galba 20; Dio Cassius R.H. 62.14.1) and bringing or displaying a head confirmed an execution (Virg. Aen. 9.465-67; Appian C.W. 1.8.71-72; 2.12.86; Sail. Jug. 12.5; Herodian 3.7.7; 5.4.4; 8.5.9; 8.6.7; 2 Kings 10:6-7). We should not suppose, however, that it would have interfered with the banquet (Carson 1984b: 339, citing Jos. Ant. 13.380).
John's disciples, however, risked their own lives to show up and bury John's body (14:12).16 Unlike John, they would have no populist support, but they were determined to provide the final, basic act of loyalty to their master that they could. (In Mediterranean antiquity, burial was an essential final act; to oppose tyrants in order to perform this act was considered honorable and heroic; cf. comment on 8:21-22; excursus on the burial at 27:57.) With nowhere else to go, John's disciples then find Jesus, the one to whom John had borne witness (3:11-15) and to whom he had sent in prison (11:2-6). The final direct portrayal of John in the Gospel is that of his martyrdom sending his remaining disciples to Jesus, the coming one. This fits any deemphasis on John the Gospel writers felt relevant in their day, but also provides a paradigm for true disciples after John (23:8-11; 28:19).
Feeding Five Thousand in the Wilderness (14:13-21
Cf. Mk 6:32-44; Lk 9:10-17; Jn 6:1-15. Although Jesus attempted to withdraw to a solitary place (14:13), he was now too popular to escape notice. The aristocracy tended to look down on the "masses," but Jesus has compassion on the needs of the people who have come to him (14:14; 9:36; 20:34), both to heal them (14:14) and to care for their hunger (14:15-20). This narrative probably teaches about the great host at the messianic banquet the feeding foreshadows (5:6; 22:2).17 Historically and in the text, the narrative includes a christological point: In the context of other attempted signs-workers in the wilderness in Jesus' day, his sign in the wilderness involves a clear messianic statement (Witherington 1990: 91, 100, following Barnett 1977 and citing Jos. War 2.261; Ant. 20.169). But the narrative especially instructs Matthew's audience concerning God's caring provision for his people in this age (6:11; 7:9-10; 15:25-28, 29-39). It also stands in deliberate contrast to the drunken feast of the evil ruler Herod Antipas in 14:6-11 (Lane 1974a: 227).18
Sanders 1993: 156 doubts the historicity of this narrative, noting the greater public impact of a comparatively small miracle (Mk 1:28). But it is not clear from the Synoptic accounts that the crowds (in contrast to the disciples — Mk 8:19-20) are aware of the miraculous source of their meal; by contrast, the Fourth Gospel, where the crowds do know, suggests a considerable impact of this feeding miracle (Jn 6:14-15).19 Based on multiple attestation (the Johannine account is literarily independent) and coherence, Meier 1994: 950-66 thinks that this story probably goes back to Jesus, at least as a memorable public meal of bread and fish in which the disciples or crowd could have seen eschatological overtones.20 I would add that nothing would have made the meal so memorable (at least for the disciples who undoubtedly provide the source for the tradition) as a feeding miracle such as this narrative depicts; the disciples undoubtedly ate quite frequently, and even a large meal would probably not have drawn so much comment without early and strong tradition of a feeding miracle.
First, the disciples were right to be concerned about the people's hunger but intended to solve the problem in a purely natural way (14:15, 17).Matthew calls for greater faith when a miracle is needed. Providing food in the wilderness was technically impossible apart from a miracle, but God had used Moses, Elijah, and Elisha for feeding miracles.21 (The present miracle especially resembles one performed by Elisha — 2 Kings 4:42-44.) If earlier prophets could perform such miracles, why did it not occur to the disciples that Jesus could do the same?
Biblical narrative did not oppose feeding multitudes by natural means (e.g., 2 Kings 6:22), and the disciples who were keeping track of their food supply (the kind of task rabbis often delegated to disciples — cf., e.g., Pesiq. R. 25:2; cf. Liefeld 1967: 228, citing b. 'Abod. Zar. 35b) were undoubtedly endeavoring to be practical (14:17). But even if many towns lay in this vicinity (given the probable region of this feeding, they did not),22 towns were generally small, accommodating perhaps a few hundred visitors in those of a few thousand people (for instance, at most Capernaum and Bethsaida "had only 2000-3000 inhabitants each" — Lane 1974a: 232). Further, most of the day's bread would be consumed by evening (14:15).23 The "grass" (14:19) also indicates that the time was spring (near Passover — Jn6:4; Abrahams 1924: 210; Dodd 1965:211 —before the summer heat had withered the grass), when the previous year's grain stores would be running low (Ramsay 1908: 228-29). If it was impossible for the disciples to feed the crowds, it was nearly impossible to imagine perhaps ten thousand people (five thousand men plus women and children — 14:21 )24 fending for themselves in the countryside (pace Freyne 1988: 144-45, who wrongly compares this with the emergency situation of supporting insurgents).
In this light, the disciples' practical objection (14:17) merely recalls that of Elisha's disciple (2 Kings 4:43): the master's command (14:16; 2 Kings 4:42; cf. 1 Kings 17:16) was impossible. But both Elisha's disciple and Jesus' disciples should have been with their master long enough to expect that what the master said, he had power from God to perform. The God of the Exodus, who divided waters (Ex 14:21) and provided manna from heaven (Ex 16:14-18), was at work in history again (2 Kings 2:8-14; 4:38-44; Mt 14:13-33).
Second, like the God of the Hebrew Bible, Jesus takes what his servants bring to him and multiplies it (14:16-19). When Moses insisted that he needed a sign to take with him, God asked Moses what was already in his hand and then transformed it (Ex 4:1-3), using what had been merely a shepherd's rod even to part the sea (Ex 14:16). When a widow needed financial help Elisha asked what she had in her house; she responded that she had only a small amount of oil, so Elisha commanded her to borrow jars into which to pour the oil and multiplied it until all the jars were full (2 Kings 4:1-7). In biblical tradition God frequently transformed the ordinary things of his followers' lives (cf., e.g., Judg 6:14; 15:15-19). The narrative does not even report that Jesus prayed for the food to multiply; confident that he represents the Father's will, he merely "gives thanks" (the meaning of "blessed" the food), which was the standard Jewish custom before and normally after meals (e.g., m. Ber. 6:5-6; Safrai 1974/76c: 802).He then used his disciples to distribute the food; it is possible that Matthew mentions this means of distribution as a paradigm for subsequent disciples' responsibility (cf. 14:16 with 24:45).
Third, God does miracles only when his people need them (14:20; cf. 2 Kings 4:6). This narrative illustrates the principle of God's provision (6:25; 7:9-10), but it also guards against an abuse of that principle. The miracle depicted here is greater than the manna of the exodus, of which none would be left over (Hooker 1983: 50); but manna was never left over because manna was to be provided every day, whereas this miracle is a rare one.25 So much was left over that each of the twelve disciples gathered food in his wicker foodbasket (sources may suggest that Jewish workers often carried their meals in these — Lane 1974a: 231; France 1985: 249). The leftovers stress the lavish abundance of God's miraculous power in Christ (cf. Theissen 1983: 67). Many well-to-do persons in the ancient Mediterranean felt that a good host should provide enough food that some was always left over (Plut. Table-Talk 7.4, Mor. 702D-704B; R.Q. 64, Mor. 279E). Although other people customarily invited famous teachers over for meals, serving as their patrons, Jesus serves as the host or family head here — and an abundant host he is.
Yet Matthew probably intends the gathering of the leftovers (cf. 2 Kings 4:7, 44; 7:1-2, 16-20; 1 Kings 17:16) to teach more. (John is more explicit that the disciples gather the fragments at Jesus' command — Jn 6:12.) Most moralists condemned the wastefulness of the rich and emphasized saving food or other items (e.g., Cato Distichs 3.21; Sail. Catil. 5.8; 16.4; Corn. Nep. 7 [Alcibiades], 1.4; Hor. Sat. 1.1.101-7; 1.2.62\Epistles 1.15.26-27; Epodes 1.34; Juv. Sat. 1.58-60; Musonius Rufus fr. 8; Diod. Sic. 17.108.4; Ps-Phocyl. 138; t. Pisha 2:15; cf. Johnston 1962: 154; Jn 6:12; Lk 15:13; Sifre Deut. 11.1.2). Jesus likewise trusted that God's provision would always be available when it was needed (cf. 16:9-11), but he refused to squander it; the extra bread, which was more than the amount he started with, could be used for other meals. Matthew's community must trust God to supply their needs (6:25-34; 10:8-10), but they should not thereby neglect what he had already provided.
Fourth, Matthew encourages his audience that God is not intimidated by the magnitude of a problem (14:21).
Extravagant numbers in ancient miracle accounts underlined the greatness of the miracle (Jn 21:11; Theissen 1983: 67 cites also Porphyry Vit. Pyth. 25). In this narrative the disciples saw the size of the need and the littleness of the human resources available; Jesus recognizes the size of the need and the greatness of God's resources available.
Lord of the Sea (14:22-33
Cf. Mk 6:45-52; Jn 6:16-21. By providing for the crowds, Jesus showed himself greater than a human magician just healing some individuals or turning some stones into bread. At the least, Jesus was a prophet like Moses or Elisha (14:13-21; Ex 16:14-18; 2 Kings 4:42-44). But by treading on the sea, Jesus now takes a role that the Hebrew Bible had reserved for God alone (Job 9:8; cf. also Ps 77:19; Hab 3:15).26 The same passage in Job had spoken of God's "passing by" (Job 9:11), as in Matthew's source (Mk 6:48); "passing by" could also allude to Jesus' deity by way of Ex 33:22; 34:6. Commentators also often recognize Jesus' deity in his "It is I" in 14:27, which literally declares, "I am."27 But as in an earlier storm scene, Matthew is interested here in teaching not only Christology but also about the faith required of disciples (8:26). Of all the disciples, Peter alone begins to walk, but Jesus regards even his faith as less than what a disciple should have.
On content-critical grounds, Meier 1994: 905-24 doubts the historicity of the story, despite its multiple attestation. He especially objects that most of Jesus' other miracles help someone in need and proclaim the kingdom rather than authenticating Jesus (1994: 920), and that the epiphany and biblical allusions are central to the story line and not merely part of the story (1994: 921). But one could argue conversely from the same evidence: coming to his disciples during a storm would help them in need, and does one have reason to presuppose that Jesus could not have intended to evoke the biblical allusions? Those who presuppose that Jesus was not who the apostolic church held him to be may dismiss the thought out of hand, whereas those who share the apostolic church's faith have good reason to embrace it; yet from a purely historical standpoint the matter cannot be decided so easily if that question is left aside.
First, the setting for the miracle is intriguing (14:22-24). The setting (again the relative seclusion of a mountain — 17:1; cf. 5:1) presents Jesus as a man of prayer (14:23); it also suggests that just because disciples face difficulties does not mean that Jesus is not the one who sent them (14:22, 24; cf. 10:17-39).
Second, Jesus' coming should bring an end to fear (14:25-27). If the disciples were still struggling against the winds at the fourth watch of the night — the Romans divided the night into four (Livy 36.24.1) instead of the traditional Jewish three watches (b. Ber. 3ab, giving both views; also found in Horn. II. 10.253) — the disciples must have been exhausted. Probably accustomed to awakening around 6 a.m., they instead found themselves still trying to cross the sea between 3 and 6 a.m. Like modern readers, Matthew's community may have chided the disciples for accepting the popular notion of ghosts,28 but the biggest offense here is that they still underestimate Jesus' power ("little faith," 14:31; cf. 8:26). It had not occurred to the disciples that Jesus could know their plight, walk on water to come to them, or catch up with them in a storm! To their credit, however, the fear issue seems to be solved once they recognize that their teacher is with them. They knew him enough to know that if he was there, he would bring them through their storm.
Third, Jesus desires disciples to imitate his works, although he is patient with them as they begin to learn (14:28-31). Although the proposal that Peter walk on water was first Peter's idea (14:28), Jesus' response indicates that he approved of it (14:29). Peter is gently reproved not for presumptuously stepping from the boat but for presumptuously doubting in the very presence of Jesus (14:31; cf. 6:30; 8:26; 16:8; 17:20; cf. Manson 1979: 206; France 1985: 239).29 Disciples were expected to imitate their masters, and Jesus is training disciples who will not simply regurgitate his oral teachings but who will have the faith to demonstrate God's authority in practice as well (see especially 17:19-20; 21:20-22). Stepping into the water on faith presumably recalls the faith of the priests in Joshua's generation (Josh 3:8, 13, 15-17).30
Once Jesus had given the command, walking on water was simply a matter of trusting the one who had performed so many miracles in the past. Peter's failure came as he observed the wind (14:30), looking to the natural circumstances rather than to God's power that was sustaining him. Still, Peter knew by this point to whom to cry out; while Jesus is disappointed with Peter's inadequate faith, Peter had acted in greater faith than the other disciples — he was learning through his growing observation of Jesus. Matthew's whole story line progressively develops the disciples' faith, simultaneously inviting his audience to explore deeper realms of faith in their day.
Fourth, Jesus has authority to settle totally any crisis when he is ready to do so (14:32). As soon as they entered the boat, the wind grew still. Stilling storms was a sign of God's authority in the biblical record.31 The disciples may have recalled an earlier occasion on which Jesus simply commanded and the storm died down (8:26); this time, however, the storm acts out of respect for him — apparently without so much as requiring a word on his part.
Finally, Jesus' power led his disciples to acknowledge his identity (14:33). Their knowledge would still need to be tested outside the momentary confidence that depended on miracles (16:15), but the disciples had nevertheless offered a correct response, including "worship" (cf. 2:11; 15:25). The acknowledgment that Jesus was God's Son concurs with the divine perspective articulated in 3:17 and is almost identical with the Gentile soldiers' climactic confession in 27:54.32 One may doubt, however, that the disciples had yet grasped the full implications of Jesus' claim (such as "I am" in 14:27).
Jesus Heals All Who Come (14:34-36)
Cf. Mk 6:53-56; Jn 6:22-25. Jesus had welcomed the crowds (14:13), temporal though their needs may have been (14:14). As word continues to spread, ailing people from throughout Galilee came to Gennesaret (cf. m. Ma'a ś. 3:7) seeking the only one who could meet their need (see comment on 4:23-25). Others who had heard of how a woman had been healed by touching a tassel of his tallith, or shawl (9:20), sought to repeat the same act, seeking similar healings for themselves (14:36). Such activity may not have been at the heart of Jesus' mission, but it reflected the heart that motivated his mission: compassion (14:14). After such a description of Jesus gladly providing patronal benevolence for any who needed him (benevolence was a largely positive image in ancient sources), the criticism of the religious leaders in 15:1-20 jars Matthew's audience by its bold relief.
Moral versus Ritual Cleanness (15:1-20)
Cf. Mk 7:1-23; Lk 6:39; 11:37-41. The reader recognizes Jesus as God's Son who not only acts as the prophets of old (14:13-21) but as the Lord of creation himself (14:22-32). The disciples acclaim Jesus as God's Son (14:33), and the masses approach him for healing (14:34-36). In this context the pedantic response of the Pharisees and scribes, members of what we might view as a sort of religious and academic elite, stands in all the starker contrast to reality. Jesus points out that whereas the Pharisees use their traditions as a standard for righteousness, some of their traditions can be extended to contradict the written law. The rhetorical patterns here can be understood as Jewish (Daube 1973: 142-43), but they fit broader Greco-Roman patterns as well, probably because Jewish rhetoric was thoroughly influenced by Greco-Roman rhetoric in this period.33
First, members of the religious elite insisted that their custom was right, even though it was based only on their tradition (15:1-2). Again the religious elite object to a practice of Jesus' disciples, implying a deficiency in the training Jesus has supplied to them (see comment on 12:3-8). Other Palestinian Jews recognized that the Pharisees passed on ancestral laws not written in the law of Moses (Jos. Ant. 13.297; cf. Baumgarten 1972; Gal 1:14).34 Hand washing was an extrabiblical Jewish tradition, perhaps originally adopted from foreign Jews (Sib. Or. 3.591-94; Sanders 1990: 39-40, 228, 260-71),35 concerning which the Pharisees were especially meticulous (see especially Safrai 1974/76d: 801-2; cf. m. Yad. 1:1-2:4; b. Bek. 30b, bar.; Ber. lib; 15a; 60b).
Because Mark's interpretation of Jesus' comments is so sweeping, some suspect that he created much of the narrative himself (Sanders 1990: 91). But while Mark may join together disparate teachings of and narratives concerning Jesus (as was standard rhetorical practice — cf., e.g., Theon Progymn. 4.73-79; 5.388-441), it is likely that his traditions accurately reflect Jesus' own words. After all, if Mark wanted to create sayings for Jesus to address questions of his own generation (food laws, circumcision, or keeping holy days — cf., e.g., Rom 14:2-6), he could have done a much better job than he did! He would also have created a more cohesive narrative, as Mark elsewhere demonstrates he can do capably enough. Witherington 1990: 63 defends even Mark 7:15, arguing that the saying did not immediately shape the practice of the earliest Christians (though it did later — Rom 14:14) because they did not understand the saying in the Markan sense; it was ambiguous, and even Mark had to explain it. But Matthew omits this ambiguous statement (cf. Saldarini 1994: 134, 139), as well as Mark's overly sweeping summary of Jewish practice (cf. Mk 7:3-4).36
Some also think that Matthew adapts Mark's language in an anti-Judaic (Meier 1980: 167) or less anti-Judaic (Tilborg 1972b: 16; Goulder 1974: 19) direction. But because Mark himself is no more anti-Judaic than anti-Gentile (Robinson 1982: 113; cf. 106), Mark interprets Jesus' words as challenging only the food laws (Mk 7:19); aside from omitting this challenge Matthew does not modify Mark's point substantially.37 This difference is significant, however, underlining Matthew's explicit emphasis that Jesus did not violate Torah (5:17; Overman 1990b: 82-84; Segal 1991: 7), an emphasis perpetuated in the immediate context of this passage (see Levine 1988: 161-62).
Second, Jesus challenges their tradition as unbiblical (15:3-11; cf. Test. Asher 7:5, possibly a Christian interpolation). Jesus begins by showing how easily one of their traditions can conflict with the moral purpose of Scripture (15:3-6). One could dedicate an object for sacred use, and even if Pharisaic teachers agreed with Jesus that the vow turned out to be inappropriate, they probably would not have used their authority to cancel it. Some scholars contend that the only kind of vow that one school of Pharisaism in Jesus' day would not release was a vow to the temple (Falk 1985: 98-99; cf. Black 1967: 139). A man could also prohibit others from using his property (say, eating his figs) by declaring them dedicated to the temple or perhaps "as if they were" so dedicated, hence, "forbidden to you" (m. Ned. 3:2; Baumgarten 1984-85; Sanders 1990: 54-55). As far away as Alexandria some Jewish teachers could use such vows to keep property from other family members (see Sanders 1990: 57). By laying some commonly held traditional practices against less biblical principles that were less concretely defined legally, an unscrupulous person could have circumvented some biblical principles.38
Jesus deliberately picks an issue that will provoke thought and argues from a source that his opponents also held authoritative. A Pharisaic teacher could have offered the same sort of argument Jesus offers here, for the Pharisees could argue by laying one text against the interpretation of another. Judaism heavily stressed honoring39 and obeying40 one's parents, as did most Gentile writers 41 They also highly emphasized the obligation to support one's parents in their old age 42 Pharisaic tradition also unapologetically criticizes Pharisees who fell short of what they considered appropriate Pharisaic values (ARN 37A; 45, §124B). Jewish teachers who engaged in legal casuistry never contended that such casuistry was the heart of the law nor approved of people exploiting loopholes (cf., e.g., Urbach 1979: 1:576); but that was a natural end result of spending more time debating laws as laws than in teaching ethical principles behind the laws. Jesus is not challenging Pharisaic views about parental support, but the danger of evaluating morality on the basis of extrabiblical traditions. The Pharisees often articulated more noble ethical ideals than many Christians do; such ideals, however, were and are often neglected in practice, among Christians as well as others.43
Jesus next compares this behavior to Scripture's warning about following human rules rather than an intimate relationship with God (15:7-9, citing Is 29:75).44 One standard part of debate rhetoric included citing an ancient authority, when possible often from the opponent's tradition (Mack 1988: 191); as one of the most commonly cited biblical works in Jesus' day, Isaiah functioned well (cf. Acts 28:25: "The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah . . ."). Jesus may here proceed by means of gezerah shewah, that is, linking texts on the basis of shared key words: Jesus' interlocutors "honor" God as well as they "honor" their parents — at best in pretense (15:4, 8).
Scribes and Pharisees would have taken offense at the appellation "hypocrites" (6:2; 22:18; 23:13; 24:51); like Jesus, the Pharisees were willing to suspend the letter of the law to uphold its spirit (e.g., m. Sheb. 10:3-4; cf. Strack 1969: 36, 96; Moore 1971: 2:31). But Pharisaic scribes frequently determined morality (where the Torah was unclear) by extrapolating from tradition; by demanding that disciples extrapolate morality instead from biblical principles Jesus takes ethics out of the domain of the academy and courtroom and places it more fully in the daily lives of his followers.
Jesus finally opposes his challengers publicly by declaring a more basic principle (15:10-11). Some Pharisees may have agreed with the principle, but normally stated it only in private (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:7; Pesiq. R. 14:14; Jeremias 1971: 211), perhaps due to fear of those who would cease to observe the literal requirements of the law (cf. Philo Migr. Abr. 89-93; probably Ps-Phocyl. 228). Although Jesus explains his point in private, he first makes it publicly. In arguing by example (15:4-6) and by citation of accepted authority (15:7-9), Jesus follows standard technique in debate (cf. comment on 12:3-8), but his closing principle is stated bluntly, calculated to retain attention — offensively if need be — rather than persuade by providing an agreeable statement (Tannehill 1975: 91). The concluding principle marks his opponents' rhetorical defeat (which was naturally how narratives about other famous teachers typically also closed).
Third, Matthew presents Jesus as interested in speaking God's truth, not in winning influential allies (15:12-14). Many Greek audiences respected teachers who would publicly deride those of high social status who proved unworthy of it (Epict. Disc. 2.4); some brash Jewish teachers like Honi the Circle-Drawer were also known for their lack of respect for worldly status, including that of the sages. Insulting one's accusers as morally or intellectually deficient, so transferring shame from oneself to one's accusers, was customary rhetorical practice (Sail. Invective against Marcus Tullius 1). But most Jewish circles and most polite Mediterranean society in general emphasized public respect toward persons of appropriate rank, and most speeches intended to be persuasive began with kind words toward one's audience.
Scholars may debate how much or little political power the Pharisees held in this period (Sanders 1990: 128-29; idem 1992: 388-402, 410-11, 458-90; Cohen 1987: 163), but they were highly influential with the people (Jos. Ant. 18.17; Sanders 1992: 402-4). Jesus' disciples are thus concerned that he has publicly shamed his influential interlocutors instead of reaching out to them (15:12). Yet Jesus, who elsewhere wishes to avoid causing most people to stumble (17:27), here seems unconcerned about pleasing those who value their elders' traditions too highly.45 Jesus responds by alluding back to the prophetic image of building or tearing down, planting or uprooting people according to God's message (15:13) 46 Those plants his Father had planted were those who had received the revelation of Jesus' character from the Father — a revelation he had concealed from the "wise and prudent" (11:25-27; 13:11-17; 16:16-17; cf. 14:33). Jesus then graphically compares his self-assured opponents to people who offer to lead the blind but cannot see themselves (15:14; cf. 7:3-5; 13:13-14; 23:16; Rom 2:19).47 Even were the interpretation of such an image difficult, the disciples should have understood him perfectly well: earlier prophets had also complained that the leaders of God's people were blind (e.g., Is 3:12, 14; 6:10; 9:16; cf. CD 1.9-11). "Let them alone" (15:14) thus carries not a positive sense protecting them (as in 19:14) but a sense more like: Do not waste your pearls on swine (7:6).
Fourth, Jesus is concerned with the state of the heart and what issues from it, not with ritual acts (15:15-20). As was customary with enigmatic, potentially controversial sayings, Peter asks for an interpretation in private, among other disciples already committed to Jesus' message (15:15; see comment on 13:10). But Jesus notes that his words demand little interpretation; they would be obvious if the disciples were not assuming that he could not mean what he had said (15:16-17)! Not food that enters the mouth (Ezek 4:14-15; Acts 10:11-16; Rom 14:1-4; 1 Tim 4:3) but what comes forth (Mt 12:34-37; Eph 4:29; Jas 1:19) renders unclean; alluding to the Isaiah passage he has recently quoted (29:13; cf. 59:13), Jesus emphasizes the heart (cf. 5:21-6:18), as did some of his contemporaries (m. 'Abot 2:9). Matthew does, however, omit Mark's explicit repudiation of the kashrut, which is not explicit in Jesus' own saying (Mk 7:19); as much as he likes and often follows Mark, he writes for a very different audience that still values these laws (see summary of background for these laws in Keener and Usry 1997: 213-14n.l21).
Jesus illustrates with a vice list, a standard literary form in both Jewish (Wis 14:25-26; 1QS 4.9-11; Philo Sac. 32; Post. 52; Test. Levi 17:11) and broader Greco-Roman (e.g., Plato Law 1.649D; Arist. E.E. 2.3.4, 1220b-21; V.V. 1249-5 lb; Epict. Disc. 2.8.23; Diog. Ep. 36, to Timomachus) circles (Matthew's is somewhat more deliberate than Mark's — Meier 1980: 170). By examining other passages in the Gospel that depict these vices, we can get some sense of how Matthew would have applied this list for his community: evil reasonings (9:4; 16:7; 21:25), murders (2:16; 5:21-26; 14:10; 23:34-35; 27:24-25), adulteries (5:27-32; 14:3-6), sexual immoralities (5:32; 12:39; 21:31; contrast 1:25), theft (27:64), false witness (26:59-61), and slander or blasphemy (cf. 12:31-32). Many of these vices derive from prohibitions in the Ten Commandments; elements that agree with the list in 19:18 follow the same sequence.
A Canaanite Woman's Faith (15:21-28)
Cf. Mk 7:24-30. Placed immediately after a discussion of purity in both Matthew and Mark, Jesus' encounter with this Gentile woman brings out the implications the evangelists find in his view of purity: Gentiles will no longer be separated from Israel (cf. Acts 10:15, 28; 11:9-18). Like an earlier Gentile in Matthew's Gospel (8:10), this woman becomes an illustration of faith. But like that centurion, this woman illustrates not only faith in a general sense but particularly the faith with which Gentiles could approach Jesus, even during his earthly ministry to Israel (as often noted; e.g., cf. Held 1963: 200). This outsider compares favorably with some religious insiders among Jesus' contemporaries (15:1-20; Patte 1987: 220).
Matthew reinforces this point by specifying exactly what Mark's hellenistic Syro-Phoenician woman (Mk 7:26) means.48 She is a descendant of the ancient Canaanites, the bitter biblical enemies of Israel whose paganism had often led Israel into idolatry (cf. Jub. 22:20-22)49 Whereas the law granted some respect to Egyptians and some other cultures (Deut 23:7; cf. Is 19:25), Matthew's Jewish audience may wince at his label for this woman of faith. "Yes," Matthew seems to reply; "God's compassion extends to all Gentiles." Matthew cites not only Canaanites, but Magi (2:1-12) and Roman soldiers (8:5-13; 27:54), the most extreme sorts of examples — yet not without biblical precedent (12:41). If "Tyre and Sidon" (15:21) lead some readers to recall Jezebel, others must recall instead the widow who supported Elijah (1 Kings 17:8-24; Lk 4:26). The narrative thus constitutes another Matthean invitation to the Gentile mission (e.g., 2:1-11; 8:5-13), reinforcing the message of 11:21-24 (where Tyre and Sidon were more open to repentance than Chorazin and Bethsaida). The Canaanites Tamar and Rahab in Jesus' genealogy (1:3, 5) especially prepare the reader for positively evaluating this Canaanite woman who, like a few others in this Gospel (9:27), confesses Jesus' Messiahship before Peter does (1:1; 15:22; 16:16). Even in the unlikely event that they are unfamiliar with the Markan tradition, Matthew's ideal audience may experience some cognitive dissonance in the brief narrative's suspense; they know that Jesus cannot ultimately reject this woman for her ethnicity without repudiating two of his ancestors in the genealogy.
The basic account itself is likely authentic. That the best samples of interaction with Gentiles in the Gospel traditions had included some measure of rejection (cf. also 8:7, as a question) indicates that the Gospel writers did not fabricate stories to bolster their appeal to the Gentile mission. It is unlikely that Christians would lightly attribute to Jesus a view they no longer held (Theissen 1991: 63-64). Still, Matthew increases the racially polarized tone in Mark, whether because his community knows a stricter tradition that Mark has toned down, or perhaps to appeal to hard-liners in his community with a hard-line Judaic Jesus who finally allows himself to be won over by the woman's persistent faith. Another argument in favor of authenticity, however, is the accurate knowledge of the local situation around Tyre that it presupposes (Theissen 1991: 65, 81).
First, the woman was so desperate that she would not take no for an answer (15:21-25). Modern Western society might consider such a person rude, but Mediterranean judges were sometimes so corrupt that among the poor only a persistent, desperate, otherwise powerless woman could obtain justice from them (Lk 18:2-5; Bailey 1980: 134-35; cf. comment on 20:20-21). Both men and women in the Old Testament (Gen 18:22-32; 32:26-30; Ex 33:12-34:9; 1 Kings 18:36-37; 2 Kings 2:2, 4, 6, 9; 4:14-28) and in the Gospel tradition (Mk 5:28-29; Jn 2:3-5) had shown such courage by refusing to take no for an answer to a desperate need (cf. O'Day 1989; pace Fiorenza 1983: 137).
Second, Jesus reiterates that his mission is specifically for Israel (15:26). Jesus had left Jewish territory because the masses thronged him, and he needed to rest with and teach his disciples (15:21; cf. 16:13); but this stage (cf. 28:19) of his mission remained for Israel alone.50 Thus when his disciples ask him to send her away (15:23),51 he notes the limitation of his mission (15:24; cf. 10:6; Rom 15:8).52 Yet neither did he send her away as his disciples requested, which may have encouraged her to persevere in her irritation (cf. 19:13; 20:31). To her own insistent entreaty (15:25) Jesus responds with almost equal firmness (15:26). Some Jewish teachers would have reached out to the woman, hoping to make her a proselyte (cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.34-36; Apion 2.210; m. 'Abot 1:12; b. Sanh. 99b; Shab. 31a; Goppelt 1964: 54); Jesus simply snubs her.
That the children must be fed "first" (in Mark's account, Mk 7:27) opens the door to a later healing and the coming Gentile mission (Hurtado 1983: 103), but the woman's need is too urgent for that; by omitting the phrase, even if merely to abbreviate the narrative, Matthew reads more harshly. In both Gospels, Jesus probably refers to the children's pet dogs; well-to-do Greeks, unlike most Jews, could raise dogs as pets and not view them as merely troublesome rodents (cf. Ex 22:31; Horn. II. 23.173; Od. 2.11; 10.216; 17.290-304; Gordon 1965a: 107; Cary and Haarhoff 1946: 150; Witherington 1984: 170n.l03).53 The image is thus simply one of children's needs (cf. 7:9) taking temporal precedence over those of pets (Lane 1974a: 262; Anderson 1976: 191; Gundry 1982: 314).54 Such an admission, however, hardly transforms the image into a compliment (cf. 7:6); the image was an unpleasant one (Eurip. Orestes 260), and "dog" was an insult in the earliest extant pagan tradition (Horn. 11. 8.527; 9.373; 11.362; 20.449; 22.345; Od. 17.248; 22.35; cf. "dogfly" in Horn. II. 21.394, 421), as was its female derivative (Horn. Od. 11.424; 18.338; 19.91). Dogs were known for their attachment to dung and sniffing other dogs' rear ends (Phaedrus 1.27.10-11; 4.19); more commonly they were linked with birds as scavengers that devoured unburied corpses (Horn. 11. 17.127, 255, 272; 22.42-43, 66-70, 335-36, 339, 348, 353; 23.21, 183-87; 24.211, 411; Od. 3.258-60; 21.363-64; 22.476; Eurip. Phoenician Maidens 1650; Appian C.W. 1.8.72; Lucan C.W. 7.829). Sometimes dogs could prove vicious (e.g., Horn. Od. 14.29-36; Longus 1.21), even assaulting living humans (Aul. Gel. 15.20.9).55
Jesus is not cursing the woman, but he is putting her off (cf. 8:7). It is possible that he is testing her, as teachers sometimes tested their disciples (Jn 6:6; Lev. Rab. 22:6; cf. p. Sanh. 3:5, §2; Char. Chaer. 8.2.13), but he is certainly reluctant to grant her request, and is providing an obstacle for her faith (cf. 8:7; Jn 2:4). Perhaps he is requiring her to understand his true mission and identity, lest she treat him as one of the many wandering magicians to whom Gentiles sometimes appealed for exorcisms. Yet he is surely summoning her to recognize Israel's priority in the divine plan, a recognition that for her will include an admission of her dependent status. As Levine puts it, she receives the miracle "because she accepts her marginal position as a gentile" (1988: 152). One may compare Elisha's requirement that Naaman dip in the Jordan despite Naaman's preference for the Aramean rivers Abana and Pharpar (2 Kings 5:10-12), ultimately leading to Naaman's acknowledgment of Israel's God and land (2 Kings 5:17-18).
As a member of the hellenistic citizen class in the Markan account, she belonged to a group that had routinely taken the bread belonging to the impoverished Jews residing in the vicinity of Tyre (Theissen 1991: 66-80; for this region's economic relation with Tyre, cf. Meyers 1988: 74; for the privileged status of a local Greek elite, cf., e.g., Bowan and Rathbone 1992). Now Mark's Jesus reverses the power relations, for the "bread" Jesus offers belongs to Israel first (Theissen 1991: 75); this "Greek" must beg help from an itinerant Jew (Theissen 1991: 78-79; Theissen 1984; cf. Pub. Syr. 172). By instead calling her a Canaanite, Matthew mutes the class issue but focuses on the ethnic issue more relevant to his audience, again underlining the importance of the Gentile mission for his community (cf. Jn 4:7-42).
Third, the woman demonstrates her faith by recognizing Israel's priority in God's plan (15:27-28). She recognizes that Jesus is no mere magician who performs feats for fame or money. By hailing Jesus as "Lord" (as in, "Your Majesty" — Manson 1979: 200-201), "Son of David" (15:22; cf. Ps. Sol. 17:21), she had already acknowledged him as the rightful king over a nation that had conquered her ancestors (Josh 12:7-24; 2 Sam 8:1-15) — more than many of his own people had done (15:2; 21:15-16; 23:39). Like John's woman at the well (Jn 4:25-29; 6:69), this Canaanite woman publicly acknowledged Jesus' identity before the disciples who wished her to leave had done so (16:16). Now she refuses to dispute that Jesus' mission is to Israel first and that her status is secondary to that of Israel (Jeremias 1958: 30; Rhoads and Michie 1982: 131); nevertheless, she believes that Jesus has so much power that he will have more than enough left over from what Israel does not need or want. Jesus responds to such striking faith.56 Jesus has enough bread for Israel, but the following narrative reinforces that plenty of scraps remain over for others (15:37).57 Matthew reminds his community that all, both Jew and Gentile, can approach God only through faith in his Messiah (8:10; cf. Acts 15:8-11; Saldarini 1994: 74; cf. Gundry-Volf 1995).
Feeding Four Thousand in the Wilderness (15:29-39)
Cf. Mk 7:31-8:9. This narrative, like the feeding of the five thousand (14:15-21), teaches Matthew's community about Jesus' power and care for his people. He heals the multitudes (15:29-31), acts out of compassion for their need (15:32; cf. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34), and provides for them (15:33-39).
Many suggest that the two feedings are two versions of a single event (the second may bear signs of Markan composition — see Burkill 1972: 48-70); others contend that two distinct events occurred (Knackstedt 1964; cf. Travis 1977: 160; English 1969). Although Matthew doubles some incidents (9:27-31; 20:29-34), Mark seems more likely to conform two similar accounts to each other and to arrange a systematic structural pattern, suggesting that Mark at least believed two events had occurred (cf. 8:19-20; Moule 1965: 60). Many of the parallels between the two accounts are those necessary to depict the multiplying of food (Carson 1984b: 357-58). Possibly Jesus, the tradition, or Mark wanted to parallel an event on Jewish soil with a similar event in a Gentile region (F. F. Bruce 1980a: 71; Hagner 1995: 450); more likely they sought to imitate the double feeding miracles of Elijah and Elisha (Blomberg 1992a: 245).
First, after some time alone with his disciples (15:21) Jesus returns to meeting the people's needs (15:29-31). That he sat at a mountain (15:29) may imply that he was teaching (5:1-2), but what is clear from Matthew's language (which may adapt Is 35:5-6; cf. Ryan 1978; Lohse 1955: 58) is that Jesus is meeting people's physical needs (15:30).
Second, Jesus recognizes his followers' need and exercises compassion toward them (15:32). The text does not directly suggest that people were complaining about the food situation. Perhaps Matthew implies that, like his Father, Jesus recognizes his people's need before they ask (6:8, 32).
Third, Jesus acts even though his disciples still fail to understand (15:33-34). In contrast to the multitudes who flock to Jesus for miracles, the disciples seem to miss their significance (cf. Weeden 1971: 28); perhaps they see him too often in his "ordinary" humanness to expect miracles from him all the time. Despite Jesus' earlier feeding miracle, they assume again that they must procure bread by purely natural means (15:33). They are still learning, and Jesus does not yet reprove their unbelief — although he will if it continues (16:8-11).
Fourth, Jesus organized his disciples for efficiency (15:35-36). What was not humanly possible, Jesus performed as a miracle; the distribution of the food was humanly possible, however, and Jesus organized it efficiently (cf. the principle of delegated responsibility in Ex 18:14-26). See more fully the comments on 14:18.
Fifth, Jesus again supplied more than enough (15:37-39). See the comments on 14:20-21. Matthew provides both a literal lesson taken from the story and its continual retelling in the church, and a figurative lesson based on the context. Figuratively in this context, the leftovers symbolize that plenty of "the children's bread" remains for other seekers (15:26-28, though 15:27 and 15:37 employ different terms for "scraps"). But on the literal level, Matthew instructs his audience about God's limitless power and design in providing for his children's needs. One might think that more food would remain after this feeding miracle than the previous one; this time Jesus started with more food and fewer people (although the kind of baskets used this time may be larger).58 But such was not the case, reminding the reader that God's design rather than natural considerations determine the magnitude of the miracle.
The Sign of Jonah (15:39-16:4)
Cf. 12:38-39; Mk 8:10-13; Lk 11:16, 29; 12:54-56; Jn 6:30. The next scene takes place near "Magadan" (15:39), perhaps the region of Magdala (27:56; cf. Gundry 1982: 322; others are uncertain, e.g., France 1985: 249-50; Davies and Allison 1991: 574) which (if the same Magdala is in view) often appears in later Jewish literature (b. Nid. 33a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:16; Gen. Rab. 5:9; 13:15; 94:4 MSS; Num. Rab. 12:4; cf. the association with promiscuity in the late Lam. Rab. 2:2, §4). Magdala's common Greek name appears to have been Tarichaeae (Avi-Yonah 1974/76b: 96), known as a Galilean city with a fishing industry, elements of Greek culture, but also fierce Jewish patriotism (see Freyne 1988: 172-73; for excavations, see Reich 1989). The passage articulates principles that could prove valuable to Matthew's audience both in defending their devotion to Jesus and in deepening it.
First, asking for a sign after the Lord has already revealed himself is testing him (16:1; cf. Ex 17:7; Ps 78:18-20). Matthew may find here both grounds for challenging opponents of the Christian movement and warning to his own audience. In Mark, only the Pharisees test Jesus here (Mk 8:11), and Jesus later warned against the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod, whose partisans had teamed up with the Pharisees (with whom they rarely dealt) to confront the urgent problem of Jesus (Mk 3:6; 12:13).59 Matthew perhaps reapplies the language for his audience, who knew the oppression Christians had suffered from the old Sadducean aristocracy (e.g., Acts 4:1-3; 23:8-9). Pharisees and Sadducees were generally at odds, joining forces only under external duress; Matthew reports that Jesus' mission was one such case of duress (3:7; cf. van Tilborg 1972b).
This passage condemns not those who genuinely fear God yet ask for signs as an assurance of God's promise (Gen 15:6, 8; Judg 6:17, 36-39; 2 Kings 20:8; cf. Ps-Philo 35:7; Is 7:11-14), but those who seek grounds to disbelieve. The religious leaders (there "scribes and Pharisees," here "Pharisees and Sadducees") had challenged Jesus after other miracles (15:1-20); the Gospel's first reference to testing (4:1; cf. 6:13; 19:3; 22:35) may suggest that the devil is their theological source (cf. Robinson 19 82: 93).60 Like the devil and his other mouthpieces in the Gospel (4:3, 6; 12:38; 27:40, 42-44), they want Jesus to demonstrate his power to satisfy their testing, rather than for the sake of those who are in need.
Now they ignore the signs of a prophet already offered (15:21-39; cf. Hooker 1983: 109) and demand instead a sign from heaven (16:1). A "sign from heaven" could mean "from God" ("heaven" often functioned as a circumlocution for God's name — e.g., Lk 15:18; Rom 1:18; Dan 4:26; 1 Enoch 6:2; 13:8; 1QM 12.5; 3 Macc 4:21; m. 'Abot 1:3; t. B. Qam. 7:5; Sifra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.1; Sifre Deut. 79.1.1; 96.2.2), but in this context it apparently means a sign in the heavens (e.g., Plummer 1910: 221), like those that many people believed presaged the fall of Jerusalem (Jos. War 6.288-91) and the end (cf. 24:29-31; 27:45, 51-53). Jewish teachers sometimes debated the interpretation of such signs, for instance, what eclipses at evening predicted versus what eclipses in the morning predicted (t. Sukk. 2:6; for some accurate meteorologic understanding in early Judaism, see Albert and Neumann 1989).61 Presumably they here ask Jesus to predict a sign in the sky — which could request thunder and lightning (Virg. Aen. 8.523-26, especially signum in 8.523; 1 Sam 7:10), but, on the less than charitable reading one might assume from Matthew's audience, could reduce them to the level of astrologers or diviners, something forbidden in the Hebrew Bible (Deut 18:10; cf. Jub. 12:16-17). The religious leaders here contrast starkly with some pagan astrologers who came to worship King Jesus (2:1-12)! Jesus' challengers here want him to "show" them a sign (16:1), and he refuses; but later he "showed" his disciples his mission (16:21), suggesting again that those who persevered would always have an advantage over casual or hostile inquirers (13:11).62
Second, Jesus was giving them a clearer sign than a sign in heaven would have been (16:3-4), Jesus' questioners could predict many celestial phenomena with no supernatural inspiration at all; a red sky in the morning meant that Mediterranean winds from the west would be bringing rain.63 But Jesus was not interested in predicting events in the sky or in using such events to predict the future; they were overlooking an explicit sign that was nearer at hand (a matter other ancients would also feel worthy of rebuke — cf. Diog. Laert. Lives 6.2.28). Yet the "signs of that time" should have been the only "sign" they needed. Indeed, the sinfulness of that generation was itself a sign, for many Jewish people understood that a sinful generation would immediately precede the coming of God's kingdom (CD 20.14-15; 2 Bar. 26:12; m. Sota 9:15; b. Sanh. 97a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Pesiq. R. 15:14/15; cf. Phil 2:15). The description of that generation resembles Moses' complaint against Israel (Deut 32:5), a generation that had repeatedly tested God in the wilderness and rejected his prophet Moses (Ps 78:18-20).64
Third, Jesus' own ministry and resurrection constituted the decisive sign to that generation (16:4). With most scholars, the Q reference to the "sign of Jonah" here is probably authentic, Mark having omitted it to retain the messianic secret (Mk 8:11; Witherington 1990: 168). The resurrection was an end-time event (Dan 12:2); Jesus' resurrection was a clear indication that the time of the kingdom was at hand (12:39-40).65
Religious Cancer and Doubting Disciples (16:5-12)
Cf. Mk 8:14-21; Lk 12:1. If Jesus' opponents were active in their unbelief (16:1-4), his disciples were passive in their unbelief. Unlike the Pharisees, Jesus' disciples had stayed with him and witnessed the miracles of the loaves; nevertheless, they still fail to understand his power.
First, Jesus warned against testing God as his opponents had just done (16:6, 11-12). Jesus did not disagree with all Pharisaic teaching (23:2), but the context specifies which teaching (16:12) he means. The "Pharisees and Sadducees" had posed challenges intended to discredit Jesus (16:1-4); for Jesus to warn against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees in this context must constitute a warning against the toxic cynicism of these groups. "Yeast" was an appropriate metaphor for something that spreads through the dough (negative, e.g., in Vermes 1993: 103n.31);66 today we might employ a negative image like cancer. The disciples' passive unbelief (16:8) suggests that the threat of Pharisaic leaven is closer to them than they would have guessed.
Second, the disciples misunderstand his point because they are "of little faith" (16:5, 7-10). They misunderstand because they are self-absorbed. Perhaps they were headed for "the sparsely populated east side" of the lake, where bread would be in short supply (Hoehner 1972: 204). At any rate, the disciples had inadvertently neglected their responsibility to bring bread (16:5; see comment on 14:15), and they were so concerned about what their teacher would think about their lapse that they assumed he was addressing their own failure (16:7). Yet Jesus' point had been clear: given what had just transpired (16:1-4), how could they assume that the "leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" referred to forgetting to take bread? Did they expect Jesus to be instructing them to bake bread from scratch when they had crossed the lake, but to make sure not to borrow any yeast from the spiritually unclean religious elite? The disciples here appear inordinately dense.
But Jesus explains why they cannot understand him. Spiritual understanding cannot come apart from faith (16:8). Had they simply forgotten to take bread — a technical rather than a moral failure — Jesus could have provided bread (16:9-10). That Jesus could miraculously supply bread had already eluded them twice (14:15-17; 15:33; cf. 6:11, 25-34; Deut 8:3-5 and Mt4:4); by this point his disciples should have more faith, so he corrects them. Unconcerned that they had forgotten bread, he was very concerned that they were learning faith so slowly (cf. 15:10, 16). He had serious reason for concern: these were his disciples, by definition apprentices expected to take over his earthly ministry after his departure. Yet the other instances of his "little-faith" rebuke demonstrate that it represents a reproof like that of a concerned parent, not that of a harsh drill-sergeant (cf. 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 17:20). Some teaching traditions recognized that a few disciples who seemed slow could eventually improve (Plut. Lectures 18, Mor. 47E), but the ultimate progress of slow disciples was the exception rather than the rule.67
Recognition of Jesus' Messiahship as the Foundation (16:13-20)
Cf. Mk 8:27-30; Lk 9:18-21; Jn 1:42; 6:67-71. The religious elite repudiated Jesus (16:1-4); the disciples lacked sufficient faith in him to understand his most basic warnings (16:5-12). But now, informed by Jesus' works (14:33) and perhaps by a new understanding of Jesus' role vis-a-vis that of their people's religious establishment (16:12), the disciples are on the verge of a new level of revelation (16:13-20). Even at this point, however, they do not fully understand his mission (16:21-28). As in Mark, this revelation is pivotal in the development of Matthew's narrative (cf. the growing awareness of disciples in other accounts, e.g., Philost. VM. 2.11-22; Plato in Robbins 1992: 151-52).
Many Protestant interpreters have doubted the authenticity of this section (especially the specifically Matthean blessing of Peter), but more recent interpreters have shown less skepticism. Davies and Allison 1991: 609-15 argue for authenticity on the following grounds: (1) evidence in Paul (especially Gal 1:11-21); (2) Semitisms; (3) indications of Palestinian provenance by comparison with the DSS; (4) the criterion of consistency; (5) the criterion of dissimilarity (gates of Hades, keys of the kingdom, and binding and loosing are not distinctively Christian;68 the promise to Peter is not pre-Christian Jewish); (6) geographical setting; and (7) the weakness of the objections to the contrary.
First, the climactic revelation of the gospel occurs in pagan territory (16:13). Jesus has taken his disciples northward from predominantly Jewish territory, presumably to escape the crowds and spend time privately with his disciples. They had journeyed some twenty-five miles (and 1,700 feet uphill) from the Lake of Galilee to the source of the Jordan near the ancient city of Dan, the northern boundary of ancient Israel.69 The recently renamed Caesarea Philippi was as pagan a territory as one could find: famous for its grotto where people worshiped the Greek god Pan, its earlier name Paneas persisted even in its modern Arabic name Baneas (cf. Pliny N.H. 5.15.71; Jos. War 1.404; b. B. Bat. 74b; Josephus 1982: 458) and public pagan rites reportedly continued there until a later Christian miraculously demonstrated that Jesus was more powerful (Euseb. H.E. 7.17).70 Following Mark, Matthew emphasizes that God moves where he wills, fitting the theme of Jesus' universal mission in his Gospel (e.g., 1:3, 5-6; 2:1-12; 3:9; 4:15).
Second, outsiders' recognition of Jesus as a prophet is inadequate (16:14); those who truly follow Jesus closely know him as the Christ, God's Son (16:15-16).71 Herod Antipas thought that Jesus was John (14:2); many Jewish people anticipated the return of Elijah and sometimes other prophets like Baruch (Cullmann 1959: 17-18; Lohse 1955: 47; cf. Sharma 1973). Given Jesus' public activities, it is not surprising that many would have viewed him as a prophet (21:11, 46; Jn 9:17), but while this perspective was correct (cf., e.g., 11:21-24; 24:2-31), it was incomplete. Viewing Jesus in such terms thus managed to fit him into categories of thought that already existed (cf. comment on 4:3-9), rather than letting the Messiah himself redefine their categories by his identity. Peter, the most outspoken of the disciples elsewhere in the tradition (26:35), voices the ultimate confession, though he still has not defined it as Jesus will. "Christ" designates Jesus as the rightful king of Israel (see the Introduction). Matthew does not contradict his source here; although Mark subordinated Jesus' Messiahship to his suffering, he accepted both (Kingsbury 1983: 91-102, 147; pace Petersen 1978: 63).72
Third, this revelation of Jesus' identity was foundational for God's purposes in history (16:17-18). Many scholars doubt the authenticity of this passage (16:17-19), some perhaps for anti-Catholic polemic but others because Matthew alone reports these lines.73 If one follows Mark's sequence, this material in Matthew may seem intrusive, and one may argue that Matthew himself has placed the earlier tradition of Peter's commendation (the existence of which is probably implied by Peter's central role in the church, e.g., 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 2:7) in this particular narrative (Cullmann 1968:105). But no other suitable place for commending a Petrine revelation exists in the tradition; certainly after the resurrection commendations on such a revelation would be beside the point.74 More likely, Luke may simply have followed Mark in omitting it, and Mark's punchy narrative style and emphatic theme of discipleship failure were better served by omitting it (cf. Ellis 1974: 128-29; Weeden 1971: 43; Weber 1961; idem 1962).75 Matthean wording (Gundry 1982: 330-31) may be more common where Matthew follows oral tradition rather than Mark.76
Jewish teachers often pronounced blessings on those who gave correct responses, as Jesus does here (Young 1995: 199). Peter did not receive his revelation from "flesh and blood" (cf. Gal 1:16, which may reflect this tradition — Wenham 1984a: 26; pace Gundry 1982: 336), a common expression for "mortals" or "humans" (e.g., 1 Cor 15:50; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14; 1 Enoch 15:4; Test. Abr. 13B; Mek. Pisha 1.120; ARN 32A). Peter's understanding of Jesus' identity came by divine revelation (16:17; 11:25; cf. Gal 1:12; Eph 1:17; 3:5), undoubtedly including God's revelation through Jesus' miraculous acts (14:33; cf. 15:22). Although Peter's father's name was the similar "John" (Jn 1:42; 21:15; cf. "Jonah" in CIJ 1:483, §671; 2:124, §900), Jesus (at least in Matthew's context) might mean the address "son of Jonah" symbolically as well: Jonah was a preacher to his generation (12:41), and this context specified that Jonah's sign would come to Jesus' generation as well (16:4; cf. Gundry 1982: 332-33).77
"You are Peter," Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter's "You are the Christ" (16:16). He then plays on Simon's nickname, "Peter," which is roughly the English "Rocky": Peter is "rocky," and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18). Scholars have debated precisely what Jesus means by the "rock"; Protestants, following Augustine and Luther, have sometimes contended that the rock in this passage is only Jesus himself (Cullmann 1953: 162n.l3).78 Thus they have sometimes argued that Peter's name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra; e.g., Gundry 1982: 334; cf. Lampe 1979; Derrett 198 8).79 But by Jesus' day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter's nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply "rock."80 Further, Jesus does not say, "You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church"; the weak adversative de sometimes means "and," but the copulative kai almost always means "and" (exceptions like Tob 4:17 are very rare). Jesus' teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21 (cf. Jeremias 1972: 227). Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the "rock" because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16; Cullmann 1953: 162; Ladd 1974b: 110; C. Brown 1978: 386). The Gospel has developed Peter's character to this point, making him a spokesperson for the disciples, hence the prototypical church leader (Overman 1996: 249). Others who share his proclamation also share his authority in building the church (18:18 with 16:19).81
Fourth, the community built on such a foundation would prevail against all opposition (16:18). Some scholars doubt that Jesus could have spoken of a "church," of followers after his departure (Boring 1982: 213-14). But this presupposes that Jesus did not expect a period between his initial mission and the end of the age, a view that many of his extant sayings do not support (cf., e.g., 13:3-51; 24:4-51; Witherington 1992). Ancient teachers regularly established communities of followers to perpetuate their teachings (cf., e.g., Culpepper 1975: 123); Albright and Mann (1971: 195; cf. Hunter 1944: 53) go so far as to suspect that confessional polemics are often at work in excluding the passage, noting that "a Messiah without a Messianic Community" would have been "unthinkable" to contemporary Judaism. Other Jewish groups planned communities (cf. Flusser 1988: 35), and culturally relevant evidence (like Jesus' choice of twelve disciples) supports the notion that Jesus did as well.82 Vermes 1993: 214-15 doubts that Jesus, who expected the kingdom in the near future, could have founded a community; yet Qumran's Teacher of Righteousness, who expected the end of the age in the near future, did just that.
Not only did various leaders plan communities to carry on their work; a Jewish renewal movement might have employed the same language Jesus did. The Essenes described themselves as the qahal (Albright and Mann 1971: 121; Brown et al. 1973: 92; Harrington 1982: 29), the Hebrew word for God's congregation in the exodus narrative, which the Greek versions translate as ekklesia, or "church."83 Jesus likewise depicts his community as the true, faithful remnant of Israel in continuity with the Old Testament covenant community;84 what marked it as new was Jesus' specific designation, "my community" (Ladd 1974b: 110; France 1985: 255). The term would make the most sense in a Jewish setting, where those familiar with the Greek version of the Old Testament would recognize ekklesia and synagoge as translations of the Hebrew term for the community of Israel. Other Greek readers may have scratched their heads, since ekklesia could include any gathering (cf. Deissmann 1978: 112-13), even an army (Dion. Hal. 6.94.1). Most often in regular Greek usage it meant the "citizen assembly" of a local community (e.g., Acts 19:32, 39), including those in Republican Rome (Dion. Hal. 6.87.1; 7.17.2; 11.50.1) and Jerusalem (Jos. War 4.162).
Biblical tradition had often spoken of "building up" the community of God (e.g., Ruth 4:11; Ps 51:18; 69:35; 147:2; Jer 1:10; 24:6; 31:4, 28; Ladd 1974b: 109; cf. Prov 9:1); Qumran texts indicate that the usage remained familiar among Jesus' contemporaries (4QpPs 37.3,16; Jeremias 1971: 168), although there God was the builder of his community (Gundry 1982: 336). In the context of the larger Jesus tradition, Jesus may also see himself replacing the "builders" who rejected him (Ps 118:22; Mt 21:42). The "gates of Hades" is a familiar Semitic expression for the threshold of the realm of death (cf. 11:23; Rev 1:18).85 Pagans also employed the image of the "gates of Hades" for the realm of death (Horn. Od. 14.156; Hesiod Theog. 773; Eurip. Hippol. 56-57, 1447; Hecuba 1; Diog. Laert. 10.126; Char. Chaer. 4.1.3; Orphic Hymn 18.15); they often spoke of the house (e.g., Horn. II. 15.251; 20.336; 21.48; 22.52, 213, 425, 482; 23.19, 71, 74, 103, 179; 24.246; Od. 14.208; 20.208) or realm (e.g., Soph. Ajax 635; Eurip. Alcestis 25, 73, 436-37, 457, 626; Electra 142-43; Madness of Heracles 610, 619; Children of Heracles 218, 912-13, 949; Hippol. 895; Androm. 414; Ap. Rhod. 2.609; 3.810) of Hades as the realm of the dead, as in Jewish texts (Test. Abr. 19A). The words used here suggest that death itself assaults Christ's church, but death itself cannot crush God's people (Ladd 1974b: 116; Jeremias 1968: 927; cf. Heb 2:14; Test. Reub. 4:11).86 The church will endure until Christ's return, and no opposition, even the widespread martyrdom of Christians or the oppression of the final antichrist (cf. Jeremias 1968: 927), can prevent the ultimate triumph of God's purposes in history. The promise precedes Christ's summons to martyrdom (16:24-25).
Fifth, Jesus gives Peter — and those who share his proclamation of Jesus' identity — authority in the kingdom (16:19; cf. 18:18). The realm of "heaven" here contrasts strikingly with the powers of "Sheol," the realm of the dead thought to lie beneath the earth, in the preceding verse (16:18; cf. Heb 2:14; Rev 1:18). "Keys" opened locked doors or gates,87 but the carrying of such keys especially symbolized the bearer's authority (cf., e.g., Livy 24.22.14; 24.23.1; 24.37.8). One who bore keys to a royal palace was the majordomo, as in Isaiah 22:22; Revelation 3:7;88 one may compare supervisors who held the keys to the temple courts among Jesus' contemporaries (ARN 7, §21B; Pesiq. R. 26:6; Jeremias 1969: 165-66).89 But some later Jewish teachers also applied the image of "keys" to their teaching authority (Davies and Allison 1991: 635 cite Lk 11:52; Sifre Deut. 32:25; b. Shab. 3lab).
Whether Peter thus acts as "prime minister" for the kingdom (cf. Brown et al. 1973: 96-97) or perhaps as a "chief rabbi" making halakic rulings based on Jesus' teachings (Meier in Brown and Meier 1983: 67; Bornkamm 1995: 111), he clearly acts on sufficient delegated authority. Whereas Israel's religious elite was shutting people out of the kingdom (23:13; cf. Lk 11:52; Cullmann 1953: 204; Richardson 1958: 317; Ladd 1974b: 117-18; Schweizer 1975: 343), those who confessed Jesus' identity along with Peter were authorized to usher people into God's kingdom. Peter may thus function as the representative eschatological missionary, a "fisher of men" par excellence (Davies and Allison 1991: 634). Non-Matthean tradition retains this special role for Peter; thus, for example, Acts indicates that he opened an official door to the Gentiles (Acts 10:44; F. F. Bruce 1951: 227-28; cf. Gal 2:7).
In Jewish texts "binding and loosing" ('asar and hittir or shera) could refer to authority to interpret the law, hence to evaluate individuals' fidelity to the law (see comment on 18:18).90 Some therefore interpret this authority as administrative authority over the church (cf. Bultmann 1968: 138-39n.l).91 In this context, however, the nuance may be somewhat different than in 18:18: Peter and those who share his role (cf. 18:18) evaluate not those who are in the community, but those who would enter it (a role assigned to the mebaqqer of the Qumran community — cf. 1QS 5.20-21; 6:13-14).92 In both functions — evaluating entrants and those already within the church — God's people must evaluate on the authority of the heavenly court; the verb tenses allow the interpretation that they merely ratify the heavenly decree (see comment on 18:18; cf. Mantey 1973; idem 1981; Keener 1987; see more fully comment on 18:18). Jesus' agents were already exercising this authority in their earlier mission (10:14-15, 40; Jeremias 1972: 217n.42; Ladd 1974b: 118). Peter must thus accept into the church only those who share Peter's confession of Jesus' true identity (cf. Jn 20:22-23).93
Finally, Jesus admonished the disciples not to reveal his identity (16:20). The context suggests why: until after the resurrection (17:9) the disciples were unprepared to understand the cross; and apart from the cross, they could not understand the real nature of Jesus' messianic mission (16:21-28), as Markan scholars often note (e.g., Lambrecht 1980).
The Cost of the Kingdom (16:21-27)
Cf. Mk 8:31-38; Lk 9:22-26; Jn 12:25; perhaps Jn 21:20-23. Many of the points this section emphasizes directly follow those in Mark, with whom Matthew agrees concerning the centrality of the cross. Jesus' opponents wanted him to "show" a sign (16:1); here Jesus instead "shows" his disciples how he will suffer (16:21).
First, the cross is central to Jesus' mission (16:21); the gospel message is incomplete without it. Recognizing Jesus as the Messiah was an important first step (16:13-20), but not very helpful when the disciples' concept of Jesus' Messiahship differed so greatly from his own. Jesus' Messiahship meant that he would suffer and die (16:21); those who wish to follow him must be ready to pay the same price (16:24). The cross was the most scandalous form of criminal execution in Jesus' day (see Hengel 1977: 8-9); texts indicate that even the term sounded terrible to ancient readers (Hengel 1977: 10), and we might not blame the disciples if they hoped that he was speaking metaphorically. Yet Jesus spoke literally for himself — and expected his followers to be prepared to face death for his name literally as well.94
Some scholars doubt that Jesus could have predicted his own death (e.g., Wrede 1971: 82-92), but even if one discounts the possibility that God could grant insight to one of his agents concerning his mission (which is merely a philosophical a priori; see Brown 1994: 1468), their doubts are untenable for several reasons. Before providing arguments why their skepticism is ultimately unwarranted, however, we should note that the Gospel writers naturally did have literary and theological reasons to include such predictions in their Gospels: many people believed that prophets and wise men could sense their impending death (see Aune 1983: 178; Boring 1995: 105, 155); further, ancient narratives regularly extol heroes who could face suffering or danger bravely (e.g., Livy 5.46.2-3; Plut. Sayings of Spartans, Anonymous 35, Mor. 234AB; Dion. Hal. 7.68.2-3; Jos. Ant. 3.208; 4.322; 6.126-27).95 From a literary perspective, one might object to a deus ex machina or other denouement not anticipated in the plot itself (Arist. Poetics 15.10, 1454ab). Though the opposition Jesus provokes provides such anticipation with or without any explicit passion predictions, they do fit the common classical pattern of explicitly announcing the doom of some characters, which helps build suspense (e.g., Horn. Od. 2.163-66).
But good historical reasons also exist for supposing that Jesus foresaw his imminent martyrdom, and probably even viewed it as part of his mission (Brown 1994: 1468-91; Witherington 1990: 250). First, the saying reflects an early Aramaic construction and three characteristics of Jesus' distinctive style (Jeremias 1971: 282; Hill 1979: 61). Second, Jesus taught the Jewish view that sufferings precede the kingdom (cf. 24:8), which renders more understandable his own imminent expectation of suffering. Third, he also accepted the Jewish view, confirmed in John's death, that prophets are martyred (see comment on 23:29-32; cf. Hill 1979: 57; Aune 1983: 157, 159, 173). Fourth, the Gospel tradition reports numerous conflicts Jesus had experienced up to this point, the implications of which should have become clearer as he approached the arena of the political power brokers in Jerusalem.96 Fifth, some of Jesus' other sayings, such as that about the disciples sharing his cup (20:22-23) and his words at the last supper (26:26-29), point in the same direction (Jeremias 1971: 277-86; Dodd 1961: 57; Stauffer 1960: 171-73).
But finally and most importantly, Jesus could not but have foreknown his death: Jesus ultimately provoked his death, showing his control over its timing, by his apparent assault on an institution by which the aristocracy symbolized their power. No one could directly challenge Jerusalem's municipal aristocracy that represented Rome's interests without anticipating severe reprisals, for any such challenge could not but appear as a threat to the state's political security (see comment on 21:12-17). That Jesus' execution as an accused evildoer condemned by the highest court of the land would take place at the hand of the Jewish religious leaders (also Mk 8:31) is one of the striking ironies of the Gospel story that must have made it offensive to Jewish people loyal to the religious establishment (cf. 2:4; 26:57) — hardly the sort of story Jewish Christian apologists would have invented.97 Yet it is likely that Jesus foresaw it; if he expected a prophet's death in Jerusalem, political conditions being what they were he had to expect the chief priests' Sanhedrin and Romans to play a role ("elders" — e.g., 26:57; 28:12; "high priests" — e.g., 2:4; 26:57; "scribes" — e.g., 2:4; 26:57).
It makes sense that if, like many earlier prophets, Jesus expected to face rejection and death for an offensive message, he might also expect God's vindication in swiftly establishing the kingdom (Brown 1994: 514), hence raising the dead. That Jesus may have expected his own resurrection ahead of that of others would be distinctive — I know of no direct precedents for the view — but it is not unreasonable if, as I argued above (on 16:18-19), Jesus expected a community to carry on after him in the intermediate eschatological era. That Jesus rarely spoke about his impending passion, especially in public, fits the Gospel picture of his focusing on God's reign rather than on himself in public teaching (Hengel 1981a: 34). That the disciples misunderstood such clear teaching (e.g., 16:22) may imply the strength of the messianic category in light of which they interpreted Jesus' mission; it also suggests that the passion prediction, clear as it was, could function the way oracles in the ancient Mediterranean often functioned, appearing obscure until fulfillment (e.g., Soph. Oed. Rex 439; Women Tr. 1169-73; Dio Cassius 62.18.4; Diod. Sic. 16.91.2-3; Arrian Alex. 7.26.2-3; Jos. War 1.80). The foolish often doubt a warning until it comes to pass (e.g., Horn. Od. 2.182-82).
Second, promises of the kingdom without the cross come from the devil (16:22-23). After the destruction of the temple, the folly of the military-political paradigm of resistance was at least temporarily obvious; Matthew's audience knew only too well the dangers of the rhetoric of worldly power.
If 16:18-19 grant Peter special authority, this passage qualifies it: his authority functions only when he speaks from God, not when he speaks human and demonic wisdom (cf. Meier 1979: 118).98 "Never, Lord!" is a vigorous denial, in vehement Septuagintal language (Carson 1984b: 377). When Peter rebuked Jesus, he overstepped his appropriate bounds as a disciple (cf. other wrongful "rebukes" in 19:13; 20:31). Correcting a teacher was rare (ARN 1A), and some sages believed teaching law even in the presence of one's teacher merited death from God (Sifra Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.5.6; b. 'Erub. 63a; Tem. 16a; Lev. Rab. 20:6-7). Disciples "followed" their teachers (4:19-20; 8:22; 9:9-10; 10:38; 16:24; 19:21), literally walking behind them out of respect when they walked (Liefeld 1967: 227-28). Thus, though Jesus "turned" to confront Peter literally behind him (16:23), he now ordered him to "Get behind" him figuratively (16:23), returning to a position of discipleship.99 It was known that teachers and prophets gave very firm warnings to their disciples (CD 8.20-2).100
But Peter was not only out of order; he functioned as the devil's agent. Satan offered Jesus the kingdom without the cross at Jesus' temptation (4:8-9); Peter now offers the same temptation and encounters the same title (4:10; Cullmann 1956b: 27). In the early Christian perspective, the devil influenced this world so deeply that the world's values were quite often the devil's values (Jas 3:15; 4:7; Eph 2:1-3; 4:25-27);101 by valuing the things humans value (such as lack of suffering), Peter shows himself to be in league with the devil (16:23).102 The religious leaders later echoed Satan's temptation as well (27:42-43). That Peter is a "stumbling block" (16:23; not in Mark) again plays on his name: the "rock" could have negative as well as positive functions (Meier 1979: 117; idem 1980: 185).
Third, if Jesus' mission is death, he expects no less from his disciples (16:24). "Taking up one's cross" in antiquity hardly meant the relatively minor burdens assumed by many popular readers of the text today (though it might lend itself, reasoning from greater demands to lesser, to such application; cf. Caesarius of Aries Sermons 159.5; Tert. On Idolatry 12; ACCS, 112). It meant marching on the way to one's execution, shamefully carrying the heavy horizontal beam (the patibulum) of one's own death-instrument through the midst of a jeering mob (Jeremias 1972: 218-19; idem 1971: 242); and under less controlled circumstances, mobs themselves could tear people apart (e.g., Polyb. R.R.E. 15.33).103 Jesus anticipated literal martyrdom for himself and many of his followers by the Romans' standard means of executing lower-class criminals and slaves; his kingdom was ultimately incompatible with Rome's claims (Manson 1979: 131; F. F. Bruce 1972a: 19; Klaasen 1981: 88). If disciples "come after" and imitate their teacher, their lives are forfeit from the moment they begin following him; to "come after" Jesus Peter himself had to return behind him (16:23). Self-denial in this text refers to following Christ to the death (16:24), rather than denying him in the face of persecution (10:33). At the same time, people often recognized the boldness of soldiers and others unafraid to die (e.g., Pub. Syr. 242). Although genuine disciples may fall short on their commitment at times (26:69-75), the Gospel tradition emphasizes that those who wish to follow Jesus must understand from the start that they are surrendering their lives to him. From this perspective, most modern Western Christians remain unconverted, a point we should grasp to grapple effectively with the impact Jesus' words would have had on his own contemporaries. A true Christian, Cyprian believed, would not be ashamed of Christ or shrink from suffering for him (The Lapsed 28, ACCS, 114).
Fourth, Jesus is worth any price a disciple must pay to follow him (16:25-27). Losing one's life in this age would be a small price to preserve it in the eternal age to come (cf. 1 Enoch 108:10; 2 Bar. 51:15-16; m. 'Abot 4:17; ARN 32, §71B; b. Tamid 32a; Lev. Rab. 3:1; Deut. Rab. 11:10; Qoh. Rab. 4:6, §1; Daube 1973: 137).104 One must decide whether one "wishes" to come after Jesus (16:24) or "wishes" (the same Greek term) to save one's life (16:25); one cannot have it both ways. The cross means death, and nothing less; this point is so important that Matthew redactionally underlines it in an earlier persecution context (10:38-39; cf. Jn 12:25). Jewish teachers regarded a human life as of incomparably great value (Moore 1971: 2:239; Sandmel 1978b: 180); no ransom price would be too great for one's life (or "soul" — the same term in v. 26; 2 Bar. 17:2-3; Char. Chaer. 3.3.11-12; Epict. Disc. 2.12.21; Marc. Aur. Med. 11.1.2; cf. Ex 30:12; Ps 49:7-9).
Yet the only way to preserve one's life is to relinquish it in faith that the Son of Man would someday come with his angels to execute judgment (16:27; cf. 25:31; 2 Thess 1:7-8; Dan 7:9-14) according to each person's works (the principle was widely reported; see, e.g., Ps 62:12; Prov 24:12; Sir 16:12, 14; Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 11:15; Rev 22:12; Pesiq. R. 8:2; cf. Mt 5:26). Those who expected a period of great suffering before the time of the kingdom (24:9-12) would hear in such words a radical call to perseverance (24:13).105 Disciples may confront death, but such martyrdoms would never crush Jesus' church (16:18).
Multiple attestation supports the authenticity of the logion in 16:27, which may stand, together with (if not part of) 24:30-31, behind 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. Paul adapts "Son of Man" to "Lord," the preferred title for Jesus in his circles, and the Synoptics, written later, clarify that only "some" would remain alive. That the prediction did not happen, requiring clarification or even revision, further supports its authenticity (Sanders 1993: 181-82). But even in Paul's early writings, it seems clear that Jesus' promise was of a potentially imminent parousia, not one that would necessarily arrive immediately (Witherington 1992: 45-58).
The Son of Man's Glory (16:28-17:13)
Cf. Mk 9:1-13; Lk 1:17; 9:27-36. Had the disciples any doubt that Jesus would someday come to reign in glory (16:27; cf. 24:30; angels in 24:31), he promises them a proleptic vision of his glory in the present (16:28).106 In a narrative that resembles Moses' revelation on Mount Sinai,107 some of the disciples become witnesses like Moses of Jesus' divine glory (17:1-8).108 (Philo's Life of Moses similarly places a transfiguration narrative near the middle, as Mack 1988: 289 points out.)109 The six days (17:1) could be a general literary device for a climactic seventh day after six days of preparation (cf. McCurley 1974: 81), but probably refer specifically to Exodus 24:15-18 (Jub. 1:2-3; ARN 1A; e.g., Mauser 1963: 111; Gundry 1982: 342; Refoule 1993).110 Going up to the mountain (17:1; Ex 24:13, 18), the bright cloud (17:5; Ex 24:15; cf. Mt 24:30), and other features of the narrative likewise recall the revelation on Mount Sinai. The appearance of the literal Moses and Elijah in 17:3 (both of whom had experiences with God on Mount Horeb) invites the reader to consider the other allusions to Moses (17:2-5) and the reference to Elijah (17:10-13) later in the narrative.111
First, Jesus is the glorious Lord before whom all other heroes of the faith must bow (16:28-17:3). When Jesus again takes some disciples aside for private instruction (15:21; 16:13; 17:1; cf. 20:17; cf. 17:19; see comment on 13:10-17),112 his transfiguration among them provides a foretaste of his glory when he will return to judge the earth (16:28). One could offer various suggestions for the background for Jesus' proleptic "glorification" here, such as images from apocalyptic texts (Meier 1980: 190). The closest Greco-Roman parallels with divine men would be two who uncovered their golden thighs, which are not at all close (Blackburn 1986: 190); much closer would be the myth in which Zeus reveals his heavenly splendor to Semele, although the effect is quite different here (in that case, Zeus as lightning unhappily vaporized Semele).
Most Jewish parallels are closer in substance and wording.113 Angels and archangels sometimes appear as brighter than the sun in Jewish texts (28:3; Dan 10:6; Rev 10:1; 2 Enoch 19:1; 3 Enoch 18:25; 22:4-9; 26:2-7; 35:2; Test. Abr. 7, 12A; Apoc. Zeph. 6:11-15). The righteous after death (4 Ezra 7:97) or in the eschatological time (see 13:43; 1 Cor 15:53; Phil 3:21; 2 Bar. 51:3) would shine in the same way, as would Noah (1 Enoch 106:2, 10; lQapGen col. 2), Abel (Test. Abr. 12A), Enoch (1 Enoch 71:11; 2 Enoch 22:10; 3 Enoch 15:1), Zion in a vision (4 Ezra 10:25), and God himself (Dan 7:9-10; 1 Enoch 14:18-20; 46:1; 71:10; 3 Enoch 28:7).
But a variety of allusions combine to point especially to Moses in the Old Testament. After Moses beheld God's glory, his own face shone with that glory (Ex 34:29-35; cf. Ps-Philo 12:1; 19:16; ARN 13, §32B; b. B. Bat. 75a);114 most scholars regard this account about Moses as the primary background for the revelation of Matthew 17.115 Jesus is not only greater than Solomon and the temple (12:6, 42), but greater than Moses as well.
The narrative does not state how the disciples recognized Moses and Elijah (it seems most likely that they did so by their conversation), but ancient readers might not have asked (cf. the similar ambiguity in Horn. 11. 1.199-200; 2.182, 807, which might allow recognition by statues or more likely previous visitations, neither of which is feasible here). Some see in Moses and Elijah representatives of the law and the prophets (Taylor 1952: 390; Montefiore 1968: 1:207; Origen Matthew 12.38; Augustine Sermons on NT Lessons, ACCS, 119-20), though some have objected that Elijah appears in the Writings, not in the Prophets per se (Gundry 1982: 343). Others see in them harbingers of the end (Moule 1965: 70; Young 1995: 208). Despite the clear testimony of Deuteronomy 34:5-7 (cf. also 1 Enoch 89:38), some of Jesus' contemporaries doubted that Moses had died (Sifre Deut. 357.10.5; ARN 12A), supposing that he lived on like Elijah and some other figures (cf. 4 Ezra 6:27; pace Jos. Ant. 9.28); others at least felt that his death was special in some sense (Philo Sacrifice of Cain 8-10; Test. Mos. 11:8; cf. Deut 34:6). The Bible itself claimed that both Elijah (Mai 4:4-5) and a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-19) would return. Most importantly, this literal Moses and Elijah also capture the reader's attention for the figurative new Elijah (17:12) and new Moses — Jesus — of whom this text speaks.
But while the text may present Jesus as a new Moses (especially 17:5), it also presents him as something more. It portrays the disciples as witnesses of his glory on the mountain, just as Moses and Elijah heard God on Mount Sinai (cf. Moiser 1985a). The presence of Moses and Elijah indicates that Jesus is incomparably greater than the prophets with whom some were comparing him (16:14; cf. Thrall 1970: 316).
Second, the Father calls his people to heed Jesus as they would heed God's law (17:4-5). Peter's offer to construct tabernacles so they could stay on the mountain (17:4) need not suggest an allusion to the tabernacle (pace Mauser 1963: 113) or the feast of tabernacles (pace Anderson 1976: 225-26) and does not suggest that the feast of tabernacles was literally at hand. Rather, Peter proposes merely the sort of temporary shelters that feast commemorated, so they may remain on the mountain. Workers erected such shelters of stones, branches, and mats for watchmen in vineyards (cf. 21:33) and for intermittent respite against the sun in the fields (Abrahams 1924: 50); Mediterranean nomads traditionally erected tents for honored guests (Argyle 1963: 132).116
But whereas Peter's tabernacles may not reflect biblical significance, God's "tabernacle" may. The description of the bright cloud that "overshadows" them utilizes language reminiscent of the Jewish doctrine of the Shekinah, God's presence, especially recalling God's presence in the tabernacle in the wilderness (Ex 40:34-38; Daube 1973: 30; Davies 1966b: 22-23; Argyle 1963: 132). God then repeats in a bath qol (see comment on 3:17) some of the commendation oracle he uttered at Jesus' baptism, revealing Jesus' identity as both Messiah and suffering servant (Ps 2:7; Is 42:1; see comment on 3:17; for the Aramaic, Dalman 1929: 17); to this he adds an allusion that indicates that Jesus is the promised "prophet like Moses" as well, for of that prophet God said, "you must heed him" (17:5; Deut 18:15).117
Third, this mighty Jesus does not flaunt his power but cares for his people (17:6-8). The disciples fell on their faces, afraid (17:6). Falling on one's face or being terrified was a customary response to superhuman revelations both in Israel's ancient history118 and in contemporary Jewish accounts;119 if the text suggests a more immediate allusion, it is probably the response to the transfigured Moses in Exodus 34:30. As he often did, Jesus crossed barriers and communicated his benevolence by touching (17:7; cf. 8:3, 15; 9:20, 25, 29). He then spoke words of assurance customary for divine and angelic revelations: "Arise, do not be fearful" (17:7; cf. 28:5, 10). The commands to arise and not to fear after an overwhelming revelation have parallels in many Jewish texts.120
Finally, God's way is the way of martyrdom not only for prophets but for the Messiah himself (17:9-13). Although scholars disagree concerning how widespread and early was the explicit view of Elijah as the Messiah's forerunner,121 his end-time function in general is clear from Malachi 4:5-6 (cf. Sir 48:10; see the note on 3:4 above),122 which also presents him as a "restorer."123 Although some people in antiquity expected literal redivivus figures,124 others employed the redivivus image figuratively (e.g., Rev 13:3, 18). The Gospels' portrayal of John the Baptist as Elijah fits the latter category (Lk 1:16-17; see comment on Mt 14:1-2).
Lacking a Mustard Seed of Faith (17:14-23)
Cf. Mk 9:14-32; Lk 9:37-45; Jn 7:1; 14:9. As Moses found that those he had left in charge were unable to control the people (Ex 24:14; 32:1-8; cf. Ps-Philo 12:7), Jesus found that those he had left behind could not cast out a demon. They had cast out demons before, but perhaps they lacked confidence because they felt their commission (10:7-8) was limited to a short-term mission (11:1) or because this demon seemed more powerful than others, requiring more spiritual preparation (cf. Mk 9:29). Jesus casts out the demon immediately, demonstrating how it should be done (17:18; cf. 8:26), but the disciples' inability invites Jesus' reproof of their weak faith twice (17:17, 20).125
First, Jesus honors one person's faith on behalf of another. A man brought his son to the one with power to deliver him (17:14-15); love for his son undoubtedly drives his desperation, but Malina 1993: 80 may also be correct in noting the shame associated with having a demonized son. Some of the symptoms depicted here resemble epilepsy (e.g., Alexander 1980: 83), which may imply that demonic forces gaining control over the human central nervous system can cause epileptic-type phenomena; the parallels do not, however, mean that Matthew thinks that epilepsy is always caused by demons (see 4:24). Some contemporary anthropological accounts of spirit-possession also include demons seeking to make people burn themselves (Kaplan and Johnson 1964: 211).126
Jesus accepts the father's faith on behalf of his son. Those who support infant baptism have found in this text a principle they believe supports it (Richardson 1958: 359-60); those who emphasize the importance of personal faith at baptism are not persuaded by the analogy. But in either case the early Christians applied the basic principle for many other kinds of prayer (cf., e.g., 10:8; 18:15-20; 1 Jn 5:16), and it encourages disciples in their faith for others' needs (cf. 8:13, 16; 9:2, 18; 12:22; 15:28). As the circumstances of healing would often dictate, various miracle stories include the healer handing the healed person over to relatives (Theissen 1983: 68 cites Lk 7:15; 9:42; 1 Kings 17:23; 2 Kings 4:36-37; Philost. V.A. 4.45).
Second, Jesus expected his disciples to have sufficient faith to repeat his miracles by this point (17:16-17, 20; cf. also Held 1963: 271-72). The "unbelieving generation" (17:17) applied generally to Jesus' contemporaries (11:16; 12:39-45; 13:39, 45; 16:4; 23:36; 24:34), but in this case specifically to his disciples who proved unable to stand in for him in his absence (17:16). Disciples were by definition apprentices in training to assume the role of their teachers. Jesus was "able" (literally, "powerful" enough) to bind the strong man (12:29); why were they "unable" (same term) to expel a demon (17:19)? He had already sent his disciples out, and they had healed the sick and driven out demons (10:8). Had they not seen enough to believe (cf. 8:26)? Matthew expected his audience to learn from Jesus' signs that he was recording just as the first disciples did when they witnessed them. As he exposed his audience to more of the character of their risen Lord, he likely expected them to grow in their relationship of faith with Jesus as Jesus expected his first disciples to do.
Third, their inadequacy stemmed from their lack of the most basic level of faith (17:20). Rather than acknowledge their failure in front of others and further risk their honor, the disciples question Jesus privately (17:19; Malina 1993: 118). He explicitly attributes their inability to the smallness of their faith (cf. 6:30; 8:26; 14:21; 16:8), pointing out that even a mustard seed's worth of faith would be sufficient to cast out not only demons but mountains (17:20; 21:21). (The saying is surely authentic; Paul's citation in 1 Cor 13:2 is closer to the Q form related to Mt 17:20 and Lk 17:6 than to the Markan form and its Matthean doublet in Mk 11:23 and Mt 21:21; Richardson and Gooch 1984: 46.) The disciples already recognized how small a mustard seed was (13:32). Ancient peoples thought of mountains as rooted far beneath the earth (Gundry 1982: 353), so "moving mountains" was a typical Jewish teacher's image for "doing what was virtually impossible."127 With this illustration Jesus indicates that even were disciples moving mountains rather than casting out demons, they would only be scratching the surface (employing a mustard seed) of a life of faith.128 Jesus reproved the disciples because he expected them to be able to do his works; their presence with him should have deepened their faith. Matthew encourages his community to go deeper in faith, and such faith arises from intimate atten-tiveness to their Lord among them.
Finally, a life of faithful obedience to God invites martyrdom as well as God's power (17:22-23). Jesus' own example declares that those who truly have intimate relationships with God in faith act in compassion for others' needs rather than exploiting power frivolously (4:3-10). Like 16:21, this passion prediction reflects some Aramaic expressions that suggest its authenticity (see Jeremias 1971: 295; the expression may also allude to Is 53:6, 12 — Gundry 1982: 354). Disciples may become too infatuated with God's power and protection (17:20), but God often calls disciples to danger. God twice honored Elijah's calling for fire from heaven (2 Kings 1:10-12) but instructed him to accompany the third captain (who by this point, at least, feared God enough to provide the prophet safe passage). Jesus' disciples had preferred the glories of the messianic kingdom to suffering (16:16, 21-22); an important stream of early Christian thought came to understand that this missed the point of Jesus' triumphant empowerment (cf. 1 Cor 13:2; Lk 10:17-20). The news grieves the disciples (17:23; 18:31; 19:22; 26:22, 37).129
Solidarity with Israel, Obedience to Rome (17:24-27)
Since perhaps the end of the Maccabean period (Liver 1963), adult Jewish males throughout the Empire paid an annual two-drachma tax, based on Exodus 30:13-16 (cf. m. Sheqal. passim), used for the upkeep of the Jerusalem temple (cf. Sanders 1992: 156).130 Before the war of a.d. 66-70, the funds raised by this tax were so enormous that the temple aristocracy had to find what to do with the extra resources, eventually constructing a massive golden vine (cf. Jos. War 5.210; Tac. Hist. 5.5; Sanders 1992: 84). Although the tax was not compulsory (Garland 1996: 74), collectors undoubtedly did solicit it (though some extant sources are late; cf., e.g., Pesiq. R. 10:1; Nickle 1966: 78-86); because some Jewish groups refused to comply, it is not surprising that they might inquire whether Jesus would (Garland 1996: 69-70). Although the wording may be Matthew's (Gundry 1982: 356), the story apparently predates a.d. 70131 — before we believe Matthew was written. It is unlikely that Matthew would have created the story about the temple tax (especially such details as the exemption argument) after a.d. 70, when the temple was destroyed.132 Even the placement in Matthew's narrative, shortly before the Passover, may be significant (cf. m. Sheqal. 1:1-3).
But taxes remained an issue in Matthew's day, including the two-drachma tax: after 70, the Romans required all Jewish people (including Jewish Christians maintaining allegiance to their Jewish heritage) to pay that tax to the Roman government.133 For the sake of maintaining public identification with their Jewish heritage, Jewish Christians should join non-Christian Jews in continuing to pay the tax (cf. Grant 1977: 51; Harrington 1982: 73).134 Similarly, disciples must engage in some otherwise unprofitable pursuits for the sake of upholding their witness as citizens of the communities where God has placed them.135
First, Jesus cares about his disciples' social obligations (17:24-26). Various possible reasons exist why the tax gatherers were unsure whether Jesus would pay.136 Tradition indicates that they did not impose the tax on those living off charity (Derrett 1970: 253); Jesus and his disciples were essentially dependent on monetary sponsors during their period of frequent itinerant ministry (27:55; Lk 8:1-3; cf. 2 Kings 4:42). The Sadducees disapproved of the tax (France 1985: 267), and some ancient pietists, notably wilderness Essenes who regarded the temple as impure, paid the tax only once in a lifetime (4QOrdi-nances; Derrett 1970: 252; Davies and Allison 1991: 743). Probably they also know Jesus' reputation of conflict with other religious teachers.
Like a good prophet, Jesus knows in advance Peter's question (17:25). He, too, does not regard the poll-tax as binding on himself or Peter (17:25-26), but he recognizes that the tax collectors may (17:24). He thus does not rebuke Peter for committing him (17:25; unless the "yes" simply meant "Yes, I will consult him" — Derrett 1970: 253); he wishes to avoid unnecessary cause for misunderstanding (17:27).
Derrett (1970: 256-57) thinks "offend" here means cause the tax gatherers to sin by trying to force Jesus to pay; but it is more likely that Jesus seeks to avoid turning people away from his gospel unnecessarily (cf. 18:6; 5:29-30; 13:41; 16:23). Jesus has offended ("caused to stumble") members of the religious establishment before (15:12-14), but this is an unnecessary "stumbling block" because it addresses one's own rights rather than the truth of God's kingdom (18:6; cf. 1 Cor 8:13; 9:12).
Second, disciples need to be ready to surrender their privileges and "rights" for the sake of the gospel (17:25-26). Jesus' point here is similar to Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 9:3-23; 10:29-33. Head-or poll-taxes (cf. 22:19-21) normally listed specific exceptions who would not have to pay; in Egypt, for instance, the Romans exempted the small minority of Roman citizens, urban Greeks, and some other higher-class residents of Egypt (Lewis 1983: 169; cf. 177). Conquerors subjected conquered peoples, not their own subjects, to taxation (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 116).137 Nero "freed" Greece, that is, exempted them from taxation (for which the gods were pleased, one Greek writer remarked — Plut. Divine Vengeance 32, Mor. 568A); Persian officials had earlier reportedly allowed Judeans "freedom" from tribute (1 Esdr 4:49-50). Priests were exempt from the two-drachma tax cited here (Reicke 1974: 168; Sanders 1990: 50); so in later times were rabbis (France 1985: 268).
Most significantly, dependents of a king were naturally exempt from his taxes (Derrett 1970: 255).138 Jesus will soon tell a story of a king who settles accounts with his servants, tax farmers (18:23-34); but here he speaks in the first-person plural with a disciple who has begun to understand some of mysteries of the kingdom as one of the king's "sons" (cf. 28:10). Unlike some of their Jewish contemporaries, they do not depend at all on the temple or on the atonement some teachers claimed the temple-tax effected for them (Thompson 1970: 57-59).
Third, Jesus supplies needs like these as well as other needs (17:27). The "stater" or "four-drachma coin" of 17:27 probably is a Tyrian stater, precisely enough to pay two persons' temple dues (Avi-Yonah 1974/76a: 60-61). Following an old Greek story, some Jewish stories of uncertain date speak of God blessing pious people by having them find precious objects in fish (e.g., b. Shab. 119a; Bultmann 1968: 238; Jeremias 1971: 87).139 If Peter knew of such stories, the moral of Jesus causing him to find money in a fish would not be lost on him. This is irony of a sort: the king's children can pay the tax because the king gives them the money to do so (Patte 1987: 247). Matthew encourages his missionary community that Jesus can take care of his people who walk close to him.
———————————————————
1. Davies and Allison 1991: 454 point out that the phrase can mean "hometown" (Philo Leg. Gai. 278; Jos. Ant. 6.67; 10.114) as easily as "homeland" (Jn 4:44), which in Matthew must mean Nazareth (2:22-23).
2. This is a mark of identification, not of derision; although "carpenter" was not another term for teacher (pace Vermes 1973: 21-22; Borg 1987: 39; see p. Hag. 2:1, §8), one could be both; Shammai was a carpenter (stories even equip him with a carpenter's measure to beat an unruly Gentile — cf. b. Shab. 31a), and Herod trained priests as masons for the temple (Jos. Ant. 5.390, 421); no one questioned carpenters' (as against, say, shepherds') piety (Greek Anth. 6.205), and Greeks could attribute carpentry skills to their heroes (Horn. Od. 5.250). The work of "carpenters" varied (see Lewis 1983: 136-37 on varied kinds of construction in Egypt; Gnilka 1997: 69); they were usually woodworking craftsmen who built wooden furniture and utensils (cf. Justin Dial. 88), but also constructed roof beams and door frames (Meier 1991a: 280-81); some might have doubled as brick masons as well (Grant 1959: 98; Goodman 1983: 55-56; Nineham 1977: 165). They were artisans, not peasants, fitting into the upper 10 percent of nonaristocratic Galilean society (cf. Hengel 1974b:26-27; Freyne 1988: 241). That Joseph found employment in carpentry is historically likely: from a.d. 6, Antipas immediately began rebuilding the devastated Galilean capital of Sepphoris (Jos. War 2.68; Ant. 17.289), from which Nazareth was a distance of only four miles (cf. Schlatter 1929: 455, in Gnilka 1997: 70; Grant 1959: 99; Thurman 1981: 18; pace Batey 1992, however, Sepphoris was probably not a dominant influence in Jesus' early life — cf. Miller 1992; Horsley 1995: 180). That Jesus himself would have labored as a carpenter (Mk 6:3) is also likely; Jewish fathers sought to equip their sons with a trade (Moore 1971: 2:127; Safrai 1974/76a: 958; carpentry in p. Rosh Hash. 1:3, §35; elsewhere in the Mediterranean. MacMullen 1974: 97-98), and most trades were learned by apprenticeship (e.g., Lewis 1983: 135). That Matthew and Luke agree in part against Mark here (Lk 4:22) suggests that Mark reworded an earlier tradition about "the carpenter's son." Mothers commonly bore many children until the very end of childbearing years (see Lewis 1983: 70). Names like "Joses" (Joseph) were common (e.g., CIJ 1:89, §126; 1:148, §209; 1:272, §347; 1:399, §538; 1:426, §581; 1:428, §585; 1:492, §681; 2:6, §735; 2:193, §§1052, 1054; 2:237, §1202).
3. E.g., CD 7.17-18; 1 Enoch 89:51; 95:7; 100:10; 4 Bar. 9:31; Jeremiah in Lives of the Prophets 2.1-3/Greek 25; Amos in 7.1-2/Greek 14; Micah in 6.1/Greek 17; Pesiq. R. 26:1/2; Urbach 1979: 1:560. Davies and Allison 1991: 460 also compare Dio Chrys. 47.6; Epict. Disc. 3.16; Apollonius of Tyana Ep. 44; Pindar Olym. 12.13-16; Boring 1995: 96 adds Plut. Exile 7:13; cf. also Gnilka 1986: 517. They suggest (460) that Gos. Thorn. 31 and P. Oxy. 1 probably expand Luke's version (pace Crossan) and that Jn 4:44 may be the earliest form.
4. The issue is the hostility of anti-belief, not a young disciple's struggles with doubt (cf. Moule 1965: 47); sometimes God sovereignly acts on behalf of his own to develop faith, not just to reward it (cf. 17:2-7; 28:5-10, 17; Ex 3:2; Judg 6:12-14). Early Christian interpreters usually attributed the thwarting of God's gifts in Nazareth to God's respect for human freedom (Gregory Nazianzen Theological Orations, Oration 30, On the Son 30.10-11; John Cassian Third Conference of Abbot Chaermeon 15; Ps-Victor of Antioch Commentary on Mark 6; ACCS, 79-81).
5. E.g., Herod Philip's name — Theissen 1991: 87; but cf. Hoehner 1972: 155-56.
6. Josephus's sources are probably more Herodian, Mark's more likely from Christians who once circulated among the Baptist's disciples (cf., e.g., Acts 19:3-5), who may have received explanation from contacts within the Herodian court. Given the sheer numbers of early Christian converts, some contacts with the Herodian court are not unlikely (cf. Lk 8:3; Acts 13:1). Although most Palestinian Christians seem to have been from the ranks of the relatively poor (Rom 15:26). there is no reason to doubt some exceptions (cf. Acts 6:7; Jn 18:16; comment on Mt 4:18-22; 10:2-4).
7. the Matthew may preserve name "Herod," qualified only by "tetrarch," to link this oppressive Herodian with the evil Herod of 2:1-21; but some other writers also called Antipas simply "Herod" (Dio Cassius R.H. 60.8.3; for Archelaus as "Herod," see 55.27.6 and Archelaus's coinage; cf. Acts 12:1 for Agrippa I).
8. Matthew's community may have known the doctrine from their broader Greco-Roman context, but it was also certainly not their view; cf. Hoheisel 1984-85.
9. Mark gives him the title "king," perhaps loosely (cf. Jos. War 1.208-11; Sanders 1992: 542n,69). but perhaps ironically (6:14). When Antipas, prompted by his new wife Herodias, later sought the title "king" that had been granted Herod Agrippa I (cf. Acts 12:1; Jos. Ant. 18.240-44), he was deposed and banished to Gaul for his arrogance (Jos. Ant. 18.252-54; Kraeling 1951: 86; Lane 1974a: 211). The source for the story of John's martyrdom could easily be from within Antipas's household, via Joanna or Manaen (probably among Luke's sources — Lk 8:3; 24:10; Acts 13:1); see Hoehner 1972: 303-6. The narrative as a whole seems to derive from a pre-Markan source (see Man-son 1961: 40; Lane 1974a: 215).
10. The Gospels call him Philip," Josephus by the more general title "Herod"; but Herod the Great sometimes gave various sons the same name (if they had different mothers), and elsewhere showed a liking for the name "Philip." Herod Philip was the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II (Hoehner 1972: 133-36; pace Anderson 1976: 168). Ancient readers would normally have viewed the coalition of evil spouses from previous marriages as a corrupt union (e.g., Dion. Hal. 4.30.1).
11. Cf. Meier 1992: 233; see especially F. F. Bruce 1972b: 30 on the timing; cf. Saulnier 1984. As Taylor 1997: 255-56 notes, "Such quarrels could brew for some time before breaking out into hostility."
12. Davies and Allison 1991: 472 observe that "'the birthdays of Herod' was a proverbial expression (Persius, Satura 5.180)," comparing also Agrippa I's party in Jos. Ant. 19.321. Drunkenness and lewd dancing together indicated bad morals even among traditional Greeks (Demosth. 2d Olynthiac Or. 18-19; on drunkenness, see, e.g., Demosth. Against Conon 7; and comments on 24:45-51). For drunkenness and loss of self-control, see e.g., Char. Chaer. 4.3.8; sources cited under 24:49. Other kinds of dancing were employed in different settings, including military training (Quint. 1.11.18-19) and worship (Athenaeus 14.631D); for a discussion of forms, see Plut. Table-Talk 9.15, Mor. 747A-748D. For the dramatic setting, cf. the banquet of the oppressor in Dan 5:1-31, except that in the Gospel vindication of God's name is not immediate.
13. Theissen 1991: 91-99 thinks this is a legendary motif cohering with other attempts to depict the Herodian women's loose morals. His examples, however, may without much difficulty illustrate that such lewdness could and did happen at aristocratic banquets (cf. even usual Roman banquets in Dupont 1992: 285; cf. the twelve-year-old boy in Boring 1995: 97), arguing against his own position. That Herodian women's lives were probably "no more corrupt than those of other members of their class" (96) is not saying much (cf. Rawlinson in Hill 1972: 244; for evidence of Herodian women's wealthy lifestyle, cf., e.g.. Shoemaker 1991). Indeed, Josephus, unlike Mark, notes that Antipas's divorce was Herodias's idea, which Theissen admits fits hellenistic custom (84); that Josephus clearly dislikes strong women is no reason to dispute his report that Herodias was one.
14. Lachs 1987: 239 and Davies and Allison 1991: 474 cite in favor of Jewish beheading m. Sanh. 7:1, 3, but this was probably not in force. Davies and Allison also cite 1 [sic: 2] Sam 16:9 and 2 Kings 6:30-33, but both are unfulfilled threats based on royal prerogatives and lacking the force of true legal precedent. Rabbinic Judaism's predilection for mercy (see Thoma 1979; contrast Plato Statesman 293D; cf. Crito 50CE) probably does, however, reflect earlier roots. Traditional Roman law also prohibited execution (Dion. Hal. 7.50.3; cf. Jos. War 2.308; Taylor 1966: 87) or other punishments (e.g., Dion. Hal. 5.70.2; Acts 16:37; Sherwin-White 1978: 71-72) without trial, but provincial officials exercised considerably more latitude (see comment on 27:11-26).
15. Roman beheading with a sword, or in the period of the Republic usually with an axe (e.g., Appian R.H. 3.9.3; Livy 39.43.2-3; Herodian 3.4.6; 3.7.7; Sen. Dial. 3.18.4; O'Rourke 1971: 174), was widely known in Jewish texts (m. Sanh. 7:3; ARN 38A; b. Sota 8b; cf. ARN 41, §115 B; b. Sanh. 52b; Gen. Rab. 9:10; 75:1; Ex. Rab. 2:4).
16. The responsibility normally fell first to the nearest of kin (Jos. Apion 2.205), but when no sons were available, disciples might fulfill this filial duty (cf. Diog. Laert. 6.2.78; Diod. Sic. 10.3.4).
17. Some parallels with the last supper may reinforce this image (Hooker 1983: 47); one might also compare Mark's seating by ranks (like an army — cf. Derrett 1973: 31n.3; Hurtado 1983: 93) with Qumran parallels to the seating at the final banquet (CD 13.1-2; cf. Stauffer 1955; Kee 1977: 112; Yadin 1962: 59; pace Derrett 1975). "Reclining" suggests a banquet setting, which some take as an allusion to the messianic banquet (e.g., France 1985: 236).
18. Jesus is a better host than Antipas; one may contrast their motivations (e.g., 14:5, 9, 14) and the different "orders" they give among those reclining (14:9, 19; cf. also 14:28).
19. Sanders suspects that the nature miracles produced less impact than less spectacular healings, and hence are probably unreliable. But when disciples saw Jesus perform such a miracle, they did react more dramatically (Mk 4:41//Mt 8:27). As Hagner 1995: 416-17 points out, the primary prejudice against nature miracles (as opposed to healings that can be explained psychosomatically) is antisupernaturalism — a philosophic presupposition, not a datum.
20. Witherington 1990: 98-99 also suggests a possible Q version, noting agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark here; but Mark may have redacted Q or another source with which Matthew and Luke were familiar.
21. Greco-Roman accounts of miraculous feedings existed (cf. Bultmann 1968: 234-36; Grant 1982), but the Gospel accounts closely resemble and appear to be modeled on OT accounts (Betz 1968: 67; pace Bousset 1970: 103; for Moses parallels specifically, see Allison 1993b: 238-42). Some later Jewish accounts similarly speak of divine provision (Boring 1995: 98 cites b. Ta'an. 24b-25a).
22. The exact site is disputed; cf. VanderBroek 1983: 103-4; Bagatti 1981. None of these arguments is conclusive, but Matthew's "lonely place" (14:13) supports our general contention. For crowds running to hear a famous visiting teacher, cf. on a smaller scale, e.g., p. Hor. 3:4, §4; B. Mes. 2:11, §1
23. Carson 1984b: 341 notes the flexibility of the term "evening," which here must mean late afternoon (as in the temple's evening offering), but after sunset in 14:23.
24. Against the charge that the Gospels devalued women and children, they may have simply been reticent to invent a number for women and children that their tradition did not supply. It was customary in many circles to number only men (e.g., Ps-Philo 5:7; 14:4), and even the Gospel traditions are thereby no more chauvinistic for using customary language than English-speakers who used masculine pronouns genetically were before inclusive language became customary. The proposed allusion to Ex 12:37 (Frapce 1985: 237) is possible, but it actually reads only "besides children"; cf. Jos. Ant. 4.309, "with women and children," emphasizing the inclusiveness of this assembly.
25. The comparison of Mark's narrative here with Josh 9 (Derrett 1984a) is farfetched; the comparison of leftovers with Ruth (Daube 1956: 342) is likewise too specific. Some claim that Matthew modifies Mark's narrative in a eucharistic direction, but this suggestion is probably too speculative, most of the changes being typically stylistic (Stanton 1993: 42).
26. Davies and Allison 1991: 504 also cite here Frag. Targ. Ex. 15:11: Pirqe R. El. 42. Bousset 1970: 101 can offer as a pagan parallel only Lucian Philopseudes 13, but the biblical background is more dominant.
27. E.g., Argyle 1963: 115; Lane 1974a: 236-37; Hurtado 1983: 91; cf. 22:32, quoting Ex 3:6 thus. Further, as Davies and Allison 1991: 503 point out, Jewish tradition acknowledges only God as deliverer at sea (citing Ex 14:10-15:21; Ps 107:23-32; Jonah 1:1-16; Wis 14:2-4; 1QH 6.22-25; Test. Naph. 6:1-10; cf. b. B. Bat. 73a).A common belief (e.g., Lucan C.W. 1.11; cf. Thorn 1994: 104-5 for the Pythagorean view), reputed even to route night guards (Dio Cassius R.H. 42.11.2-3). The lilin, or night spirits, were thought extremely dangerous to night travelers, among others (Alexander 1980: 30-31; cf. Lane 1974a: 237); many pagans also believed that the spirits of those drowned at sea never could descend to the realm of the dead, but wandered endlessly above the waters (Ach. Tat. 5.16.1-2). Yet Matthew's audience would chide the disciples not on the basis of modern antisupernaturalistic presuppositions but because the idea of ghosts contradicted sounder scriptural eschatology (22:31-32).
28. A common belief (e.g., Lucan C.W. 1.11; cf. Thorn 1994: 104-5 for the Pythagorean view), reputed even to route night guards (Dio Cassius R.H. 42.11.2-3). The lilin, or night spirits, were thought extremely dangerous to night travelers, among others (Alexander 1980: 30-31; cf. Lane 1974a: 237); many pagans also believed that the spirits of those drowned at sea never could descend to the realm of the dead, but wandered endlessly above the waters (Ach. Tat. 5.16.1-2). Yet Matthew's audience would chide the disciples not on the basis of modern antisupernaturalistic presuppositions but because the idea of ghosts contradicted sounder scriptural eschatology (22:31-32).
29. Davies and Allison 1991: 513-14 suggest that this pericope may foreshadow Peter's later overconfidence (26:30-36) and denial (26:69-75), and that Matthew begins here to single Peter out because of Peter's relation to the church (16:15-20). France 1985: 253-54 also notes Peter's prominence from this point (10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 17:24-27; 18:21).
30. The suggested Buddhist parallel for walking on water (Stehly 1977; cf. Derrett 1989) lacks close literary correspondences and is chronologically questionable (Gispert-Sauch 1978), not to mention geographically remote. There are closer hellenistic parallels, although about characters of the distant, legendary past (Boring 1995: 99-100 cites Hesiod Astronomy 4; Iamb. Vit. Pythag. 91; and especially Isoc. Paneg. 88-89; Dio Chrys. 3d Disc. Kingship 30, where it represents a divine power), and second-century Jewish parallels (Mek. Beshallah 6; Betz 1968: 67n.51).
31. Most thoroughly, Davies and Allison 1991: 509-10 cite Job 26:11-12; Ps 65:7; 89:9-10; 107:29; Jonah 1:15; Sir 43:23; cf. 4Q 381 and Sepher Ha-Razim, 1.226-28; 4.31-32. Cf. Prudentius A Hymn on the Trinity 649-79 (ACCS, 65).
32. Although huios tou theou appears in Mark and Q, theou huios (14:33; 27:43, 54) appears to be specifically Matthean redaction where it appears (cf. Mowery 1990).
33. The Rhetoric and NT Section discussed Mk 7:1-23 at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting Nov. 22, 1994; of special note were Robbins 1994, presenting significant arguments for a more Greek position; and Basser 1994 and Flesher 1994, providing significant arguments for more rabbinic forms of rhetoric. The dichotomy is probably artificial, especially for Jewish rhetoric written in Greek (such as we find in the Gospels, especially the controversy dialogues).
34. Because they often saw many of their traditions already implicit in the law of Moses (m. 'Abot 1:1; Sifre Deut. 313.2.4; b. Ber. 5a; Meg. 19b), some successors of Pharisaic teachers suggested that the oral traditions even equaled (Sifra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.1; pq. 8.269.2.14; Sifre Deut. 115.1.1-2; 306/25.1; 351.1.2-3; ARN 2, 3, 15A; 29, §§61-62B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:5; 15:5) or outranked (m. Sanh. 11:3; b. 'Abod. Zar. 35a; 'Erub. 21b; p. 'Abod. Zar. 2:7, §3; Hor. 3:5, §3; Sanh. 11:4, §1; Num. Rab. 14:4; Song Rab. 1:2, §2; Pesiq. R. 3:2) the written law, although scholars often question whether this was the primary view in the early sources (Sanders 1990: 115-25; Chernick 1980; Landman 1976-77).
35. The images of pure hands and hand washing (often by pouring water over them) are common in Greek texts (see, e.g., Nock 1964a: 18-19; for the Homeric period, Horn. II. 6.266;9.171, 174; 24.302-5; Od. 1.136-38, 146; 2.260-61; 3.338; 4.52-54,216; 12.336-37; 21.270; Gordon 1965b: 259; for the Greek tragedians, e.g., Dibelius and Conzelmann 1972: 44; elsewhere, Hesiod W.D. 724-26, 737-41); for Jewish texts, see, e.g., Ep. Arist. 305-6; Safrai 1974/1976d: 830.
36. They may have washed their hands only for Sabbath or festival meals (m. Ber. 8:1-2; t. Ber. 5:25; Davies 1993: 112).
37. Safrai 1974/76d: 801-2 provides substantial support for Mark's basic accuracy here (cf. Jdt 12:7-9; De Jonge 1974/76: 1:40; most concede for at least his statement about the Pharisees; cf. Sanders 1990: 228-31). Mark's description of the "fist" fits later Jewish teachers' regulations (cf. Lightfoot 1859: 2:418; McNamara 1983: 195; Black 1967: 9). But many scholars doubt whether all Palestinian Jews followed the practice (Sanders 1990:40,90-91, 185-86; Anderson 1976: 181, 184; Nineham 1977: 193), although Diaspora Jews assumed they did (Ep. Arist. 305). Some debates concerning the appropriate time for hand washing occurred even within Pharisaism (see, e.g., Falk 1985: 150onLk 11:39). One complication in our evidence is that Jesus dealt primarily with the prevailing, stricter Shammaites, whereas most extant rabbinic texts reflect if anything the more lenient tradition of the later dominant Hillelites.
38. Mark has "Korban," an oath meaning "gift" (e.g., Jos. Apion 1.167), an offering to God, including what was vowed to the temple (cf., e.g., m. Ma'as. Sh. 4.10-11; Ned. 1:1-2; 8:7; t. Ma'as. Sh. 5:2; Ned. l:l-2;Carmon 1973: 75, §167; Mazar 1980: 59; Fitzmyer 1974: 93-100; McNamara 1983: 200-202; Sanders 1990:53). Others suggest that this passage refers to vowing not to perform an act (Zeitlin 1968) or an oath uttered by a son in anger from which the Pharisees would not release him (Bligh 1964). Just as Matthew intensifies the Pharisaic interpretation of a Mosaic concession into a commandment (reductio ad absurdum — 19:7 vs. Mk 10:4), he here intensifies Jesus' accusation of their unscriptural view into a blatant prohibition of keeping the fourth commandment (15:6 vs. Mk 7:12; Kramer 1981; Gundry 1982: 304), suggesting that Matthew's situation is more polemically advanced than Mark's.
39. See Sir 3:8; Syr. Men. Sent. 9-10, 20-24, 94-98; Ps-Phocyl. 8, 180; Ep. Arist. 228, 238; Jos. Apion 2.206; Philo Ebr. 17; Spec. Leg. 2.234-36; Prob. 87; Sib. Or. 1.74-75; 2.275-76; Jub. 7:20; 29:14-20; 35:1-6, 11-13; Mek. Pisha 1.28; Bah. 8.28ff.; Sifre Deut. 81.4.1-2; b. Sanh. 66a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 1:15; 36:6; 39:7; Deut. Rab. 1:15.
40. See Sir 3:7; Jos. Life 204; Test. Abr. 5B; Test. Jud. 1:4-5; Pesiq. R. 23/24:2; b. Qidd. 31ab.
41. Greco-Roman writers emphasized honoring (Hierocles On Duties. Toward One's Parents 4.25.53; On Fraternal Love 4.27.20 in Malherbe 1986: 91-94; Hesiod W.D. 182-85, 331-32; Isoc. Demon. 14, 16, Or. 1; Pub. Syr. 8; Cato Distichs 3.24; Collection of Distichs 2; Appian R.H. 3.2; Dion. Hal. 8.53.1; Diog. Laert. Lives 1.37,60; 6.2.65; 7.1.120; 8.1.22-23; 10.1.9; Epict. Disc. 3.11.5; Isis aretalogies in Horsley 1981: 11, 17,20; see further Keener 1991a: 197n. 107) and obeying (Isoc. Nic./Cypr. 57, Or. 3.37; Dion. Hal. 3.23.19; Musonius Rufus 16 in Meeks 1986: 51; Aul. Gel. 2.7; Keener 1991a: 197n.8, and later references there on the authority of the paterfamilias) parents.
42. Cf. Sir 3:12-15; Montefiore and Loewe 1974: 500-6; Montefiore 1968: 2:226; Derrett 1970: 110; Pesiq. R. 23/24:2; cf. Prov 28:24; Hesiod W.D. 188-89; Quint. 7.6.5; P. Enteuxeis 26 (lawsuit against a daughter who failed to provide). Hagner 1995: 431 cites t. Ned. 1.6.4 for a vow taking precedence over a biblical commandment, but notes that in later times honor of parents took precedence over a vow (m. Ned. 9:1).
43. The view that Mark (hence Matthew) misrepresents the spirit of Pharisaism here and hence misrepresents what happened in Jesus' ministry (Parkes 1979: 44) neglects ample other evidence for conflict (cf. on 12:1-14) and the sad reality that ethical theory and practice often differ (in Christian circles as well as early Jewish). Jesus was critiquing not Judaism, of which he was a part, but some religious persons. The view that Mk 7:15 is too radical for Jesus (Sanders 1985: 266-67; idem 1990: 28) may presuppose too much about Jesus; the view that it must be inauthentic or other Gentile Christians would have appealed to it (Raisanen 1982; cf. Gaston 1970: 93) neglects the facts that (1) it could be interpreted differently than Mark interprets it, and undoubtedly was by the earliest Jewish Christians (cf. Sanders 1990: 28); (2) had it not been susceptible to such interpretation, Mark would not have clarified it; (3) Jesus is rarely quoted at all in our extant non-Gospel literature; (4) Mark could have adapted the wording; (5) Matthew sees no reason to modify Mark seriously, except to omit his interpretation.
44. Early Christian literature regularly cites "the shorter LXX form" (Cope 1976: 56, who thinks "this was [therefore] the form known to the early Christian writers"), but this could be because the Gospel citation was more familiar than its Isaianic context.
45. Ancient aristocrats' disdain for populists (Isoc. To Nic. 48-49, Or. 2; Areopagiticus; Arist. Pol. 4.4.4-7, 1292a; 5.4.1-2, 1304b; 6.2.10-12, 1319b; Rhet. 2.20.5, 1393b; Diog. Laert. 4.42; Plut. Praising Inoffensively 16, Mor. 545C; Diog. Ep. 11, to Crates; Martin 1990: 92-116; Gardner 1974: 27-59) provides a partial rhetorical analogy for snubbing others; yet by aristocratic standards both Jesus and the Pharisees were populists. Cynics were among those who regularly snubbed everyone, but Jesus appears far more selective in the objects of his diatribe (note 9:11).
46. Cf. 3:10; Ps 28:5; Jer 1:10; 11:17; 18:7; 24:6; 31:4, 28; 42:10; 45:4; the image of planting and taking root also appears in Jer 12:2, which a midrashic interpreter would connect naturally with Is 29:13, cited earlier in the Gospel pericope. Cf. also disciples in Gen. Rab. 85:5; the Qumran community in F. F. Bruce 1969: 73; cf., e.g., p. Ter. 2:3 for the uprooting of inappropriately planted trees; Test. Asher 1:7 (uprooting sin).
47. Leading the blind may have been a well-known image (Plut. Bride 6, Mor. 139A); Young 1989: 241-42 cites Plato Rep. 8.554B. Certainly the blind required literal guides (Hesiod Astronomy, Fr. 5; Soph. Oed. Rex 444; Oed. Col. 199-201; Antig. 989-90). Gundry 1982: 307 cites OT passages showing that "falling in a pit became proverbial for disaster" (Is 24:18; Jer 48:44; Ps 7:15; Prov 26:27).
48. "Syro-Phoenician" distinguishes her locale from the Carthaginian settlements of Phoenicians in Libya: Phoenicia was now part of the Syrian province, as was Judea (Lane 1974a: 260). She is a "Greek" and a Syro-Phoenician either because Syria was so heavily hellenized in general (Goodman 1983: 64; for Tyre's bilingualism, see Theissen 1991: 68-70) or more likely because she belongs to "the Hellenized citizen class" of Tyre or Sidon (Judge 1960: 15; Theissen 1991: 70-72). One negative association that should not be admitted here is that of Wisdom literature's "strange woman," which referred to prostitutes rather than to foreigners (cf. Witherington 1994: 37).
49. Canaanites and aspects of their culture had persisted; see Oden 1976; Flusser 1974/76: 1070-74. Lachs 1987: 248 presents some evidence for applying "Canaanite" to Gentiles in general (m. Qidd. 1:3; Mek. Nezikin 9, Laut. 3:70, 73, on Ex 21:26), such as a Phoenician merchant (Sifre Deut. 306; Yalqut 1.942); at least some of these examples probably refer to descendants of the Canaanites.
50. Jeremias 1958: 36 contends that the territory of Tyre and Sidon now extended inland so that Jesus would have to pass through it if heading from Galilee to Caesarea Philippi; he also cites evidence to argue that Jesus could have been working among its many Jewish inhabitants. But Matthew would certainly see the territory as theologically Gentile (see 4:15).
51. Whether they are asking him to heal the woman hurriedly or to order her to leave is unclear. but the latter may be more likely given the disciples' earlier counsel in similar words without expecting a miracle (14:15; cf. 19:13; 20:31). They contrast starkly with Jesus, who did not like to send people away with their needs unmet (15:32). Her shouting to them may seek a miracle from them (17:16) or be beseeching them to intercede with the higher patron Jesus.
52. Missing from Mark, the phrase looks suspiciously like Matthean wording (Gundry 1982: 313); but Jeremias 1958: 27 insists that its Aramaic construction suggests its antiquity (cf. also Wilson 1973: 14). A stronger argument in its favor is that it hardly fits Matthew's own perspective (Anderson 1976: 191; cf. Vermes 1984: 55); it would at least seem to belong to his community's tradition which he must answer. The offputting remark about dogs surely predates our extant Gospels (Montefiore 1968: 1:167).
53. Dogs appears as unclean (Is 66:3; Mt 7:6; cf. Hittite Instructions for Temple Officials 14, ANET209; Moyer 1969:96, 106, 127), in part because they are scavengers (Ex 22:31; 1 Kings 14:11; 16:4; 21:19, 23-24; 22:38; 2 Kings 9:10, 36; Jer 15:3; Lk 16:21; Aelian Animals 7.19). Schnackenburg 1985: 144 suggests that Jews also knew house dogs.
54. Jesus' image creates distance between his suppliant and the "children," but not in a spiteful sense (Schnackenburg 1985: 144). Some also take note of the diminutive form for "dog" as a reference to pets, but the diminutive had lost most of its force in Greek by this period. An objection that Aramaic lacked the diminutive (France 1985: 247), of course, falters on the likelihood that Jesus would have spoken with the woman in Greek (Matthew's audience may have been unaware of Mark's tradition that she was Greek, but many of them may not have known Aramaic either). Some have related dogs to ancient Phoenician healing rituals (see Stager 1991). but the evidence is in dispute (Wapnish and Hesse 1993).
55. Though Greeks and Romans viewed dogs as faithful to their masters (Aelian Animals 6.25; 7.10, 25; Select Papyri 3:460-63; Appian R.H. 11.10.64), even they viewed them as sexually immoral and shameless (Aelian Animals 7.19). Commentators who suggest that Jewish people regularly called Gentiles "dogs" (e.g., Brandon 1967: 172-73; Theissen 1991: 62n.l) probably make too much of relatively scant references (cf. Smith 1951: 167; on associations with Rome. cf. Hayward 1993), but apart from Cynics, who seemed to embrace the title (e.g., Greek Anth. 7.63-68, 115-16; Athenaeus Deipn. 13.61b; Lucian Demonax; Dial, of the Dead; Philo Plant. 151; Diog. Ep. 2, 7), most people in antiquity would have taken the epithet as an insult related to dogs' ill behavior (cf. 1 Sam 17:43; Prov 26:11; Mart. Epig. 1.83; Plut. Exile 7, Mor. 601DE; Philo Gig. 35; Mek. Kaspa 2.23-26; p. Ta'an. 1:6, §8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 7:6; Gen. Rab. 36:7; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Pesiq. R. 15:14/ 15; for dogs' weakness, see 1 Sam 17:43; 24:14; 2 Sam 3:8; 9:8; 2 Kings 8:13; Eccl 9:4). (And people originally meant it as an insult when applying it to the Cynics — cf. Diog. Laert. 6.2.40, 45-46, 60, 77; Mart. Epig. 4.53.5; Crates Ep. 16.) Theissen 1991: 80 can produce only a single positive example, and that one is irrelevant to the present case.
56. For parallels to the praise of "great faith," Davies and Allison 1991: 556 cite Jos. Ant. 15.87 and Mek. Beshallah 7 on Ex 14:31. Although the common image of dogs gathering crumbs may be coincidence, Philost. V.A. 1.19 (Boring 1995: 104) may be relevant in illustrating how one could turn a negative image to positive application. Ephrem the Syrian (Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, ACCS, 102) concluded that she received her answer because of persistence and being undeterred by shame.
57. "Master's table" here and "the table of the Lord" (1 Cor 10:21) are the same expression in Greek, and could represent a play on words. As a Greek (Mk 7:26) she could have considered such a wordplay herself, but she had no reason to associate Jesus with patron deities of cultic meals, so, if the parallel language is not coincidence, Matthew has perhaps simply adapted the language himself to make the pun. Puns were standard in Jewish argumentation (Keener 1992: 32, 54n. 101, citing, e.g., CD 8.10-11; Ps-Philo 2:1; Sifre Deut. 306.22.1; 318.4.7; 321.8.6; 345.2.2, 3.1).
58. Many commentators associate the baskets in 14:20 with the Jews, and the different term here (15:37) with the Gentiles; France 1985: 249 even thinks the crowd of 15:31 is Gentile, but this is highly improbable (apart from symbolic value noted above in 15:37; cf. also Davies and Allison 1991: 563-64). Had Jesus historically ministered to a crowd of Gentiles the Gospel tradition would have exploited this event, and had Matthew intended us to construe a Gentile audience he would have been far more explicit.
59. Possibly Jesus alludes to the "leaven" of Egypt at the Passover, presenting Jesus as a new Moses; but given the more common functions of leaven (see more fully comment on 13:33), this explanation is too specific to be probable.
60. Cf. the common accusation of "testing" God (e.g., Ex 17:2, 7; Num 14:22; Deut 6:16; Ps 78:18, 41, 56; 95:9; 106:14; Jdt 8:12; Test. Mos. 9:4).
61. If one wishes to construe the Pharisaic request in its worst possible light, which Matthew may have wished his audience to do, magical texts promised signs from the sky for magicians, which signs would become their divine "messengers" or spirit-guides (PGM 1.74-76, 154; cf. 4.576). By contrast, some Greek rationalists sought nontheistic explanations for celestial phenomena (Epicurus in Diog. Laert. 10.99).
62. Luke-Acts cites signs as a central propagandistic technique of the early Christians (most pagans also accepted their propagandistic value; see, e.g., Ovid Metam. 1.220); John accepts "signs-faith" as ambiguously positive yet inadequate (e.g., 2:23-25; 6:26; 20:29); for Matthew and Mark they remain positive, yet in light of the messianic secret they are not coercive in their effects.
63. The weather signs depicted in the tradition could derive only from a Palestinian milieu (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 111), suggesting authenticity; for an Italian perspective, see Virg. Georg. 1.438-60.
64. For the textual issue in 16:2-3, see Gundry 1982: 323; Metzger 1971: 41. I think it likely that scribes in Egypt omitted a reference to weather conditions that did not obtain in their own experience. Nevertheless, the textual question for 16:2-3 is difficult to resolve (hence the D rating in the UBS text); despite wide geographical distribution for inclusion (including in the west), some of the earliest manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) and many (though not all) other Egyptian manuscripts omit the lines about the weather, which have also been explained as an interpolation based on Lk 12:54-56. Cf. Metzger 1971: 41.
65. The tradition of refusal to grant a sign is also preserved in Islam (Quran 7.203, in Wansbrough 1977: 7).
66. Blomberg 1992a: 249 suggests an Aramaic wordplay between "teaching" ("amir'a) and "yeast" (hamir'a). See further comment on 13:33.
67. Quesnell 1969: 108, 111 thinks that Jesus' rebuke in Mark is Markan redaction. But even if Mark has developed earlier tradition, it is unlikely that the tradition would have reported any of the account without including Jesus' response.
68. Duling 1987 doubts the authenticity of "binding and loosing" because it violates the criterion of dissimilarity, though acknowledging that it fits that of a Jewish environment; I believe that the latter criterion ranks higher and here cancels the former out.
69. Because Capernaum was near the Jordan's mouth jutting into the Lake of Galilee, the disciples might not view their location as being so distant from home geographically as culturally.
70. On pagan worship there, see most fully Tzaferis 1992; Tzaferis and Avner 1990. Sacred especially to pastoralists (e.g., Longus 2.26-31; 4.39), Pan was worshiped at other caves (e.g., Paus. I.32.7) or wooded areas (e.g., Paus. 8.38.5), but caves (Paus. 10.32.6) and wooded areas (Paus. 5.10.1) could also be sacred to other deities; cf. also the second- and third-century-a.d. pagan temple in Upper Galilee in Magness 1990.
71. Asking about his identity might have involved the Mediterranean emphasis on others' view of oneself rather than self-identity (Pilch 1992; 128; Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992; 113), but probably it simply represents Jesus' pedagogic technique, in which questions played a part (as in the rabbis).
72. Aune 1983: 273 regards Peter's confession as a "recognition oracle," but the prior revelation (16:17; 11:25) need not make the saying oracular per se. Matthew emphasizes the proper sense of "Christ" (Mk 8:29) by adding "God's Son" (cf. Jn 1:49), a title his Gospel has already frequently applied to Jesus (Smalley 1977: 186; Filson 1960: 185; Brown et al. 1973: 86), implied also by "my Father in heaven" (16:17). Luke's adaptation of Mark's "Christ" to "of God" may suggest that Matthew and Luke share a common tradition behind Mark (many of the disciples' reports probably independently preserved this particular event, if it is as decisive as Mark implies), unless both felt the need to expand Mark's christological statement here (cf. Lk 2:26; 23:35; Jn 6:69). Mark may have condensed the tradition or Matthew expanded it; both were rhetorically acceptable options. Matthew could combine Mk 8:29 with Mk 14:61 (cf. also Mt 3:17; 26:53-64), deriving "living God" from elsewhere in the tradition (22:32; 26:63). "Living God" was a frequent Jewish title for God (Jub. 21:4; Marmorstein 1968b: 72). Augustine contrasted Peter's confession "in love" with the demons' confession in fear in 8:29 (Sermons on New Testament Lessons 40:8; On the Gospel of St. John 6.21; ACCS, 22).
73. The polemical basis in arguing for or against authenticity, strictly irrelevant to exegesis or honest historical endeavor, is in any case a moot point. Luz, who is probably wrong to reject the passage's authenticity, is probably correct that the text nowhere implies that Peter would be institutionally succeeded by anyone (1991).
74. Most critical scholars denied the authenticity of this Matthean material (in contrast to its Markan framework — cf. Montefiore 1968: 1:182) until studies confirmed its early Palestinian character; the most common theory then became that it represented a postresurrection saying (Cullmann 1953: 166-67, 180; Meier 1980: 179). Cullmann located it in the passion story (1953: 184); see Gundry's reasoned critique (1964). The debate has somewhat receded, along with the polemics that supported it; most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60). Hagner 1995: 465-66 also supplies arguments for authenticity; on Jesus' intention for the church, cf. also Bowman 1943: 191-225.
75. Feuillet 1991 suggests that Mark omitted it because he depended on Peter, who was too humble to emphasize it.
76. Some scholars cite against the passage's reliability Peter's lack of corresponding prominence in the early church (Beare 1981: 353), an argument that could be turned on its head (why would the early church have created a saying that they knew was untrue in their time?). Other scholars
more reasonably find evidence for a measure of Peter's prominence in the early church (1 Cor 1:12; 9:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9; 1 Pet 1:1) and question how he would have obtained this unless he were close to Jesus and somehow appointed to lead the other members of the Twelve (Sanders 1985: 105; see especially Wenham 1984a: 24). Some deny the likelihood of this logion because it differs from other sayings of Jesus (Goppelt 1981/82: 1:213), whereas others find its elements in the earliest strata of Jesus tradition (Michaels 1981: 301-2). Commissionings and beatitudes appear elsewhere in Jesus' words (cf., e.g., 10:5-16; 13:16-17) and certainly elsewhere in early Judaism; e.g., an angel blesses Aseneth for receiving revelation (Jos. and Asen. 16:14/7), and a rabbi would praise his disciples (m. 'Abot 2:8).
The passage has three strophes of three lines apiece (Meier 1980: 179; Gundry 1982: 331). Some attribute the saying's structure to Matthew's love of Semitic parallelism (Gundry 1982: 331); others point to the Semitic language as indicating an early tradition (Ellis 1974: 129-30; Harrington 1982: 68; van Cangh and van Esbroek 1980; Young 1995: 203n.2; cf. Jesus' use of beatitudes, etc., in pre-Matthean tradition). Some who doubt the saying's authenticity nevertheless accept it as pre- Matthean (Carroll 1963; Bornkamm 1995: 111).
77. The imaginative suggestion that "bar-Jona" represents an Akkadian (!) loanword for terrorist identifying Peter as a Zealot or outlaw (cf. Cullmann 1956b: 16; Theissen 1978: 11) has little to commend it (see Brown et al. 1973: 88n.203); the period is too early.
78. Augustine (cf. also Origen and Tertullian) and most of the medieval church thought the rock was Christ, not Peter; the passage was rarely used to debate papal authority before the Reformation (Luz 1994: 60).
79. Caragounis 1990 has probably provided the best argument differentiating Peter and the rock, making a grammatically defensible position.
80. Among Protestant scholars, e.g., Cullmann 1953: 18-19; idem 1968: 98, 106; Ladd 1974b: 110; Carson 1984b: 368; France 1985: 254; Blomberg 1992a: 252. Chrysostom Homilies on St. John, Homily 19, compared Jesus renaming disciples with God renaming the patriarchs after their trials.
81. That Jesus gave Simon his nickname "Peter," "rock," is likely (due to rabbis' authority, biblical naming traditions, and the independent tradition of Jn 1:42); the name is derived from the term ("rock"), not being a common name (Meier 1980: 182; Gnilka 1997: 86-87; for a possible occurrence in 4Q130.8-9, see Charlesworth 1993), and need not be ironic (pace Stock 1987). The persistence of the Aramaic nickname elsewhere in the NT suggests that Jesus may have been its author (cf. Sanders 1985: 146-47). Although the name "Petros" is attested in some Aramaic Jewish texts (Gen. Rab. 92:2; Ex. Rab. 52:3), Paul's and John's preservation of "Kephas" indicates that Jesus simply gave Peter the Aramaic title (he was speaking Aramaic — hence bar-Jona) "Kephas," which was translated into Greek as "Petros" (Cullmann 1953: 19n.l4). Although biblical tradition usually called God Israel's "rock," other uses occur, and many scholars point to Abraham's role in Is 51:1 -2, as well as to some very late (very possibly too late; cf. also Witherington 1992: 89) rabbinic expositions on it (Ford 1965; Cullmann 1968: 106; Ellis 1974: 129-30; F. F. Bruce 1978: 60; Siegal 1978: 108; cf. Chevallier 1982; Manns 1983; the relevance of the rabbinic parallel here is questionable — cf. Arnera 1984; cf. the perhaps unrelated traditions in Gen. Rab. 44:21; Pesiq. R. 15:2; more relevant for the period, see Ps-Philo 23:4-5); others object that the differences are too great (Hagner 1995: 470). Witherington 1992: 89 suggests the foundation of a new temple, citing the language of m. Yoma 5:2 (cf. Jn 7:37-39). The Qumran sect was also founded on a "rock," a refuge against death (1QH 6.23-28; Driver 1965: 519; Witherington 1992: 89; cf. 1QS 8.7; Hill 1972: 261).
82. See Sanders 1985: 20-22,104; Borg 1984: 70; Hunter 1966: 38; Witherington 1992: 84-92.
83. Frequently noted; see, e.g., Bultmann 1951: 1:38; Foakes Jackson and Lake 1979a: 327-28; Lake and Cadbury 1979: 54; Richardson 1958: 285; Meeks 1983: 79; Davies and Allison 1991: 629; cf. 1 Macc 2:56.
84. Ridderbos 1975: 328; F. F. Bruce 1963: 84; Klaasen 1981: 112-16; pace Walvoord 1972: 21.
85. The expression appears in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ps 9:13; 107:18; Job 38:17; Is 38:10; Ladd 1974b: 116) and in subsequent Jewish literature (Wis 16:13; 3 Macc 5:51; Ps. Sol. 16:2; 1QH 6.24; Sib. Or. 2.228; Ladd 1974b: 116; Schweizer 1975: 342; Betz 1957). Texts likewise can describe Paradise in terms of the gates of the blessed (Sib. Or. 3.770; the "gates of heaven" had more cosmo-logical significance — cf., e.g., 1 Enoch 9:10; 3 Enoch 10.1-2; 3 Bar. 6:13; cf. Horn. II. 5.749). The gates of the realm of the dead appear widely in ancient Near Eastern literature, but the image here may especially evoke Is 28:15-19, where the cornerstone in Zion withstands the assault of water from those in covenant with Sheol (Davies and Allison 1991: 630). The "keys of Hades/the realm of the dead" refer to authorization to admit the dead to their place (Rev 1:18; PGM 4.341-42 in Horsley 1981: 33-34). For a history of interpretation, see Lewis 1995; the modern homiletic tradition associating this text with Jesus snatching OT saints from Satan derives from early Christian apocryphal tradition ("Christ's Descent into Hell," trans. F. Scheidweiler, 1:470-76 in Hennecke 1963).
86. Greek tradition extolled those who brought up an individual from Hades (e.g., Diod. Sic. 4.25.4; 4.26.1); Greeks thus would have heard remarkable claims to power in this passage and Rev 1:18.
87. Marcus 1988 thus contrasts the gates of Hades (which he thinks, probably wrongly, let out demonic forces; Jewish literature associates them primarily with the realm of the dead) and implied gates of heaven (e.g.. Lev. Rab. 31:10) here.
88. Commentators generally see in Rev 3:7 an allusion to Is 22 (Montefiore 1968: 2:235; Ellis 1974: 130-31; Meier 1979: 113; idem 1980: 182-83; Gundry 1982: 333; France 1985: 256).
89. Thus, e.g., in Jewish lore prominent angels carried certain keys (e.g., 3 Bar. 1:2), and God reserved for himself certain keys to which angels had no access, including the resurrection (e.g., b. Ta'an. 2a; Pesiq. R. 42:7); presumably God alone would hold the keys to the kingdom.
90. After surveying views (635-39), Davies and Allison 1991: 638-39 point out that "binding and loosing" apply directly to excommunication only in b. Mo'ed Qat. 16a. and conclude in favor of teaching (halakic) authority in this text, seeing Peter as "the authoritative teacher without peer." France 1985: 256 and Lachs 1987: 257 also find legislative authority here. Cf. also comment on Mt 20:23 (e.g., Emerton 1962).
91. A variety of other interpretations exist. Derrett sees the ability to evaluate actions as sinful or not (as in 18:18: 1983a). Basser (1985a) applies the language to releasing death's bonds in the context (those in the church were freed from it). Falk (1974) applies it to dissolving vows, for which the prevailing school of Pharisees exercised less authority than this text suggests. Hiers (1985) suggests that the tradition behind 16:19 originally referred to Jesus' authorization for exorcisms, which Matthew reapplied more generally. Although Smith 1978: 134 finds a parallel to "keys of the kingdom" in PGM 3.541-42 (possibly derived from Christian usage), he recognizes (1978: 127) that "binding and loosing" reflect the Jewish legal sense. Disciplinary language for demons is not out of the question; people might also tell demons to get in place of, i.e., "behind," them (incant. text 5:7; cf. Mt 16:23) or put them under the "ban" (e.g., text 14.1-2). But the immediate context of the church's triumph against death does not support this interpretation.
92. Cf. Blomberg 1992a: 254, similar to Korting 1989, whom he follows: rejecting later rabbinic usage, he sees in "binding and loosing" opening and closing (based on the "keys to the kingdom"), hence making the kingdom "available or unavailable to people through their . . . ministry" (see also Wilkins 1995: 196; Hagner 1995: 473).
93. Some scholars think Jn 20:23 reflects the same logion as here (McNamara 1972: 129-30; Claudel 1995; Emerton 1962, albeit admitting that they might reflect separate sources, 326), but the sayings are different enough to suggest that they may reflect the same Jesus speaking on different occasions.
94. That Matthew would in this context call Jesus "Christ," despite his usual reticence to apply the title in earlier narratives (Metzger 1971: 42-43), is not improbable (Mark merely has a subject implicit in a verb); but while some of our earliest manuscripts support the reading "Jesus Christ" in 16:21, the weight of geographical distribution may support the simple reading "Jesus."
95. Jewish people were known to be particularly committed to martyrdom rather than compromise of their ancestral faith (Jos. Apion 1.212; 1.191; 2.218-19, 233-35).
96. Although overstating the case, Adinolfi 1979 is correct that the growing conflicts with his contemporaries could have indicated to Jesus his impending martyrdom (Hill 1979: 61). Adinolfi's appeal to Isaiah's servant tradition, like Schaberg's suggestion concerning Daniel's Son of Man tradition (1985), is less secure.
97. The expression "suffer many things" (16:21: Mk 8:31) summarizes Jesus' preexecution sufferings; the phrase appears occasionally in other texts (cf. Meyer 1964). Despite some tensions, later Christians are also unlikely to have invented such a harsh rebuke of Peter (cf. Schweizer 1970: 165 and Anderson 1976: 213, both overstating the case; pace Weeden 1971).
98. Passages such as this one, which underline the weakness of disciples, also point to what Jesus can ultimately accomplish through such weak instruments (cf. Wilkins 1995: 173-216).
99. Some suggest here the mistranslation of a Semitic idiom for "Get from behind me," i.e., "You are no longer my disciple" (Smith 1951: 30; cf. Black 1967: 218; in Test. Job 27:1, possibly reflecting the Gospel tradition, such a construction would signal "Stop hiding"); but such a final repudiation leaves no trace either in the Gospel tradition or in subsequent testimony concerning Peter's role in early Christianity. Although "Get behind me" was not a typical rebuke (Smith 1951: 30), "Go" was a fairly typical harsh response to a foolish or hostile statement (e.g., Epict. Disc. 3.23.12-13; cf. Jas 4:13; 5:1; Mart. Epig. 1.42). Weeden 1971: 65 and Kelber 1979: 47-48 even find in Jesus' rebuke of Peter Markan exorcist language.
100. Thus though one should reject extravagant, overstated praise (on 16:13-20, Boring 1995: 104-5 cites Plut. Inoffensive Self Praise 12, Mor. 543DE), the matter here is much stronger.
101. Cf. the parallel with Sitis as Satan's agent in Test. Job 23-25 (Garrett 1998: 77-81). Extant records do not, however, support a parallel with the prevalence of demons (Jub. 10:1, 3, 8-9; 12:20; CD 12.2; 1QS 3.23-24; 1 Enoch 40:9; Test. Sol. 6:4; Test. Zeb. 9:7 MSS; Test. Dan 1:7; possibly 1 Enoch 20:6; in the Amoraim, Num. Rab. 1:5; 12:3; Edersheim: 644) or the pervasiveness of the spirit of error (1QS 3.20-26; cf. Test. Benj. 6:1; Reub. 4:11) in the sins of individual persons found in much of the contemporary folk religion.
102. Although Jewish writers occasionally spoke of "satans" in the plural, i.e., demons (1 Enoch 40:7; 65:6; Gaster 1976: 224, 262n.l6; Alexander 1980: 25, 30; repeatedly in the incantation texts, e.g., 23.3-4; 58.1; 60.10; 66.5), Jesus compares Peter to Satan himself because he spoke Satan's lines (cf. Lk 22:31; Jn 13:27; Acts 5:3; Test. Job 26:6/7; 27:1).
103. Nevertheless, crosses also became a natural metaphor for sufferings (e.g., Apul. Metam. 7.16, cruciatibus [LCL translates more freely]; 10.9; cf. Sen. Dial. 1.3.10; 7.19.3) or the pain of grief (Apul. Metam. 9.31) or anxiety (Apul. Metam. 9.23); for other nonliteral usages, cf. Epict. Disc. 3.26.22. Preparing for death (Sen. Ep. Lucil. 12.9; 1 Cor 15:30-32; 2 Cor 1:9-10) is closer to the direct point than Paul's application to death to sin (e.g.. Rom 6:3-4).
104. Cf. the funeral meter rhythm here in Jeremias 1971: 26. Boring 1995: 106 suggests that this call resembles the typical prebattle speech of generals: risking life in battle more often than not yields its preservation (Tyrtaeus Fr. 8.11-13).
105. That Matthew (10:33) and Luke (12:9) have "deny" for Mark's "ashamed" in this text (Mk 8:38: Lk 9:26) might suggest a translation variant from Aramaic in the oral tradition (Jeremias 1971: 7n.2) or Markan redaction of Q, supporting the pre-Markan character of this passage (although the sayings may have been circulated independently — see Schweizer 1970: 175). It fits Markan theology so well precisely because Mark constructed his theology from the Jesus tradition he accepted as God's word. Hunter 1966: 35 stresses the solidarity between the suffering Son of Man and his saints in this passage, comparing Paul's "in Christ" formula.
106. Some apply the promise especially to Pentecost (cf. Dunn 1970b: 40), others to Jesus' resurrection (F. F. Bruce 1972a: 25-26); still others contend that it refers to the end of the age and was left unfulfilled (Mattill 1979a: 59-67; cf. Hagner 1995: 485-86). Probably the transfiguration proleptically introduces the whole eschatological sphere, which Jesus' resurrection inaugurates and his return consummates; on the blending of successive future events in prophetic time, cf. 24:3 and the following discourse (cf. Dodd 1980: 33, who suggests that the first disciples understood "resurrection, exaltation, and second advent" as a single, immediate event). For a bibliography of sources on the transfiguration before 1980, see Best 1981. "Taste death" is idiomatic (e.g., Jn 8:52; Heb 2:9; Sib. Or. 1.82; Gen. Rab. 21:5; Lev. Rab. 18:1; Pesiq. R. 48:2; for some other examples of Semitic constructions, see Lane 1991: 49). Although especially prevalent in Jewish texts, the construction would be intelligible to other Greek readers, for whom "taste" could represent "experience" (e.g., Marc. Aur. 9.2; Heb 6:4).
107. Mount Hermon (over 9,200 ft.; but perhaps too rugged, far away, and cold at the top) and Mount Tabor (ca. 1,900 ft.; though a fortress lay on it in Jesus' day; Jos. War 2.573; 4.54-55) have been suggested for the mountain here, the former because it is near Caesarea Philippi; one could hardly expect to find the scribes following the disciples into Gentile territory, however (Mk 9:14). Some thus suggest Mount Meron (4,000 ft.), within Israel (Carson 1984b: 384; Blomberg 1992a: 263; Hagner 1995: 492). A range of mountainous country lay between the Jordan Valley and the coastal plain, however, and the actual site is irrelevant to the Gospel writers' point.
108. Many texts indicate transfigurations of deities or light shining on special persons (Boring 1995: 107-8 includes Homeric Hymns 2.275-80; Plut. Fortune of Romans 10; Lives of the Prophets 21; Philo Virt. 217); but I suspect that Matthew's biblically literate audience would first identify the allusion most familiar to them, namely, Moses.
109. Mack unfortunately concludes that Mark is therefore mythic, rather than that Mark might draw on Moses motifs earlier in his tradition (Philo, after all, took his point of departure from biblical and early Jewish tradition); and a believer might as easily presuppose that the Gospels and their tradition correctly interpret the revelation as an unbeliever might presuppose that they did not. Allison 1993b: 243-48 shows that Matthew expanded the Moses allusions.
110. Lacking clearly supporting clues, an allusion to the eschatological Sabbath tradition (cf. Mek. Shab. 1.38-40; Jub. 50:9; Test. Abr. 19 A; Life of Adam 51:1-2; Apoc. Mos. 43:2-3; Barn. 15:9; Dantelou 1964: 390-404; in Kabbalah, see Ginsberg 1955: 127) in the six days (Ex 16:5) would probably be too subtle for the implied audience.
111. It is difficult to say whether Mark first juxtaposed the transfiguration with the saying about seeing the kingdom, but if so Matthew and Luke here concur with Mark's interpretation. Mark's omission of resurrection appearances later could account for including one here (cf. Weeden 1971: 118), but the details of the story and the other two Synoptics' compliance with this arrangement do not favor it. In Mark and Matthew it anticipates the resurrection appearances (Petersen 1978: 65; Kim 1978: 94-97), as well as alluding back to the baptism (cf. Trites 1979).
112. One might keep a small group of only a few friends on hand for the most intimate occasions (e.g., Jos. Life 223, four friends). Qumran not only had a special group of twelve, but also a special group of three (1QS 8.1; Hill 1972: 267). In this case, it may be most relevant, however, that Moses had three specific companions in Ex 24:1, 9, although they were also joined by the seventy elders (France 1985: 262).
113. Mystics' pursuit of transformation into the divine image (on which see, e.g., Morray-Jones 1992; 2 Enoch 22:8-10) is probably even less relevant here than the Greek mythological parallels, because it appears even further removed from the genre of normal historical narrative.
114. See also commentators on 2 Cor 3, including von der Osten-Sacken 1981; cf. Jn 1:14.
115. Davies 1966b: 20-22; Lane 1974a: 317; Glasson 1963a: 70; Moses 1996: 84-85; for a survey of views on the transfiguration, cf. Liefeld 1992. Davies and Allison 1991: 695 note that Philo Mos. 1.57 also applies metamorphod to Moses, and, most importantly, that 2 Cor 3:18 (the context of which is a midrash on Ex 33-34) indicates that as early as Paul Christians already applied this term to Moses' experience. Philo Mos. 1.70 also compares Moses' radiance to that of the sun (p. 696). For Moses-Sinai and transfiguration themes in Philo, see Moses 1996: 50-57; in Josephus, 57-61; in Qumran, 61-66; in other sources, 66-83.
116. Matthew changes Peter's address of Jesus to "Lord" because he reserves the title "rabbi" (cf. Mk 9:5) for the lips of Judas (26:25, 49; Fenton 1977: 277).
117. Many commentators recognize the allusion to Moses here: Mauser 1963: 114; Davies 1966b: 24; Lane 1974a: 321; F. F. Bruce 1978: 40; Longenecker 1981: 36; Gundry 1982: 343; Young 1995: 211; pace Aune 1983: 272. Sifre Deut. 175.1.3 emphasizes the authority of the prophet in this passage. Jerome Homily 80, understood, "Hear him," i.e., more than Moses and Elijah (ACCS, 120).
118. Gen 15:12; 28:17; Dan 8:17-18; 10:9; Ezek 1:28; cf. Ex 34:30; PGM 4.725.
119. Rev 1:17; Tob 12:16; Jub. 18:10; 1 Enoch 14:13-14; 60:3; 71:2-3, 10-11; 89:30-31; 102:1; 2 Enoch 1:8; 20:2; 21:2; 22:4; 4 Macc 4:11:4 Ezra 4:12; 5:14; 10:30; Jos. and Asen. 14:10-11; Test. Job 3:4/5; Apoc. Zeph. 6:9-10; cf. Mt 27:54.
120. E.g., Ezek 2:1-2; Dan 8:18; 10:11-12; Rev 1:17; Tob 12:17; 1 Enoch 60:4; 71:3; 2 Enoch 1:8; 20:2; 21:3; 22:5; 3 En. 1:7-9; 4 Ezra 5:15; 2 Bar. 13:1-2; Jos. and Asen. 14:11; cf. PGM 1.77-78.
121. Although some scholars have indicated a dearth of evidence from the Tannaitic period about Elijah's future coming (Faierstein 1981; Fitzmyer 1985), other scholars have cited early evidence and argued that it is unlikely that Christian claims would simply have been adopted unmodified by the rabbis (Allison 1984; Milikowsky 1982-83), a position that seems more probable (Mk 9:11; Mt 17:10).
122. Later rabbis typically viewed Elijah as still alive (e.g., ARN 38, §103 B; b. Mo'ed Qat. 26; Sanh. 113b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:4), often as a supernatural being like the angels among whom he operated (e.g., b. Ber. 4b; B. Mes. 59b). There are a variety of diverse portrayals of Elijah in different texts; for one survey, see Zeller 1986. For an association of Elijah with the end time, see Sifre Deut. 41.4.3, 342.5.2; b. Menah. 63a; Sukk. 52b; Gen. Rab. 71:9; Ex. Rab. 3:4; Song Rab. 8:9, §3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9: Pesiq. R. 15:14/15: cf. Sir 48:10-11. The context of Sib. Or. 2:187-89 is Christian interpolation, but if it is original, it may testify to belief in an eschatological coming of Elijah. There is also later rabbinic evidence of a relationship between Elijah and the Messiah's coming: b. B. Mes. 85b; 'Erub. 43b; Ex. Rab. 18:12; Deut. Rab. 6:7; Pesiq. R. 35:4; cf. Gen. Rab. 83:4; Lev. Rab. 34:8; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Trypho in Justin Dial. 8, 49 (on Justin's data, cf. Schneider 1962: 169; Williams 1930: 18nn.5-6). Rabbinic (especially Babylonian Amoraic) texts, which often paint Elijah as a master halakist (ARN 2 A; b. Ber. 3a; Menah. 32a; Qidd. 70a; 'Abod. Zar. 36a; Hag. 9b; Ketub. 106a; Git. 42b; p. Ter. 1:6; Gen. Rab. 71:9; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:22; cf. the association of Elijah and the law as early as 1 Macc 2:58), as well as a miraculous messenger who helped rabbis (deliverance or healing in b. Ta'an. 21a; 'Abod. Zar. 17b; p. Ketub. 12:3, §6; Gen. Rab. 33:3; as a messenger of vengeance, b. Ber. 6b; as a messenger of news, b. Shab. 33b; B. Mes. 85b; Yoma 19b-20a; Deut. Rab. 5:15; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5), portrayed his eschatological role of restorer in predominantly halakhic terms (m. 'Ed. 8:7; t. 'Ed. 3:4; Song Rab. 4:12, §5; Teeple 1957: 4-8, on Elijah as restorer of genealogical purity in Israel in the end time; for other eschatological halakic responsibilities, see b. Ber. 35b; B. Mes. 3a, 30a; B. Bat. 94b; Menah. 45a). But all this may fit into the rabbinic portrayal of prophets as sages.
123. Malina 1993: 134 suggests that Jesus calls the disciples to keep the matter secret to increase the status of their group as holding private information; but the disciples' lack of understanding may be a more important reason. John the Baptist's being secretly Elijah may parallel the messianic secret about Jesus in Mark (Witherington 1990: 35, following Wink 1968: 110-11).
124. One might compare the widespread expectation for a literal return of Nero (Dio Chrys. 21st Disc., On Beauty 9-10; Tac. Hist. 2.8; Suet. Nero 57; Dio Cassius R.H. 66.19.3; Sib. Or. 3.63; 4.119-24, 137-39; 5.33-34, 137-54, 361-85; 8.68-72, 139-50; for early Christian texts, see Griffin 1984: 15).
125. Because the church would not invent the disciples' failure and did not update the account in the church's language, and the story may be attested in more than one form, Sterling 1993 contends that this exorcism narrative reflects an actual incident in Jesus' life; cf. further Twelftree 1993: 91-97.
126. Some other ancient texts also depict demons wishing to kill their hosts (e.g., the later account of a jealous demon that loves a boy and wishes to slay him in Philost. V.A. 3.38).
127. Jewish teachers often depicted mastering difficult subjects as "moving mountains" (e.g., ARN 6A: 12, §29B; b. Sanh. 24a), e.g., by a bird's scraping off one piece at a time (cf. b. Ber. 63b); presumably they, like Jesus, echo a more popular and generally applicable idiom for what was beyond human power (cf. Ps 46:3; Is 54:10; Hab 3:10). Many scholars note the idiom and its application for doing the impossible (e.g., Manson 1979: 206; Lachs 1987: 263, citing b. B. Bat. 3b; Sanh. 4a; Sota 9b; Lev. Rab. 8:2). But while some ancient teachers felt that "nothing would be impossible" for a wise man to endure (Diog. Laert. 6.1.12) and hellenistic writers (cf. also Zech 8:6 LXX; Philo Creation 46) acknowledged that deities could do anything (Brown 1994: 175 on Mk 14:36; Soph. Ajax 86; cf. Test. Sol. 23:1, which applies the language of mountain moving to a particularly potent demon), Jesus' promise of spiritual power on this level is remarkable.
Matthew's audience might think of the Mount of Transfiguration just mentioned (17:1). Isaiah promised that Israel would be powerful enough to crush mountains (Is 41:15); Zechariah promised that mighty mountains would become like plains before God's Spirit-empowered leaders for his people (Zech 4:6-7), and especially before the Lord himself (Zech 14:3-5). For a thorough discussion of the demands of faith in Mk 11:22-25 (par. Mt 21:20-22), seeDowd 1988. See further comments on Mt 21:21-22; Matthew's repetition underlines his point.
128. 17:21 is missing from some of the best manuscripts. Although its wide geographical distribution could favor its inclusion, it is easily explained as a harmonization with the wording of Mk 9:29, scribes being dissatisfied with Matthew's twofold use of Mk 11:23 (Metzger 1971: 43; on reasons for the double use, cf. Goulder 1974: 37). Matthew omits some Markan material here; e.g., probably due to the danger of false prophets to his community (7:15; 24:24) he omits Mark's account of the exorcist outside their circle (Thompson 1970: 262). Despite the syncretic character of most exorcisms in the magical papyri, many early Christians continued to expel demons immediately by a command (Minucius Felix Octavius 24-27) and found fasting an important weapon against more powerful demons (Tert. On Fasting 8.8; Jerome Against Jovinianus 2.15; the variant reading in Mk 9:29).
129. The third day can mean "after three days," as in Ps-Philo 11:1 -3; or parts of each of three days (Visotzky 1991; Scott 1995: 260; Ignatius Trallians 9; Augustine On the Trinity 4.6, 10; ACCS, 238); in either case it means "soon" (Gen 40:12-13, 18-19; Ex 3:18). Bousset's hellenistic parallels (1970: 58) are unconvincing (cf. Nock 1964a: 105-6; Jeremias 1971: 304; Fuller 1971: 25); the LXX is a more likely source (Hos 6:2; Jonah 1:17; cf. 1 Cor 15:4; Nock 1964a: 108), though it is unlikely that the early Christians would have noticed elements favoring it had the "third day" not been their initial experience. (Rabbis did. however, somethimes associate Hos 6:2 with the resurrection of the dead; see p. Sanh. 11:6, §1; cf. McArthur 1971: 83-84.) Some later traditions suggest the retention of the soul for three days after death (until the soul sees the body begin to decompose; Gen. Rab. 100:7; Lev. Rab. 18:1; though cf. Dola 1983) or required three days of purgatory before preparation to appear before God (3 Enoch 28:10; cf. Apoc. Zeph. 4:7). Cf. Greek reports of three days for mourning (Ap. Rhod. 1.1059; but Judaism emphasized seven), special funeral rites (Aristoph. Lysist. 613; but also the ninth day), purification in the underworld (Eurip. Alcestis 1145-46), or a ghost appearing after three days (Eurip. Hecuba 32; but this is due to lack of burial).
130. Because many taxes in this period were set at two drachmas (e.g., the tribute for the Great God Suchus in Egypt — Deissmann 1978: 253), Cassidy 1979 thinks that the text refers to a civil tax; the early Christians often applied this text to paying Roman taxes (Horbury 1984b: 265-86), which is at least a natural application of the principle (cf. 22:19, 21; Rom 13:7). But the exemption argument is easier to follow if the Jerusalem temple was originally in view, and most commentators find the temple tax here (e.g., Taylor 1935: 73-74; see especially Davies and Allison 1991: 739-40). Some think that though Matthew wants his readers to pay the tax to avoid offending their Jewish contemporaries, Matthew's audience is outside Judaism (Sandmel 1978a: 58); it seems more likely, however, that Matthew is concerned about offense precisely because his audience sees itself as part of the Jewish community (cf. Hagner 1995: 510-11). The tax was not applied as strictly as possible (i.e., to Judaizing Gentiles) until the reign of Domitian (Gager 1983: 60). Jesus might be saying here that he and Peter are true sons of God, unlike most of their people (cf. Sanders 1990: 50; Hagner 1995: 512); but cultural identification is in view at any rate (cf. Acts 21:26; 1 Cor 9:19-23).
131. F. F. Bruce 1980a: 72; Gundry 1982: 355-56; Meier 1994: 880-84; especially Garland 1996: 69-76.
132. Bultmann thinks that 17:25-26 is an early fragment later connected with the temple tax and a fish legend (Bultmann 1968: 34); but for a defense of authenticity (for the fish "legend" as well), see Bauckham 1986: 219-52; Hagner 1995: 510-11. That Matthew alone preserves the story is not surprising, since it is most applicable to a specifically Jewish-Christian audience. The illustration of p. 'Abod. Zar. 2:7, §1 may be hypothetical, but it suggests the possibility of finding rings and other objects inside an animal.
133. SeeCPJ 1:80-81; 2:119-36, §§160-229; Dio Cassius R.H. 65.7.2; Hemer 1973; Carlebach 1975. Appian R.H. 11.8.50 claims that Jews paid a higher poll-tax because they rebelled so often.
134. Given the conflict depicted in ch. 23, the suggestion that the tax in this text was for Pharisaic leaders in Jamnia instead is highly unlikely (pace Thompson 1970: 67).
135. Doubting that Matthew reapplies the narrative to taxation in his own day (pace most scholars, 1996: 76-89), Garland finds in the passage solely an object lesson, primarily about relinquishing one's rights to avoid needless offenses (1996: 89-98).
136. Given other economic burdens, Galileans had probably become somewhat lax in tithing to the priesthood (Horsley 1995: 142-43), but the splendor of the temple's golden vine suggests that most Mediterranean Jews were faithful in paying the tax.
137. Malina and Rohrbaugh apply Jesus' exemption to all Israel, however, which may or may not be his point.
138. Garland 1996: 92-93 suspects a christological affirmation here, but elsewhere he regards Jesus' disciples also as the "free sons" (94-95). Even Jewish teachers sometimes accorded special privileges to kings' children; other teachers responded, however, that all Israelites were kings' children (m. Shab. 14:4).
139. For other fish miracles, see, e.g., Tob 6:2-5; more distantly, Epidauros inscriptions (47) report a great catch of fish (cf. Lk 5:6-7; Jn 21:5-6) and punishment of the fisher who failed to keep his vow to Asclepius (Theissen 1983: 110). Because the miracle of Mt 17:27 is not fulfilled in the narrative, Meier 1994: 884 doubts the authenticity of the prediction (cf. also France 1985: 268-69). One could argue in the opposite direction, however: the fulfillment's omission shows that the writer and/or the transmitters of the tradition were not trying to emphasize the miracle, which was already present in the tradition. Given the fulfillment of Jesus' other predictions in the Gospel, the implied audience would assume the fulfillment of this one (Garland 1996: 93, following Haenchen 1966: 333-34).