3 Les Évangiles (Paris, 1877), p. 283.
1 Cited by T. D. Alexander in The Evangelical Quarterly, LXI (1989), p. 5.
2 Jesus and Man’s Hope (Pittsburgh, 1970), p. 132; Fitzmyer’s italics.
1 Zahn, cited in Lenski, p. 20.
2 Mounce remarks, “Matthew is the Gospel that over the years has shaped the life and thought of the church”; he cites Renan’s view that it is the most important book ever written (p. xiii).
3 Les Évangiles (Paris, 1877), p. 283.
4 Graham Stanton points to the recent spate of books and articles on Matthew and sees debate now as “keener than ever. So many of the distinctive features of this Gospel continue to fascinate and to puzzle scholars that it is no exaggeration to suggest that Matthew is a new storm centre in contemporary scholarship” (Stanton, p. 1).
5 Not only in ancient times. Johnson points out that “in the 1929 revision of the American Book of Common Prayer Matthew is favored over Luke with thirty-seven to thirty-three pericopes, John being used twenty-seven times and Mark six times.” He goes on to say that the layman may claim that John or Luke is his favorite but he will probably “make actual use more often of Matthew” (p. 231).
6 Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter, 1989), p. 20. He cites E. Massaux, “Matthew seems to have been the only one to have had a normative role, and to have created the climate of Christianity at large” (p. 16).
7 Curiously F. W. Beare calls this Gospel “a grim book,” “singularly lacking in those notes of joy that sound through the writings of Luke. The Christ that he presents is on the whole a terrifying figure. … There is little trace here of a gospel of grace abounding to the chief of sinners” (p. viii). He speaks of Matthew as paving the way for “a new legalism” (p. 6). Has he not noticed the note of joy at the beginning and end of the Gospel (2:10; 28:8) and, of course, in between as well (e.g., 5:12; 13:44, etc.)? And what sort of legalism is it of which even Beare can say, “Wealth cannot purchase an entrance (i.e. into the kingdom). … It is not a reward for virtue or for any kind of human achievement” (p. 36)? There can be no greater emphasis on the significance of love, love to God and love to people, than we find in Matthew 22:37–40. Such a misunderstanding of Matthew as Beare’s is not helpful.
8 In this Gospel “we see, as we could see nowhere else, how believers of the same race as Jesus, brought up in the same religious tradition, with the same spiritual ancestry, looked upon the Christ” (Robinson, pp. x-xi).
9 S. van Tilborg puts great emphasis on Matthew’s criticisms of Judaism, so much so that he views the author as a Gentile (The Jewish Leaders in Matthew [Leiden, 1972], p. 171).
10 AB, p. XXII. They also say, “Matthew seems to have been influenced most by the theological idea of fulfillment” (p. XXVI).
11 That is, most in the Gospels; Paul is the big user of the term, employing it 379 times.
12 Johnson, p. 234.
13 G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Oxford, 1946), p. 70. This may be a simplistic view of what Matthew has done.
14 Ibid., pp. 77, 141.
15 I have examined this problem in The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London, 1964). We should not forget that the account in Luke 4 is the oldest one we have of a synagogue service, nor that it is still not clear when either of the two principal lectionary systems, the one-year cycle and the three-year cycle, made its appearance. It is hazardous to argue from Jewish practice when we know so little about it.
16 Stendahl, p. 769.
17 G. Bornkamm heads his discussion of this Gospel “The Teacher of the Church (Matthew)” and finds a “didactic concern” that “stamps the whole Gospel” (The New Testament: A Guide to its Writings [London, 1974], pp. 57, 60).
18 Johnson can say, “His prose differs from that of Plato to approximately the extent that the English in the news columns of a well-written metropolitan daily differs from that of Shakespeare and the King James Version. The Greek of the Gospel is fluent and clear, easily read by simple people but generally without offensive colloquialisms” (p. 239).
Filson F. V. Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (London, 1960)
19 Filson, p. 20.
20 E. von Dobschütz says that Matthew “likes echoes”; he points to this apostle’s penchant for using formulas repeatedly and for saying the same thing twice (Stanton, p. 20).
21 Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, p. 134.
22 This view was accepted, for example, by R. H. Fuller, who could write, “The clue to Mt’s theology is the five discourses. These correspond with the 5 books of the Pentateuch. Jesus is the second Moses, the founder and lawgiver of the new Israel, the church” (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament [London, 1966], p. 117). But in this Gospel Jesus is not the second Moses; as W. D. Davies puts it, “He is not Moses come as Messiah, if we may so put it, so much as Messiah, Son of Man, Emmanuel, who has absorbed the Mosaic function” (Sermon, p. 27).
23 SM, p. 107. There are problems in detail, such as the difficulty of finding anything corresponding to Leviticus in Matthew’s arrangement.
24 Filson, pp. 22–23. Davies questions “the extreme scepticism” about our knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus. “First, the milieu within which Jesus appeared was conditioned for the faithful reception and transmission of tradition” (he draws attention to the oral transmission of matter now in the Mishnah). “Secondly, the technical formulae describing the reception and transmission of tradition emerge so clearly in the NT documents that we must believe that the early Christian communities handed on a tradition.” Thirdly, Jesus may have been bilingual and certainly many early Christians were, so that teaching could be transferred to Greek accurately. “Fourthly, it is highly pertinent to note that there was frequent intercourse between figures such as Peter, and other apostolic guardians of the tradition, and Christian communities in various places, so that the transmission and development of the tradition were not unchecked” (Sermon, pp. 127–28; cf. also SM, pp. 416–17).
25 F. L. Cross, ed., Studia Evangelica, IV (Berlin, 1968), pp. 48–49.
26 Structure, p. 10.
27 Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, p. 83. Irenaeus says that this Gospel was written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1). We are not aware of these two apostles preaching in Rome together, but clearly Irenaeus thinks of this Gospel as written in the 60s.
28 Gundry, p. 601, points out that we have less evidence for the dating of Mark than we have for that of Matthew, so that we should date Mark from Matthew, not the reverse.
29 That these words were written after the destruction of the city is not at all obvious, despite the arguments of scholars who accept this point of view. J. A. T. Robinson is not persuaded, and he cites K. H. Rengstorf and Sigfried Pedersen as others who do not accept it (Redating, p. 20).
30 He points out that the Romans apparently did not try to burn the temple and makes this the responsibility of the Jews: “The flames, however, owed their origin and cause to God’s own people” (War 6.251); the defenders themselves kindled the flames, at least in part. The Romans then set the surrounding buildings alight (War 6.281). But it was at a later time that the city as a whole was captured and Titus entered it (War 6.409), and later still that “the whole city” and what was left of the temple were “razed to the ground” (War 7.1).
31 C. C. Torrey long ago argued that “all four Gospels were written before the year 70”; he pointed out that “The supposed references” to the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Romans “are in every word and without exception merely repeated from Old Testament prophecies.” He proceeds to cite the relevant prophecies (The Four Gospels [London, n.d.], p. 256). More recently J. A. T. Robinson has also argued that the Gospels must have been written before A.D. 70 (Redating, ch. 2).
32 Use of the OT, pp. 178–79.
33 Redating, p. 116; cf. pp. 99, 107.
34 B. Reicke can say, “The situation presupposed by Matthew corresponds to what is known about Christianity in Palestine between A.D. 50 and ca. 64, but not after the flight of the Christians in ca. 64 and the start of the Jewish war in A.D. 66” (D. E. Aune, ed., Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature [Leiden, 1972], p. 133).
35 B. H. Streeter argued strongly for Antioch as the place of origin (The Four Gospels [London, 1930], pp. 500–527).
36 Origins, ch. VII; the conclusion is reached on p. 134.
37 The case for Caesarea was persuasively argued by B. T. Viviano (CBQ, 41 [1979], pp. 533–46).
38 van Tilborg argues this (The Jewish Leaders, p. 172).
ODCC F. L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (London, 1958)
39 Unfortunately Papias’s work is no longer extant; therefore we must depend on the quotations made in Eusebius. Allen thinks that Papias’s work may well have been “a book containing sayings, discourses, and parables.” He points out that about two-fifths of Matthew consists of sayings and suggests that someone took the sayings from Papias and worked them into a larger book, our Gospel. It then came to be named from the author of the sayings book that had been incorporated in it (pp. lxxx-lxxxi). Barclay has much the same view (I, p. xxi). T. W. Manson (Sayings, pp. 27–30) and others argue that Papias is referring to the document we call Q. Robinson holds that “ ‘logia’ means the Old Testament,” so that Papias may have been referring to a “collection of ‘oracles’ dealing with the Messiah, such as might be used by the Christian to prove to the Jew that Jesus was the Christ. We know that such collections were current in the third century, and that they passed in the western church under the name of ‘Testimonies,’ but in the Jewish church the need for them would be immediate and urgent” (p. xv).
40 C. S. Petrie argues strongly that Papias must be taken seriously and that he testifies to Matthew as the author of the Gospel composed in the Hebrew language (NTS, XIV [1967–68], pp. 15–32).
41 Gundry, p. 620.
42 Ibid., pp. 619–20.
43 See Hendriksen, p. 91. C. F. D. Moule suggests that “the oracles” point us to some “early Semitic source lying behind both Matt. and Lk.” and thinks that Papias’s reference to each translating them as best he could may explain some of the differences between Matthew and Luke (The Birth of the New Testament [London, 1962], p. 89).
44 A. Wikenhauser remarks, “It may be taken as certain that an Aramaic original of the Gospel of St. Matthew can be defended only if we regard Greek Mt. not as a literal translation of the Aramaic, but as a thorough revision made with frequent use of the Gospel of St. Mark.” He adds that this “is consistent with the decision of the Biblical Commission” (New Testament Introduction [New York, 1958], p. 195).
45 Fenton remarks, “It is possible that this Gospel was from the first published with the title According to Matthew” (p. 136).
46 Matthew is said to be a tax collector in 9:9; 10:3 and a member of the Twelve in 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15. The tax collector is called Levi in Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27, but, although it is unusual for the same man to have two Hebrew names (though he might have a Hebrew and a Greek name, like Saul who was called Paul), it seems that all these references are to the same man. That the author of this Gospel was a tax collector is perhaps supported by his interest in money. He uses the general word for money, nomisma, and the words for “gold” 5 times, “silver” 10 times (two words), and “talent” 14 times, a total of 29, whereas Mark refers to “silver” once and Luke has it 4 times; they have none of the other words for big currency. Matthew also has references to coins such as the assarion, the chalkos, the denarius, the didrachma, the kodrantes, and the stater. Mark and Luke mention some of these coins, but not as many as Matthew.
47 C. F. D. Moule remarks, “Is it not conceivable that the Lord really did say to that tax-collector Matthew: You have been a ‘writer’ (as the Navy would put it); you have had plenty to do with the commercial side of just the topics alluded to in the parables—farmer’s stock, fields, treasure-trove, fishing revenues; now that you have become a disciple, you can bring all this out again—but with a difference?” (F. L. Cross, ed., Studia Evangelica, II [Berlin, 1964], p. 98). Gundry argues that Matthew “was a notetaker during the earthly ministry of Jesus and that his notes provided the basis for the bulk of the apostolic gospel tradition,” citing the practice in “ancient schools” by which notes taken by students “became the common possession of the schools and circulated without the name of the author” (Use of the OT, p. 182).
48 Cf. R. M. Grant, “This claim does not seem very convincing. We cannot tell whether or not an apostle would have followed such a procedure. An apostle might have believed that Mark’s outline was largely correct but needed some revision and some supplementation” (A Historical Introduction to the New Testament [London, 1963], p. 129).
49 N. B. Stonehouse argues strongly for Matthean authorship in Origins, pp. 1–47.
50 A. F. J. Klijn finds many questions about the authorship of this Gospel undecided, but does not consider this very important, “For none of the other gospels bear less the personal imprint of their authors than does this one” (An Introduction to the New Testament [Leiden, 1967], p. 34).
51 I have discussed the Synoptic problem, the way the three Synoptic Gospels relate to one another, in Luke: An Introduction and Commentary2 (Leicester and Grand Rapids, 1988), pp. 51–63.
52 An exception is M. D. Goulder, who holds that Matthew was composed as a lectionary. He agrees that the author had Mark before him but “no Q, no M, and very little oral tradition” (Midrash and Lection in Matthew [London, 1974], p. xiii). His suggestion has attracted a good deal of attention but seems to me to be inadequately based. I have discussed his work with other lectionary hypotheses in “The Gospels and the Jewish Lectionaries,” in R. T. France and David Wenham, eds., Gospel Perspectives, III (Sheffield, 1983), pp. 129–56.
53 Many scholars have been too confident about Q, and there have been criticisms. O. Linton, to name but one, has subjected the hypothesis that there was such a source to critical examination. He agrees that there was such a source, but it does not account for anything like all the non-Markan matter that is common to Matthew and Luke (D. E. Aune, ed., Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, pp. 43–59).
54 Hamann thinks that the order was Matthew, Mark, and Luke (p. 306).
55 There are, of course, still other theories. F. Neirynck, for example, has given close attention to the theory of A. Gaboury which puts heavy emphasis on the order of the pericopes: “One guiding principle pervades the whole study of the phenomenon of order: the evangelists never altered the order of incidents they found in their sources. This principle is extremely simple indeed, but it forces the author to an unnecessary multiplication of sources” (L’ÉSM, pp. 37–69; the quotation is from p. 68). Such theories are unsatisfactory.
56 For example, there is B. H. Streeter’s objection to the view that Mark has abbreviated Matthew: “only a lunatic would leave out Matthew’s account of the Infancy, the Sermon on the Mount, and practically all the parables, in order to get room for purely verbal expansion of what was retained” (The Four Gospels [London, 1930], p. 158).
57 Albright and Mann further draw attention to the vitality of oral tradition and open the possibility that “Mark and Matthew may represent two quite separate collections of tradition” (AB, p. XLVIII). We should not let our familiarity with a multiplicity of printed books hide from us the importance of oral tradition in a day when all books had to be laboriously written by hand.
58 “Jesus” is יֵשֻׁעַ and “will save” is יוֹשִׁיעַ; “since such a play is not possible in Aramaic, a Hebrew original must underlie the verse” (McNeile).
LXX The Septuagint
59 Patte, p. 12.
60 Cf. Brevard S. Childs, “the assumption that the many tensions within the Gospel are to be resolved by sharply distinguishing between tradition and redaction (cf. Strecker, Schulz) renders impossible a canonical reading of the Gospel as a whole. Thus the judgment that portions of ch. 5 are ‘traditional ballast’ which distort Matthew’s real intention, is a highly tendentious approach” (The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction [London, 1984], p. 62).
1 Kingsbury argues strongly that the canonical Gospels are to be understood as biographies, albeit “of the nature of ancient biography” rather than biography of the modern type (Matthew, pp. 9–13). But this is to ignore the fact that from the earliest days εὐαγγέλιον is applied to them; whatever else we may say about these books, they are “Jesus Christ’s good news” (Mark 1:1). Kingsbury shows a better appreciation of what Matthew is doing when he writes, “Matthew’s document is of the nature of a ‘gospel,’ that is to say, a kerygmatic story. Its purpose is, again, to announce the news that saves or condemns which is revealed in and through Jesus Messiah, the Son of God, and is proclaimed first to Israel and then to the gentiles to the effect that in him the eschatological rule of God has drawn near to humankind” (Matthew, p. 29).
2 βίβλος, here only in Matthew, occurs 10 times in the New Testament. The original form was βύβλος, which denoted “the Egyptian papyrus, Cyperus Papyrus” (LSJ; it suggests that the form βιβλ- arose “by assimilation in βίβλιον”). It lacks the article since this is a heading (cf. M, I, p. 82). In the plural βίβλος came to denote strips of the plant, which were made into the writing material papyrus. Thus it came to mean a roll of papyrus, a book.
BAGD Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and aug. by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker from the 5th edn. (Chicago, 1979)
3 γένεσις has about it the idea of “origin” or “source” (BAGD notes its use “in the subscription of the infancy narrative of Pythagoras”); it is understood in this way by most translators and commentators, who often translate it by “genealogy.” But its use in Genesis 2:4 is surely in the sense “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (NIV; NRSV’s “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth …” is scarcely intelligible); “account” or “history” is the meaning. It occurs also in Genesis 5:1, where NIV has “This is the written account of Adam’s line.” The emphasis in Genesis 5:1 is on Adam who began the line, but in Matthew it is on Jesus in whom the line reached its consummation.
4 Davies and Allison draw attention to the earliest MSS of LXX and to early writers like Justin and Origen for this title.
5 See Bonnard for the idea that the words form a heading for both the genealogy and the whole book. Fenton regards it as telescopic, referring first to the genealogy, then the birth, then the life-story, and finally “the whole new creation which begins at the conception of Jesus and will be completed at his second coming.” R. L. Overstreet writes, “it seems best to understand it as not being a reference to the birth alone of Christ, but rather as an introduction to his life and acts. In other words, the phrase seems to introduce the complete book of Matthew” (GTJ, 2 [1981], p. 306). See also Davies and Allison, and SM, pp. 67ff.
6 Cf. W. Marxsen, “By means of this phrase therefore the work is presented almost as ‘Holy Scripture’—by analogy with the Old Testament—to which one can appeal and from which one can take one’s bearings if one wishes to observe or teach others to observe what Jesus commanded” (Introduction to the New Testament [Philadelphia, 1974], p. 151).
7 Jesus is the Latin form of the name = Ἰησοῦς, the Greek form of the Hebrew Jeshua, a shorter form of Jehoshua, which means “Yahweh is salvation.”
8 See further my New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, 1986), pp. 125–26.
9 Both son of David and son of Abraham lack the article; this is probably because we are still involved in the title of the book. υἱός can mean “son” in the sense of a direct male offspring, or, as here, of a more remote male descendant. It may also be used of followers (as in “the sons” of the Pharisees, 12:27), or of members of a large group (cf. “the sons of men,” Mark 3:28), or of those who share similar ideas or experiences such as “the sons of the kingdom,” 8:12), or of “the sons of light” (Luke 16:8). It is, of course, frequently used of Jesus, as in a special sense “the Son of God.”
10 It occurs in the Psalms of Solomon, “raise up to them their king, the Son of David” (17:23). It is not found often in pre-Christian days, but in post-Christian times it was common as a designation of the Messiah (SBk, I, p. 525). That this goes back to the time of Jesus seems clear from 22:41–45.
11 G. Dalman has an important discussion of “Son of David” in The Words of Jesus (Edinburgh, 1902), pp. 316–24. See also my New Testament Theology, pp. 126–27.
Tasker R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London, 1961)
12 Many interpreters view this as the wrong way to interpret Gen. 12:3, but Robinson points out that it “goes back at least to the LXX and dominated all later exegesis.”
13 See J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (London, 1958), p. 204.
14 From his understanding of 1 Chronicles 3:11–12 (LXX) Allen argues that the three omitted are Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah. This involves accepting Οζεια or Οζιας (which normally in LXX = Uzziah) in 1 Chronicles 3:11 (Rahlfs reads Οχοζια, which normally in LXX = Ahaziah), and assuming that Matthew or a copyist has passed from Οζεια to Uzziah’s son, Jotham. AB accepts this view and further posits “an editor assimilating Matthew’s list to the LXX record.” Nothing appears to be gained by this hypothesis, and it is simpler to see an omission of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Marshall D. Johnson argues for an accidental scribal omission of the names Azariah, Joash, and Amaziah and “that accident was turned into virtue—that after the accidental omission the scribe discovered a second pattern of fourteens which came to determine the structure of the genealogy” (The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies [Cambridge, 1969], p. 182).
15 Schweizer holds that, since ancient reckoning always included the first and last names in series, we should probably understand the sequence as “from Abraham to David, fourteen; from David (counted a second time) to Josiah, the last free king, fourteen; from the first king of the captivity, Jehoiakim, to Jesus, fourteen.” Or we may be meant to count Jeconiah twice, once as the last name in the second division and once as the first name in the third. Another suggestion is that we should take one “Jeconiah” as really “Jehoiakim,” who is not otherwise mentioned in the list.
16 That the Jews shortened genealogies is seen by comparing Ezra 7:1–5 with 1 Chronicles 6:3–15 (Ezra has even omitted his own father!). Overstreet comments, “Apparently to the Jewish mind this was a proper thing to do, and it is not unusual to find Matthew omitting names in his genealogy” (GTJ, 2 [1981], p. 310).
17 “The number and the choice are intentional, not accidental. The Evangelist has a point to make through them. He wishes to show that the genealogy of Christ, embracing the whole history of Israel, bears witness not only to its high points but also to the sin and unworthiness which run through this history even at its high points, i.e., in the age of the patriarchs and the house of David. … the history of the people elected to be the people of the Messiah is one of grace rather than glory” (G. Kittel, TDNT, III, p. 1). Barclay envisions a grand sweep, “In his genealogy Matthew shows us the royalty of kingship gained; the tragedy of freedom lost; the glory of liberty restored. And that, in the mercy of God, is the story of mankind, and of each individual man.”
NRSV The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville, 1990)
BDF F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. and rev. by R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961)
18 Cf. BAGD, “This, the un-Grecized form of the OT, is reserved for formal writing, and esp. for the patriarch”; for other people the Grecized form Ἰάχωβος is usual (Matthew has it 6 times).
19 Just as γεννάω is normally used of the action of the father, so ἐχ is used of the mother.
20 See Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, pp. 162–65.
21 The genitive Βαβυλῶνος illustrates the indefiniteness of the genitive. The form denotes no more than “a Babylon-type removal” and could denote a removal to Babylon or from Babylon or even of Babylon. But our knowledge of history shows us that the meaning must be “to Babylon.” Moule sees this as a “strongly adjectival use” (IBNTG, p. 38).
22 One factor may be that the names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin are both rendered Ιωαχιμ in LXX.
23 The Sinaitic Syriac MS reads “Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called the Christ,” and this is occasionally accepted (as, e.g., by Moffatt). But Metzger’s discussion shows that there is no reasonable doubt that this reading should be rejected.
24 Cf. Patte, “A son of David is not someone primarily characterized by a certain biological descendance but someone whose existence has been brought about by the intervention of God. A child of David and of Abraham is someone who owes his or her origin (genesis) to God.” He notes that in 3:9 the Pharisees and Sadducees cannot really claim to be children of Abraham, and that God can raise up children to Abraham out of the very stones.
25 The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, p. 208 (Johnson’s italics). Cyrus H. Gordon has a note in which he points out that there are many examples in antiquity of people who claimed to have a divine father as well as a human father. He does not dispute that Jesus’ fatherhood was special, but simply points out that dual fatherhood did not sound as paradoxical in the first century as it does to us (JBL, 96 [1977], p. 101).
26 Cited in SM, pp. 303–4.
27 Gundry holds that “We only have to suppose that Matthew had the traditions that later went into Luke 1–2 to see what happens under his artistry.” Matthew, he thinks, “turns the annunciation to Mary before her conceiving Jesus (Luke 1:26–38) into an annunciation to Joseph after her conceiving Jesus.” Plummer, by contrast, holds that neither narrative “can have been based on the other.” He finds “signs of historic reality” in the “delicacy and sobriety of both narratives” in sharp contrast to pagan legends, Jewish stories (as in the Book of Enoch), and Christian apocryphal Gospels (p. 4).
28 For γένεσις see on verse 1. Here it signifies “coming into being” and thus “birth.” The δέ is continuative; it links the account with the preceding.
29 Most MSS read τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, but the article is very rare with Ἰησοῦς Χριστο͂ς. Χριστοῦ is read by a number of Western sources, but Metzger points out that this may be no more than an assimilation to the reading of the preceding sentence. Similarly, Ἰησοῦ (W) may conform this passage to the words of the angel (v. 21). It seems better to retain the harder reading.
30 μνηστεύω, elsewhere in the New Testament only in Luke 1:27; 2:5, signifies “woo and win, betroth” (BAGD). It was a binding arrangement, and the betrothed could be called “the wife” of her fiancé (Gen. 29:21; Deut. 22:23–24), as is the case with Mary here (v. 20); the young man could similarly be called the girl’s “husband” (e.g., Joel 1:8), as is Joseph here (v. 19). To break a betrothal, divorce proceedings were necessary. On the genitive absolute BDF remarks, “The harshest and at the same time rarest case is where the ‘antecedent’ follows as subject … but here the inserted infinitive with πρίν (with another subject) mitigates the ensuing anacolouthon, for which classical parallels may be found” (423[4]). The use of the genitive absolute when the participle could have agreed with a noun gives it emphasis (Robertson, pp. 1131–32).
31 συνέρχομαι, here only in Matthew, may be used of assembling but also “of coming together in a sexual sense”; it is used in the papyri in marriage contracts with the meaning “marry” (BAGD).
GNB Good News Bible (London and New York, 1976)
REB The Revised English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge, 1989)
32 Bonnard points out that Luke speaks of the Spirit coming “upon” (ἐπί) Mary, but Matthew is “more reserved, more Jewish”; he indicates only that there was a miraculous conception without speaking of a movement of the Spirit toward or in Mary. Cf. Barclay, “…has come from the Holy Spirit.”
33 It is sometimes argued that the omission of the article points to the power rather than the person, but it is difficult to justify this from the usage. Turner points out further that the omission of the article in prepositional expressions, as here, does not make the word indefinite (M, III, pp. 175–76). Cf. AB, “In Aramaic at this time there was no differentiation between the definite and the indefinite article. The absence of the definite article in Greek at this point is therefore not significant.”
34 The word is ἀνήρ, which Matthew uses only 8 times. It means “man” in contrast to woman, and thus “husband”; by contrast he uses ἄνθρωπος 112 times, which is more than in any other book in the New Testament.
35 AS differentiates δίχαιος (used here) from ἀγαθός in that this latter term in Rom. 5:7 “implies a kindliness and attractiveness not necessarily possessed by the δίχαιος, who merely measures up to a high standard of rectitude” (sub ἀγαθός; under ἀγαθωσύνη he cites Armitage Robinson for the view that ἀ. represents “the kindlier, as διχαιοσύνη the sterner, element in the ideal character”). David Hill holds that here it refers “quite simply to Joseph’s decision to observe the Jewish law faithfully and conscientiously” (ET, LXXVI [1964–65], p. 134). Matthew uses δίχαιος 17 times, which is more than in any other New Testament book (next is Luke with 11) and equals the total in all the Pauline letters.
36 CBQ, 41 (1979), pp. 547–51. The Mishnah says explicitly that the woman is “forbidden” to both the husband and the paramour (Soṭa 5:1).
37 The verb is θέλω (which Matthew uses 42 times, the most in any New Testament book). It conveys the notion of the exercise of the will, though sometimes this is attenuated to mere wishing. In New Testament times it seems not to have differed greatly from βούλομαι (the word rendered decided). χαί is probably used here in the sense “and yet” (BAGD, I.2.g)—Joseph as a pious upholder of the law might well have seen the right course as that of making a public example of an erring fiancée.
38 That is the force of the rare verb δειγματίζω, connected with δεῖγμα, “a proof,” “an example.”
39 The bill of divorce must contain the formula “Lo, thou art free to marry any man,” or according to R. Judah, “Let this be from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that thou mayest marry whatsoever man thou wilt” (Giṭ. 9:3). It should be signed by two or more witnesses (Giṭ. 6:7).
40 δέ here has adversative force. The conjunction is found at the beginning of each of the verses 18–22, though with somewhat variable meaning. But at least it serves to link the various parts of the narrative.
41 ἐνθυμέομαι occurs again in the New Testament only in 9:4. It has the meaning “reflect on, consider.”
42 BAGD notes that the expression χατʼ ὄναρ is rejected by Photius as a barbarism but that it is attested from the time of Conon. But Matthew use it several times for divine revelations (2:12, 13, 19, 22; 27:19).
43 So Turner, M, III, p. 77; he also says that the words mean “Never at any time in the future be afraid to take her to wife” (Grammatical Insights, p. 25). Matthew uses μή with the aorist imperative 29 times (he has it with the present imperative 12 times). Except for this passage and 3:9 all are in sayings of Jesus (M, I, pp. 123–24).
44 Matthew uses γάρ 124 times, which is more than any of the other Evangelists (Mark has it 64 times, Luke 97, and John 64). Turner points out that Matthew’s use of γάρ “is about the same as in Mark (one in 15 lines), less frequent than Paul and Hebrews, more so than Luke-Acts and the Johannine writings” (M, IV, p. 38). Matthew likes to bring out logical connections.
45 τίχτω is the usual verb for the action of the female parent. Matthew has it 4 times.
46 In his essay “Quis et Unde,” K. Stendahl says, “The genuine point is that the angel encourages Joseph, the son of David, to make this child a Davidic child. Thereby Jesus’ place in the genealogy is explained. God has ordered this engrafting” (Stanton, p. 61).
47 For the wordplay here see Introduction, p. 17, n. 58†.
48 λαός.
49 ἁμαρτία meant first a missing of the mark, and Trench notes that Aristotle “sometimes withdraws it, almost, if not altogether, from the region of right and wrong. … The ἁμαρτία is a mistake …” (Synonyms, p. 241). G. Stählin points out that in LXX sin is considered much more serious, and the word comes “to express the divine reference of sin much more purely than, e.g., such primarily ethical concepts as ἀδιχία and χαχία.” The New Testament follows LXX, and there “It is almost always a matter of ‘offence in relation to God with emphasis on guilt,’ i.e., of ‘sin’ ” (TDNT, I, p. 295).
50 ὅλος occurs in Matthew more often than in any other New Testament writing (22 times). It means “whole, entire, complete” (BAGD) and is not often found as it is here with a pronoun.
51 ἵνα usually denotes purpose. It is possible to see something like result because purpose and result are so closely connected when it is a matter of the divine will. But the conjunction normally indicates purpose, and there is no real reason for departing from that meaning here. Cf. Burton, MT, “The writer of the first gospel never uses ἵνα to express result, either actual or conceived; and that he by this phrase at least intends to express purpose is made especially clear by his employment of ὅπως (which is never ecbatic) interchangeably with ἵνα” (Burton, MT, 222).
52 It is sometimes suggested that Matthew has manufactured a narrative to fit a number of prophecies, but M. J. Down has argued convincingly that “the evangelist did not start with prophecy and invent a story; he started with a story and slipped in certain prophecies” (ET, XC [1978–79], p. 52).
53 Isaiah uses the word עַלְמָה, which is usually understood to mean a woman of marriageable age. The word occurs 7 times and is apparently not used for women who are married (though Prov. 30:19 may be an exception). France points out that the word is not elsewhere used where childbirth is in mind (and where “wife” would be expected) and that it may have been this indication that Isaiah had in mind a birth that did not conform to the usual pattern that caused the LXX translators to use παρθένος. This word in biblical Greek normally means “virgin” (though not in Gen. 34:3); it means “virgin” in Isaiah and here. Isaiah is speaking of happenings in the time of Ahaz, but Matthew perceives a fuller meaning. “Clearly the LXX translators, with their striking use of parthenos, understood it to refer to more than an ordinary birth, and the choice of ‘almâ in the Hebrew as well as the symbolic name ‘Immanuel’ suggests that they were right” (France).
54 עִמָּנוּאֵל.
55 The Hebrew text of Isaiah reads, “she will call his name Emmanuel,” in LXX it is a command, “you (singular) shall call… ,” while Matthew has “they will call. …” Matthew’s impersonal plural signifies people in general. Bruner comments, “There is some point in Matthew’s plural rendering because we never hear Jesus called Emmanu-El by his mother or by any particular person in the Gospels or Epistles. But if one were to ask the faithful through the centuries what they believe Jesus means to them, and thus in this sense what they call him, ‘God with us’ is as good an answer as it is possible to give in three words” (pp. 34–35).
56 The verb γινώσχω means “come to know, know,” and is used of knowing in a wide variety of contexts. BAGD says that here it is “euphem. of sex relations”; it cites classical and late authors as well as LXX for this usage. The subject may be a man, as here, or a woman (Luke 1:34).
57 ἕως occurs 48 times in this Gospel, which is more than in any other New Testament book (next is Luke with 28). It may be used as a temporal conjunction or, as here, as an improper preposition with the genitive οὖ. BAGD sees the relative as used with prepositions “whereby a kind of conjunction is formed” (ὅς, ἥ, ὅ, I.11; for this passage I.11.f). McNeile says that in the New Testament a negative followed by ἕως οὗ ἕως, or ἕως ὅτου “always implies that the negatived action did, or will, take place after the point of time indicated by the particle.” Matthew uses ἕως οὗ 5 times.
Allen W. C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (Edinburgh, 1907)
1 But Plummer’s comment is still relevant: “The examples cited are more remarkable for their differences than for their resemblances” (p. 12).
AB The Anchor Bible: W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (New York, 1971)
2 Cf. Allen, “The main outline of the story of the Magi is in many respects noteworthy for its historical probability.”
3 For a careful examination of these scriptural quotations see R. T. France, NTS, 27 (1980–81), pp. 233–51.
4 “In this chapter, Matthew introduces the major theme of his Gospel: the Jews have rejected the offer of salvation, but the Gentiles will accept it. … The Gentiles will be brought into the place which the Jews had forfeited by their unbelief, and the Church will be the Israel of the last days, destined to share in the joys of the age to come” (Fenton).
5 Our system of dating (with years B.C. and A.D.) was worked out by Dionysius Exiguus at the beginning of the sixth century; he appears to have been about four years off in his calculations.
6 μάγος seems originally to have meant a member of the tribe of the Magoi; later it was used of a member of a sacred caste who carried on with Magian practices, and then it was used of sorcerers in general (Acts 13:6, 8). We derive our word “magic” from it.
7 ἀνατολή occurs 5 times in Matthew, twice in Luke, and 3 times in Revelation in the New Testament. The word means “rising,” specifically the rising of the sun, and thus the East. In this sense it may be singular or plural. It lacks the article, for “The points of the compass, found only with prepositions, never take the article” (BDF 253[5]). Turner divertingly points out that we could understand the expression to mean “Wise men from the west,” for “in modern Greek the plural of Anatol is a proper name signifying ‘various parts of Asia Minor [i.e., Anatolia]’ ” (Grammatical Insights, p. 25), which would be west, not east, of Herod’s kingdom. This could be supported by the use of the expression in Genesis 13:11, for Lot must have traveled eastward. But “from the East” is more probable, especially in view of the connection of magi with Persia and Babylon.
8 There are two Greek forms of the name Jerusalem. Matthew here uses Ἱεροσόλυμα, which he has 11 times, as against twice for Ἰερουσάλημ. For Mark the figures are 10 and 0, for Luke 4 and 27, for John 12 and 0, for Acts 23 and 26, and for the rest of the New Testament 3 and 11. There appear to be no reasons other than personal preference for the use of either name.
9 Nigel Turner argues from the word order and the tense that we should understand this phrase as “the new-born King of the Jews.” He further thinks that “It is not so much who the Person is, as where He is, that matters to them at the moment of their question” (ET, LXVIII [1956–57], p. 122).
10 There is evidence that astral phenomena were widely held to be connected with the birth of great men; see TDNT, I, p. 505.
11 Davies and Allison cite evidence that “at the turn of the era” there was a widespread “expectation of a world-ruler to come from Judea.”
12 The earlier expression was ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, while here we have ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ. The singular and the article seem more probably to refer to an astronomical “rising.”
13 προσχυνέω is used of homage to men (18:26), to God (4:10), to the devil (4:9), to idols (Acts 7:43), to the church at Philadelphia (Rev. 3:9), and to an angel (Rev. 22:8). Abbott notes that the dative is regular in LXX and the accusative in classical Greek: “the dative emphasizes the notion of ‘prostrating oneself to a person, idol, or God,’ while the accusative means ‘adore’ without this emphasis” (Johannine Grammar, 2019). The infinitive conveys the thought of purpose. The verb occurs 13 times in this Gospel, whereas Mark and Luke each have it twice (John uses it 11 times and Revelation 24 times). In Matthew the word mostly seems to signify “worship.”
14 The feminine πᾶσα is curious since Ἱεροσόλυμα is neuter. It may be that “city” is understood, but more likely the name is treated as feminine (as happens elsewhere occasionally).
15 Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London, 1967), pp. 160–81. He can say, “The chief priests permanently employed at the Temple formed a definite body who had jurisdiction over the priesthood and whose members had seats and votes on the council” (p. 180).
16 Grammatical Insights, p. 27.
17 For a discussion of the view that the place of origin of the Christ is completely unknown see my The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, 1971), pp. 411–12.
18 Matthew introduces the words with γέγραπται, where the perfect indicates the permanence of the record. Matthew has this verb 10 times, and except for 27:37 it is always in the form γέγραπται. Deissmann shows that the term is a legal one (BS, pp. 112–14, 249–50), but here the stress is rather on the fulfilment of what is written in Scripture.
19 Mounce comments, “All this time the religious leaders of Jerusalem know from their own Scriptures where the Messiah is to be born. But not even the visit of foreign dignitaries piques their curiosity enough to travel six miles to Bethlehem to find out if there is any truth in the report” (p. 11).
20 Calvin comments, “We must always observe the rule, that as often as the Apostles quote a testimony from Scripture, although they do not render it word for word, in fact may move quite a way from it, they adapt it suitably and appropriately to the case in hand.”
21 The leaders is τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν and a leader is the participle ἡγούμενος. There is not a great difference in meaning. NIV and REB have “rulers,” while GNB reads “leading cities.”
22 Matthew uses ὅστις more often than any other New Testament writer (29 times; next is Acts with 24). It often does not differ significantly from ὅς, but here a certain emphasis on the quality (who will be of such a sort) is probable.
23 Matthew makes a good deal of use of τότε; he has it 90 times out of its 159 New Testament occurrences (next most frequent is Acts with 21). It can refer to time past or to time future, but also “to introduce that which follows in time (not in accordance w. class. usage) then, thereupon” (BAGD, 2). BDF notes that “the use of τότε as a connective particle to introduce a subsequent event, but not one taking place at a definite time (‘thereupon’ not ‘at that time’), is unclassical” (459[2]). D. Senior cites McNeile for the information that this usage occurs 61 times in Matthew and is thus this Evangelist’s most frequent use. Senior points out that this may refer to the past or that it may be used “for current narrative” or “in reference to a future sequence of events” (L’ÉSM, p. 351, n. 28).
JB The Jerusalem Bible (London, 1966)
24 ἀχριβῶς, “with exactness, carefully” (AS).
25 χἀγώ. Matthew uses the expression 9 times, a total exceeded only by John (30) and 1 Corinthians (10; 2 Corinthians also has 9).
26 ὅπως introduces a clause of purpose.
27 παιδίον, diminutive of παῖς. Matthew is the most frequent New Testament user of the word with 18 occurrences.
28 οἱ δέ is the article used as a demonstrative pronoun “To indicate the progress of the narrative” (BAGD, I.3).
29 This is the conjunction ἕως (not the preposition) used with the aorist indicative, “until it stood still” (BAGD, I.1.a).
30 Matthew has no word here meaning place, simply οὗ, the genitive of ὅς, used as an adverb of place. Matthew has it 3 times.
31 M, I, p. 117.
32 σφόδρα occurs 7 times in Matthew out of its New Testament total of 11. It may be used with an adjective or a verb, here with the adjective μεγάλην.
33 οἰχία, which Matthew and Luke each have 25 times, more than anyone else in the New Testament (Mark is next with 18). Matthew also has οἶχος 10 times, which Luke has 33 times, with another 25 in Acts. AS notes that οἶχος “in Attic law denoted the whole estate, οἰχία the dwelling only,” but adds that the distinction is not always observed in late Greek. We can scarcely say more than that Matthew prefers οἰχία. Luke speaks of the child as in a manger (Luke 2:12, 16); the holy family may have moved, or the house may have been that of poor people with the animals living under the same roof as the family.
34 θησαυρός (9 times in Matthew out of 17 times in the New Testament) derives from τίθημι and signifies a place for putting things, for keeping them safe, then for what is kept safe, treasure.
35 χρηματίζω may have the basic meaning of “impart a revelation,” from which the idea of giving a name derives (see BAGD). Or the basic meaning may be “transact business,” from which there are two lines of development: the one refers to the anwering of questions in the course of business that leads to the concept of “answer as an oracle,” the other to getting a name (from one’s business activities; see AS). W. F. Howard held that two distinct words were involved (M, II, p. 265). See also B. Reicke, TDNY, IX, pp. 480–82
36 Philo, Flaccus 43.
37 This use of ἔως followed by ἄν and the aorist subjunctive is a construction used “to denote that the commencement of an event is dependent on circumstances” (BAGD, I.1.b).
38 BAGD notes as one meaning of εἰμί “to denote a sojourn, stay, reside” (I.3); that is the meaning here. ἐχεῖ occurs more often in Matthew than in any other New Testament book (28 times). It means “there,” which may signify “to that place” (as v. 22) or “in that place,” which is the meaning here.
39 μέλλω is used of futurity of various kinds, here to denote intention. “It is usually employed of an action which one intends to do, or of that which is certain, destined to take place” (Burton, MT, 72). Herod will certainly decide to look for the little child.
40 τοῦ with the infinitive normally denotes purpose, as here. Matthew uses the verb ἀπόλλυμι 19 times, a total exceeded only by Luke (27). On its use here and in 27:20 where the Jewish leaders persuade the mob to have Jesus killed, Gundry remarks, “what Herod failed to do with their help they succeeded in doing at a later time without his help.”
41 ἀναχωρέω is used in the sense “withdraw,” and is often used of avoiding danger: “The connotation of ‘taking refuge’ from some peril will suit most of the NT passages remarkably well” (MM). There is a rabbinic tradition that Jesus was in Egypt (Sanh. 107b).
42 On ἕως, “until,” BAGD remarks, “a historical event forms the boundary” (II.1.a). τελευτή occurs here only in the New Testament. It means “a finishing,” “an end,” and here, of course, refers to the “end of Herod,” that is, his death.
43 Matthew has ἐχάλεσα, LXX has μετεχάλεσα.
44 Commenting on Hosea 11:1 J. B. Hindley remarks, “The NT use (Mt. 2:15) indicates that as Israel had forfeited their privilege of divine sonship, the prophecy would have to be fulfilled by Another (cf. Rom. 11:29)” (NBCR in loc.). There are some resemblances to Numbers 23:22; 24:8, where the nation is said to be “out of Egypt.”
45 W. D. Davies can say, “Matthew sees in the history of Jesus a recapitulation of that of Israel” (SM, p. 78).
46 Kingsbury emphasizes the significance of the concept for Matthew (Structure, pp. 40–83). While he perhaps exaggerates a little (not all see a reference to the Son of God in every place where Kingsbury finds it), he makes it clear that the understanding of Jesus as uniquely the Son of God is a major concept throughout this Gospel.
47 The verb is θυμόω and the adverb λίαν (which Matthew uses 4 times). The aorist is ingressive with the meaning “he became angry.”
48 BAGD, ἀποστέλλω, 1.d.
49 ἀναιρέω, used here only in Matthew (Acts has it 19 times), means “take up, take away” and thus “do away with, murder.”
Stendahl K. Stendahl, in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. M. Black and H. H. Rowley (London, 1962)
50 Josephus, Ant. 17.181.
51 ὅριον (6 times in Matthew, 5 in Mark, 1 in Acts only in the New Testament) is always plural in the New Testament and signifies “boundaries.” This enables it to be used to signify the region surrounding a city.
52 His verb ἀχριβόω conveys the idea of exactness or accuracy. χατά is classified here as “of the norm, of similarity, homogeneity … of a standard of any other kind” (BAGD, II.5.a and γ).
53 Matthew has no equivalent of LXX’s θρήνου, while he has a πολύς that is lacking in LXX. The nouns are nominative in Matthew and genitive in LXX. He has the simple χλαίουσα, LXX the compound ἀποχλαιομένη. LXX reads ἐπὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτῆ and puts it later in the sentence than Matthew’s τὰ τέχνα αὐτῆς. LXX reads παύσασθαι for Matthew’s παραχληθῆναι. In this verb Matthew is closer to the Hebrew than is LXX, but elsewhere LXX has the advantage. But over all in this quotation “we have evidence favouring the evangelist’s knowledge of Hebrew” (Davies and Allison).
54 In Jeremiah there is “An imaginative prophetic touch: Rachel in her grave weeping afresh over the exile of her sons Joseph and Benjamin” (F. Cawley and A. R. Millard, NBCR on Jer. 31:15–17).
55 χλαυθμός is found in Matthew in 7 of its 9 New Testament occurrences. It describes a loud weeping. ὀδυρμός (again in the New Testament only in 2 Cor. 7:7) signifies lamentation, which would again be done loudly.
56 The use of θέλω points to an act of will; in the greatness of her grief Rachel is not willing to be consoled.
57 Robinson has some difficulty understanding the relevance of the quotation, and reasons “it is clear that it is the tradition which has led to the selection of the proof-text, not the proof-text which is responsible for the tradition.”
58 Turner sees the use of the present πορεύου “where the rule demands aor.” as “perhaps for politeness, as less peremptory” (M, III, p. 75).
59 Burton takes this as an example of the use of the present participle as an imperfect “to denote a continued action antecedent to that of the principal verb” (Burton, MT, 127). They kept seeking his life.
60 ψυχή, which Matthew uses 16 times, the most in any one book in the New Testament, has a wide range of meaning and is frequently used in the sense “soul.” Here, however, it clearly means this earthly life.
61 Unless it is what Turner calls “The allusive pl.,” which “is sometimes used when a class or variety rather than number is stressed” (M, III, pp. 25–26).
62 Matthew’s verb βασιλεύει strictly refers to the rule of a king. Herod left Judea, Idumea, and Samaria to him with the title “ king,” so Matthew’s statement is accurate for this time. But the Romans refused him this title until he proved worthy of it, which he never did. It is perhaps relevant also that Archelaus ruled “in the place of” (ἀντί) his father. Josephus uses the same verb of this man (Life 5).
63 μέρος means “part”; in the plural it can denote the parts of a country and thus “region, district.” With this meaning it is followed by a genitive.
64 Galilee is the Greek form of גָּלִיל, “circle, district,” and was used of “the district of the Gentiles”; “after the Exile the northern part of Palestine, bounded by Syria, Sidon, Tyre, Ptolemais, Carmel, the plain of Jezreel, and the Jordan” (BAGD derives these limits from Josephus, War 3.35–40).
65 The verb χατοιχέω means “settle down” and signifies a permanent dwelling as against sojourning (παροιχέω).
66 There is variation in the name: Ναζαρά, Ναζαρέτ, and Ναζαρέθ are all found, and in some MSS Ναζαράθ and Ναζαράτ. Howard comments, “The exact Greek name of this obscure little place, which was never heard of till the Gospel story was current, might easily fluctuate in oral and written sources” (M, II, p. 149).
67 ὅπως occurs 17 times in Matthew, the most in any one book. He uses it to bring out the sense of purpose, as here.
68 Matthew and John use the form Ναζωραῖος, which Luke has once in his Gospel and invariably in Acts. Mark always has Ναζαρηνός, and Luke has it twice. There is no difference in meaning. BAGD points out that “linguistically the transition fr. Ναζαρέτ to Ναζωραῖος is difficult … and it is to be borne in mind that Ναζωραῖος meant someth. different before it was connected w. Nazareth.” But the transition was certainly made, for there can be no doubt that in the New Testament the word means “from Nazareth.”
69 The most favored suggestions point to נצר (a “shoot” or “branch,” Isa. 11:1) and to נזיר (“Nazirite,” Num. 6:2). But, despite the confident assertions of many commentators, it is not easy to understand the connection between the branch or the Nazirite and the present passage. Cf. Hamann, “The word sounds a little like ‘Nazirite’, but the two should not be confused, for they are quite different in derivation and meaning.” Matthew’s own explanation is that the term refers to Nazareth, and for an understanding of his Gospel it is best to accept his explanation.
70 Cf. Knox, “No such prophecy has survived to us. But an obscure village is often regarded by its more important neighbours as typical of an unfashionable or provincial outlook; cf. Jn. 1.46. The prophecy (Is. 53.3) that our Lord would be despised by men was fulfilled when his contemporaries spoke of him scornfully as ‘a prophet from Nazareth’ (like our ‘wise men of Gotham’)” (The New Testament, p. 2, n. 4). Zahn has a somewhat similar view, but he takes ὅτι as causal, “because.” Lenski, Ridderbos, and Plummer also take it as causal.
71 “When Christians were referred to in Acts as the ‘Nazarene sect’ (24:5), the expression was meant to hurt” (Carson).
1 Cf. Davies, “not for the Baptist was it to call upon a select group to leave the world for the wilderness, as was the intent of the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Sect, but to broadcast a challenge” (SM, p. 33).
2 Matthew uses ἐχεῖνος 54 times in all, which is more than anyone else in the New Testament except John with 70.
3 The name is spelled Ἰωάννης in many MSS, but there is only one ν in others. In D the doubled ν is used in Matthew and Mark, but the single ν in Luke and Acts (so BDF 40). Matthew and Luke use the word for the Baptist 23 times each, which is more than anyone else. Matthew has the article 7 times and the nonarticular form 16 times, but there seems to be no difference in meaning.
4 In many baptisms in antiquity people baptized themselves, perhaps before witnesses. G. R. Beasley-Murray speaks of “the novelty of administering baptism to others, instead of leaving them to baptize themselves, as happened with all OT ablutions and in Jewish proselyte baptism” (NIDNTT, I, p. 150). Evidently John was distinguished by his activity during the process. The word is distinctive and is cited only from Christian writers apart from one reference in Josephus, where it also refers to John (see BAGD).
5 χηρύσσω is clearly connected with χῆρυξ, “a herald.” The Christian message was designated by the cognate χήρυγμα: it was an authoritative proclamation of a message that was given, not the bright thoughts that occurred to an individual preacher. Bonnard remarks, “When a χῆρυξ appeared people did not ask whether he was intelligent or original, but ‘What has taken place?’ or ‘What is going to happen?’ ”
NIV The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids, 1978)
6 See further Charles H. Scobie, John the Baptist (London, 1964), pp. 41–48. Since the Qumran community was located not far from this area, it has been speculated by some that John had been a member of some such community. His parents were old when he was born, it is known that some Essene communities brought up children, and there are many points of contact between what we know of the preaching of John and the teachings in the Qumran scrolls. It would fit what we know if John had been a member of such a community but then had rebelled and left it. But this is speculation. There is no real evidence (despite the confident statement of AB: “There would seem to be no reason to doubt that John grew up in Qumran”).
7 “He came with no theology; he came with no philosophy to discuss; he came with no new cult to introduce; he did not come to ask men to consider a position which they could accept or reject as they pleased; he came with the thundering voice of a great inspiration—“Repent” (Morgan).
8 Cf. J. Behm, “The change of opinion or decision, the alteration in mood or feeling, which finds expression in the terms, is not in any sense ethical. It may be for the bad as well as the good. … For the Greeks μετάνοια never suggests an alteration in the total moral attitude, a profound change in life’s direction, a conversion which affects the whole of conduct” (TDNT, IV, p. 979).
9 William L. Lane has a fine note on repentance in the rabbinic literature (The Gospel according to Mark [Grand Rapids, 1974], pp. 593–600). He finds that “The preaching of John and of Jesus belongs to the prophetic tradition in which there is a radical demand for a once-for-all commitment to God, a ‘turning’ of one’s whole self to the fulfilment of his will,” whereas “In the Pharisaic and later rabbinic tradition repentance is conceived in terms of legal observance, while provision for forgiveness is made through such repeated practices as prayer, fasting and almsgiving” (p. 600). This verdict should perhaps be modified in accordance with such rabbinic statements as Barclay has collected. But there is no doubt that the rabbis tended to think of individual sins that might be repented over rather than the wholehearted commitment to God that John and Jesus demanded.
10 γάρ (see on 1:20) gives the reason for the foregoing.
11 Matthew has βασιλεία 55 times, while Mark has it 20 times and Luke 46. No other book has it more than Revelation’s 9 times. Matthew is thus the most prolific user of the concept. He also uses οὐρανός, “heaven,” more than does anyone else (82 times; Revelation is next with 52 times); it may refer to a part of the atmosphere, the sky, or to the dwelling of God and the angels, or, as here, it may be a reverent way of referring to God. He mostly uses the word in the plural, except when he refers to “heaven and earth” (see on 5:18). But he seems to mean much the same by “heavens” as by “heaven.”
12 Cf. Schweizer, “ ‘Kingdom of heaven’ suggests both God and Christ as the Lord.”
13 Joel Marcus has defended this view in an article entitled “Entering into the Kingly Power of God” (JBL, 107 [1988], pp. 663–75).
14 But cf. Stonehouse, “Of all the instances where Matthew refers to the kingdom, only a few demand an exclusive reference to the coming of the kingdom at the consummation of the age” (Witness, p. 233).
LXX The Septuagint
15 BAGD thinks that we should take φωνή as no more than “hark!” (2.e).
GNB Good News Bible (London and New York, 1976)
16 Most scholars hold that if we follow the Massoretic accentuation we should understand the Hebrew as “A voice crying: ‘In the wilderness. …’ ” This was also the way the Qumran community took it as it applied the words to itself (1QS 8:13ff.). But LXX favors “A voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare. …’ ” Gundry holds that “the MT is probably unoriginal” here.
17 ὁδός is a Matthean word (22 times; Mark has it 16 times and Luke 20, with another 20 in Acts; no other book has it more than 4 times). The word means “a road, a highway” and then a journey (10:10). It is also used figuratively, as when Matthew refers to “the way of righteousness” (21:32) and the early Christians spoke of Christianity as “the Way” (e.g., Acts 9:2).
18 χύριος means the owner of possessions and thus the lord or master who has complete control. Hence it means someone in high position, and from this it comes to be used as a polite form of address (like our “sir”). It is commonly used for someone in the highest place of all (Festus referred to the emperor in this way, Acts 25:26). It is thus used as a designation of God, who is supreme over all, and it comes to be used of Jesus in like manner, especially in Acts and the Epistles. The word is used 718 times in the New Testament, so it is frequent on Christian lips. Of these, 80 occur in Matthew but only 18 in Mark; there are 103 in Luke and 107 in Acts, the most in any one book.
19 Path translates τρίβος (connected with τρίβω, “to rub”), which means “worn or beaten track” (LSJ). Such a path was bound to have potholes and would require leveling.
20 The verse begins with αὐτός, which is very difficult to translate (JB tries with “This man John”). It “is used for emphasis” (BDF 277[3]) and means “self, intensive, setting the individual off fr. everything else, emphasizing and contrasting,” and in the usage here, “the mng. even, very directs attention to a certain pers. or thing to the exclusion of the others, so that αὐ. can almost take on a demonstrative sense” (BAGD, 1 and 1.h). Howard suggests “John in his person” or “As to himself, John” or “Perhaps simply ‘John’ ” (M, II, p. 431).
21 Matthew’s word is ἔνδυμα, a term he uses 7 times; elsewhere in the New Testament it is found only in Luke 12:23. Bengel remarks, “Even the dress and food of John preached, being in accordance with his teaching and office.”
22 περίχωρος is an adjective meaning “round about”; it is often used as a substantive (with γῆ understood) for “the region round about” and, as here, for the people of the region round about. Josephus makes it clear that John had a large following and that he headed a significant movement (Ant. 18.116–19).
LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon, comp. by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1940)
23 The verb may be followed by ἐν as here, by εἰς (Mark 1:9), or by a simple dative (Mark 1:8).
24 This passage is absent from Mark but is closely paralleled in Luke 3:7–9. The introductory words are different: Matthew refers to Pharisees and Sadducees as coming to his baptism, while Luke speaks of the crowds who went out to be baptized. But what John said is almost identical in the two accounts. Matthew has 63 words, Luke 64 (he puts χαί before ἡ ἀξίνη in v. 9), and the only differences are Matthew’s singular in the words “fruit worthy” (v. 8) where Luke has the plural, and Matthew’s δόξητε (v. 9) where Luke has ἄρξησθε. Clearly they are following the same source closely, or one is using the other. Matthew is the only Evangelist who tells of John’s denunciation of the Pharisees and Sadducees (John has an inquiry from the Pharisees [John 1:19, 24], but not a denunciation).
25 ἐπί here indicates purpose (cf. Chamberlain, p. 121; BAGD, “of purpose, goal, result,” here “to have themselves baptised,” III.1.b.η). ἐπί can signify “against w. hostile intent” (BAGD, III.1.a.ε); if we take it in this way we can think of the Pharisees and Sadducees as coming to John with hostile intentions. But John’s words seem addressed to candidates for his baptism. βάπτισμα, found twice in Matthew and 20 times in the New Testament, is apparently used only in Christian writers (βαπτισμός is used elsewhere). It denotes John’s baptism as here, Christian baptism, and, figuratively, martyrdom.
26 Notice the string of imperfects telling of John’s dress (v. 4), his audience (v. 5), and his baptizing (v. 6). This sequence, leading up to the aorists in John’s address, “all contributes to a vivid picture against the background of which John utters his rebukes (v. 7 aor.)” (Turner, M, III, p. 66).
27 Allen sees in this address to the Pharisees and Sadducees a mark of genuineness, for “it is very unlikely that the Baptist should have spoken words like these to the common people who crowded to his baptism.”
28 The expression occurs 4 times in the New Testament, 3 in this Gospel, the other 2 being directed at the Pharisees (12:34; 23:33). It is often translated “viper,” and this may be right, though it sometimes apparently denotes “a constrictor snake” (LSJ).
29 ὑποδείχνυμι means “to show secretly” and then generally “to teach, make known” (see AS). Stendahl thinks that the meaning is “who gave you the idea…?” Teaching about coming wrath is clearly a warning.
30 For μέλλω see on 2:13.
31 ὀργή occurs 36 times in 12 different books. It is the usual word for the divine wrath, θυμός being used a number of times in Revelation but rarely elsewhere other than for human wrath. There is often little difference between them, but θυμός is a passionate outburst whereas ὀργή proceeds from a settled disposition. Translations like “retribution” (NEB) miss this. See further my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross3 (London and Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 179–84. On the present passage Gutzwiller remarks, “Not a generation is to pass before the temple will be destroyed, Jerusalem burned, and Israel driven out of its homeland.” Perhaps it is worth adding that among the rabbis it was held that “wrath” signifies Gehenna (e.g., B. Bat. 10a).
32 ποιέω is frequent in Matthew (84 times). It is used of trees producing fruit in 7:17 and elsewhere. Of course, the word is used of “making” in a variety of other senses as well.
33 AS derives ἄξιος from ἄγω in the sense “to weigh”; it comes to mean “of weight” and thus “worthy, befitting.”
34 Bruce comments on this singular, “Any one can do … acts externally good, but only a good man can grow a crop of right acts and habits.”
35 Cf. R. Levi: “In the Hereafter Abraham will sit at the entrance to Gehenna, and permit no circumcised Israelite to descend therein” (Gen. Rab. 48:8). Matthew has Ἀβραάμ 7 times, but in only this verse does it have the article. This singles him out as the Abraham, the great, well-known Abraham.
36 δοχέω occurs 10 times in Matthew and Luke, the most in any New Testament book. It derives from δόχος, “opinion,” and thus has the meaning “be of opinion, think.” Moulton compares this with Luke’s version; in Matthew “we find δόξητε for ἄρξησθε, ‘do not presume to say,’ which is thoroughly idiomatic Greek, and manifestly a deliberate improvement of an original preserved more exactly by Luke” (M, I, p. 15).
37 δύναμαι is an important word in all four Gospels (Matthew has it 27 times, Mark 33, Luke 26, and John 36); outside the Gospels it is used much less freely. All the Evangelists are interested in what is and what is not possible. They often speak of God’s ability to do great things, as here. The placing of the verb first in its clause puts emphasis on it.
38 There is a play on words: in Aramaic the word for “stones” is similar in sound to that for “sons.”
39 Moule views this as an example of the “pregnant” sense of πρός with the accusative, “seemingly combining ‘linear’ motion with ‘punctiliar’ rest on arrival” (IBNTG, p. 53). RSV and NEB try to bring this out with “to the root” (NRSV alters this to “at the root”). However we translate it, there is the thought that the axe is not only available but that it is so placed that an assault on the trees is imminent.
40 Lenski sees the significance as “Not even a stump will be left; judgment will be complete.”
41 “πᾶς before an anarthrous noun means every in the sense of any; not every individual, like ἕχαστος, but any you please” (M, III, p. 199).
42 Good is χαλός; Matthew uses it more than anyone (21 times; next is 1 Timothy with 16 occurrences). If the word can be differentiated from ἀγαθός, it will refer to “goodliness as manifested in form: ἀ. to inner excellence” (AS, sub ἀγαθός); it may thus point to fruit which can be seen as good.
Filson F. V. Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (London, 1960)
43 Matthew uses μέν 20 times, a total exceeded only in Acts (47) and 1 Corinthians (21); thus it is a Matthean word. He always follows it with δέ, marking a contrast brought out in the second clause. Here he places the Baptist in marked contrast with Jesus.
44 ἐν ὕδατι. Sometimes the simple dative is used to indicate the material in which baptism takes place (as Mark 1:8); it may also be εἰς + accusative (Mark 1:9).
45 Baptism is often followed by εἰς, but only here with a reference to repentance. We might expect the construction to denote purpose (“with a view to”), but this is surely not what is meant, for repentance should precede baptism. More likely it means “because of” (so DM, p. 104); baptism is the seal that marks repentance (cf. Bonnard). Elsewhere baptism εἰς is “into the name” (28:19), “into the Jordan” (Mark 1:9), “into Christ” (Rom. 6:3), “into his death” (Rom. 6:3), “into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13), and “into” Moses (1 Cor. 10:2).
46 Cf. MM, “The firmly established vernacular use determines the meaning of Mt 311 as ‘whose sandals I am not worthy to take off’: the phrase is an excellent example of Mt’s skilful abbreviation, for one word fully expresses all that Mk 17 tells us in four” (sub βαστάζω).
47 SBk, I, p. 121. In its present form the saying dates from c. A.D. 250, but it is probably much older. Daube (p. 266) thinks that Matthew is differentiating carrying the sandals (which a disciple might do) from taking them off (which was the task of a slave). But this is surely “too ingenious,” as Davies and Allison say.
48 ἐν is used of baptism “in” the Holy Spirit just as it was used of John’s baptism “in” water. H. J. Flowers argues that we should take πνεῦμα here in the sense of “wind”; he thinks that John is predicting a judgment of wind and fire (ET, LXIV [1952–53], pp. 155–56). E. Schweizer supports this view (ET, LXV [1953–54], p. 29). But in the New Testament πνεῦμα consistently refers to the Holy Spirit, and no adequate reason is given for allowing an exception here.
49 L. W. Barnard suggests that the background to John’s preaching was Iranian eschatology, which teaches that all, good and bad alike, are destined to be immersed in a fiery stream. “John’s water baptism is then the pledge that the individual is prepared to face this baptism. The man who immerses himself in the Jordan pre-enacts his own Judgment” (JTS, n.s. VIII [1957], p. 107). This is an interesting suggestion, but there is no reason for thinking that John’s teaching and practice derived from Iranian eschatology.
REB The Revised English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge, 1989)
50 διαχαθαρίζω seems not to occur anywhere but here and as a variant reading in Luke 3:17. ἅλων, “threshing floor,” is found in the New Testament only here and in Luke 3:17.
51 χαί is used regularly simply as a way of connecting clauses, and this may be its significance here. But it may also be used as “explicative; i.e., a word or clause is connected by means of χαί w. another word or clause, for the purpose of explaining what goes before it, and so, that is, namely” (BAGD, 3); “that is” would make excellent sense here.
52 ἄσβεστος, again in the New Testament only in Mark 9:43; Luke 3:17, signifies “inextinguishable”; it seems to have much the same meaning as αἰώνιος in 18:8; 25:41.
53 αὐτοῦ is repeated three times, “his hand,” “his threshing floor,” and “his wheat” (in some MSS also “his barn”; this should, however, probably be rejected). But there is no “his” with the chaff.
54 To the Jordan is ἐπὶ τ.Ἰ., an unusual construction (the verb is followed by ἐπί elsewhere in the New Testament only in a variant reading in Luke 22:52). But ἐπί may be used “of motion that comes close to someth. or someone to, up to, in the neighborhood of, on” (BAGD, III.1.a.γ), which will be the sense of it here.
55 τοῦ with the infinitive usually, though not invariably, conveys the notion of purpose. Matthew has the construction 6 times (2:13; 3:13; 11:1; 13:3; 21:32; 24:45); it is much more common in Paul and in Luke. “It belongs … to a higher stratum of Koine” (BDF 400).
56 The imperfect διέχωλυεν is conative, “tried to stop.” Howard sees the διά as perfective, “John was for stopping him altogether” (M, II, p. 302).
57 Unless he had in mind that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (v. 11), as McNeile and Bonnard, for example, think; John certainly needed that baptism. He may be saying in effect, “I need your baptism of the Spirit and fire, but you do not need my baptism of repentance in water.”
58 In Matthew the verb ἀποχρίνομαι is almost always followed by a verb of saying (here εῖπεν; there are exceptions at 15:23; 22:46; 26:62), a Hebraistic way of carrying on a narrative. Moulton speaks of it as one of his “pure Hebraisms” (M, I, p. 14; cf. also M, II, p. 453). KJV translates both words, here “answering said,” but modern translations generally content themselves with “answered.” Usually the expression is a reply to a question, but it may be used when no question has been asked (e.g., 8:8) or in carrying on a discourse (11:25; 12:38, etc.).
59 διχαιοσύνη occurs 7 times in Matthew as against 3 in all the other Gospels put together. Clearly it is an important concept for him. But the big user of “righteousness” in the New Testament is Paul with 57 examples. Paul uses the word for the “right standing” that believers have before God when they are saved in Christ. This, of course, is the basic New Testament teaching, but the word can also be used of the conduct befitting one who is “right” with God. See further my The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross3 (London and Grand Rapids, 1965), chs. VIII and IX.
BAGD Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and aug. by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker from the 5th edn. (Chicago, 1979)
60 Hill comments “by submitting to John’s baptism, Jesus acknowledged this standard of righteousness as valid both for himself and for others, and affirms that he will realize and establish it (‘fulfil’) as the will of God in the Kingdom.” But it is not easy to see how all this can be gotten out of the word “righteousness” and the fact of the baptism.
61 Such a reference is understood by A. E. Garvie (The Expositor, VI, 5 [1902], p. 375), O. Cullmann (Baptism in the New Testament [London, 1950], p. 18), C. E. B. Cranfield (SJT, VIII [1955], p. 54), and others. Cf. Albright and Mann, “ ‘Righteousness’ must be seen as the whole purpose of God for his people, and not … as a moral quality only” (AB). It may also be relevant that in the Gospel tradition Jesus speaks of his death as a baptism (Mark 10:38; Luke 12:50).
62 Cf. F. D. Coggan, “But, Jesus points out in this pregnant saying, the purpose of His Advent and Ministry will never be fulfilled unless He identifies Himself with those He came to rescue” and again, “Here is God with us. ‘Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient even unto’—Baptism, that symbol of death without which there can be no Resurrection-life” (ET, LX [1948–49], p. 258). Hamann comments, “in being baptized, the Messiah, God’s Son, shows his solidarity with mankind whom he came to save, a sinner (by imputation) among sinners. But, at the same time, as God’s agent for salvation, he brings it about that people have the righteousness God demands of them, but which they themselves could not produce or effect for themselves.”
63 He uses the preposition ἀπό (which he uses 113 times), whereas Mark has ἐχ (Mark 1:10). But Matthew has no dislike for ἐχ, for he uses it 82 times, so he is not simply avoiding Mark’s preposition. He may, of course, use ἀπό to indicate “more clearly Jesus’ complete departure from the waters of the Jordan” than does Mark’s ἐχ (Gundry). Hendriksen, Ridderbos, and others connect εὐθύς with the opening of the heavens rather than the going out from the water (cf. Moffatt, “the moment he rose out of the water, the heavens opened”), but the word order makes this very difficult to hold. For the opening of heaven cf. Ezekiel 1:1.
64 αὐτῷ is read by most MSS but omitted by א* B syrs.c sah Ir, a strong combination which may mean that the shorter text is original. But, as Metzger points out, it is also possible that αὐτῷ was there from the first but was omitted by copyists who did not consider it necessary.
65 The article is omitted before πνεῦμα and before θεοῦ in some MSS, but the meaning does not appear to be affected.
66 Calvin points out that the Spirit “is diffused everywhere and fills heaven and earth,” and that in any case he is invisible. Thus “John does not see the essence of the Spirit, which does not fall within the sight of the eyes … but he sees the form of a dove, under which God revealed the presence of His Spirit.”
67 περιστερά (3 times in Matthew and John, 10 times in the New Testament) is usually translated “dove,” but many versions have “pigeon” in Luke 2:24. E. W. G. Masterman says that seven varieties of the Columbae are found in Palestine, and further that “Dove” is “a favourite name of affection” and that “to-day it is one of the commonest names given to girls by Eastern Jewish parents” (DB, p. 221).
68 “The dove which, fr. the viewpoint of natural science in ancient times, has no bile, was for the early Christians the symbol of all kinds of virtues” (BAGD, sub περιστερά). Thus it symbolized harmlessness (10:16) and helplessness (Ps. 74:19). This association with virtue may have led to the view that it was a useful symbol for the Spirit, but this can be no more than speculation. Davies and Allison list 16 possibilities, so there is no unanimity on the matter.
69 See the passages in SBk, I, pp. 123–24.
70 This is sometimes said to be a Bath Qol (“the daughter of the Voice”), an expression the rabbis used for an echo of the divine voice at a time when direct inspiration had ceased. But this is not an echo; it is the voice of God himself.
71 ἀγαπητός occurs 3 times in Matthew, all referring to Christ. Its 61 occurrences are spread pretty widely through the New Testament, but the greatest user of the word is Paul with 27.
Allen W. C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (Edinburgh, 1907)
72 The aorist is unusual in such a sentence (we would have expected the perfect). Burton has a long note in which he surveys the possibilities and says, “It may be described, therefore, as an Inceptive Aorist equivalent to an English Perfect, and may be rendered I have become well pleased. … The Aorist affirms the becoming pleased and leaves the present pleasure to be suggested” (Burton, MT, 55). Filson and others think that it refers to approval of Jesus’ submission to baptism.
73 I. Howard Marshall examines the saying in its Marcan form (which differs from that in Matthew only by the use of the second person rather than the third) and concludes, “it can be claimed with a fair degree of probability that these three passages [i.e., Gen. 22:2; Ps. 2:7; Isa. 42:1) must be regarded as the background for its interpretation, and that a denial of the presence of ideas from either Ps. ii.7 or Isa. xlii.1 is to be rejected” (NTS, XV [1968–69], p. 335). Vincent Taylor comments on “the striking and original combination of ideas in i.11. Here the idea of the Messianic Son is combined with that of the Servant, and … this fusion … is to be traced to the mind and experience of Jesus rather than to the Evangelist” (The Gospel according to St. Mark [London, 1959], p. 162).
Melinsky H. Melinsky, Matthew (London, 1965)
74 Cf. Ryle, “It was the whole Trinity, which at the beginning of the creation said, ‘Let us make man’; it was the whole Trinity again, which at the beginning of the Gospel seemed to say, ‘Let us save man.’ ”
1 Plummer points out that had the early Christians made up the story “they would have imagined quite different temptations for Him, as various legends of the saints show.” P. Pokorny misses this when he says, “the dialogue was composed by a learned Christian” (NTS, 20 [1973–74], p. 125); he cites no evidence that “learned Christians” of the time ever composed stories like this one. Plummer also makes the point that “the temptations assume that our Lord could work miracles. … It is incredible that any one should have told such a story about himself to persons who knew that he had never done any mighty work.” We could make the same point by reflecting that turning stones into bread is not a temptation to us; it is a temptation only to someone who knows he can do it.
2 “We find him struggling with the question: Can it really be that I am the Son of God? … ‘Why not satisfy yourself once and for all?’ tempts Satan” (J. A. T. Robinson, Twelve New Testament Studies [London, 1962], p. 55).
3 France objects to calling this “the temptation of Jesus,” arguing that πειράζω in this Gospel always means testing, not tempting; he understands the episode as “The Testing of God’s Son.”I am not sure that his linguistics will stand up. When the participle of the verb is used in this very incident to refer to Satan (v. 3), are we to think that Satan was no more than a neutral applier of tests? H. Seesemann surely has the rights of it when he says: “The πειράζων … attempts to turn Jesus from the task which God has laid upon Him in His baptism, and therewith to render His mission impossible. He exerts himself in every possible way to deflect Jesus from obedience to God” (TDNT, VI, p. 34). Bonnard says that of the verbs tenter and éprouver, “il faut préférer ici le premier,” and he emphasizes that Satan was intent not on testing Jesus but on overcoming him. Matthew surely means that the evil one was there in the role of a persuader to do wrong; he was tempting Jesus. It was a test, certainly. But it was also a temptation. France is on surer ground when he denies that this occasion “was the sum-total of Jesus’ struggle against Satanic suggestions”; temptations are part of life, and Jesus experienced them accordingly (cf. Heb. 4:15).
4 W. Lane comments, “it is the same Spirit who descended upon Jesus at his baptism who now forces him to penetrate more deeply into the wilderness” (The Gospel according to Mark [Grand Rapids, 1974], p. 59).
5 The simple infinitive does not always indicate purpose, but it can do so and this seems to be its meaning here. Turner sees a “simple infin. of purpose” (M, III, p. 134).
6 The verb is πειράζω (in Matthew 6 times). Cf. Trench, “The melancholy fact that men so often break down under temptation gives to πειράζειν a predominant sense of putting to the proof with the intention and the hope that the ‘proved’ may not turn out ‘approved,’ but ‘reprobate’; may break down under the proof; and thus the word is constantly applied to the solicitations and suggestions of Satan … which are always made with such a malicious hope, he himself bearing the name of ‘The Tempter’ ” (p. 281). C. F. D. Moule says, “the New Testament seems to stand alone, up to its date, in widening the use of the peirazein-group to embrace deliberate enticement to sin” (RThR, XXXIII [1974], p. 70). But the word group is so widened, as its application to Satan shows.
7 H. Seesemann sees the essence of the temptations as “that Jesus should be unfaithful to His Messianic task” (TDNT, VI, p. 34).
8 διάβολος, which derives from διαβάλλω, = 1. to throw across, 2. to slander, and thus to accuse. The noun seems to have meant “calumniator,” “accuser.” This being is consistently opposed to God and Christ, and indeed to the best interests of people.
9 νηστεύω occurs 8 times in Matthew, the most in any one book. It denotes abstaining from food and perhaps mourning, as an accompaniment of prayer and for other religious reasons. The only fast commanded in the Bible is that for the Day of Atonement, but by New Testament times the Jews fasted much more often; many pious people fasted twice a week (cf. Luke 18:12). The participle assumes the fast, and Matthew takes it up from there.
JB The Jerusalem Bible (London, 1966)
10 For some reason Matthew has an overwhelming preponderance of the occurrences of προσέρχομαι; he has it 52 times out of its New Testament total of 87, more than the rest of the New Testament put together (next highest is Luke with 10 in both his Gospel and Acts), The word may be used of approaching a deity in worship (e.g., Heb. 4:16), but in Matthew it is mostly the literal use, as here. This Evangelist does not often use it for Jesus approaching people; mostly he uses it of people who come to him. J. Schneider says that in this Gospel the verb “is used to give us a vivid picture of the men surrounding Jesus. The circle of powers, men, groups and classes which came to Jesus with differing concerns is brought out with astonishing clarity” (TDNT, II, p. 683). Davies and Allison may well be right in holding that, as Matthew uses it, the verb “may serve the function of emphasizing Jesus’ majesty.”
11 εἰ with the indicative. Matthew has εἰ 55 times in all, but the simple εἰ as here (i.e., without such an addition as μή) 35 times, which is the most in any New Testament book. On the form of the conditional cf. BDF 371(1): “Εἰ with the indicative of all tenses denotes a simple conditional assumption with emphasis on the reality of the assumption (not of what is being assumed); the condition is considered ‘a real case.’ ” J. L. Boyer has examined about 300 examples of the construction in the New Testament and concludes that in about half of them the condition is undetermined (GTJ, 2 [1981], pp. 75–114). He construes the meaning of the construction to be “If this … then that. … It is saying that the result (the apodosis) is as sure as the condition (the protasis)” (p. 82). Lenski comments, “While he uses a condition of reality … the ‘if’ really questions the fact, for Satan demands that Jesus furnish the proof.” Hendriksen takes the reality seriously, translating “Since you are God’s Son. …”
12 There is no article, but this is a case where Colwell’s rule applies that the preceding predicate is definite even though it lacks the article. The expression means “the,” not “a,” Son of God. See the note in my The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, 1971), p. 77, n. 15.
NRSV The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville, 1990)
Knox R. Knox, The Holy Bible: A Translation from the Latin Vulgate (London, 1955)
13 Become renders the verb γίνομαι, which is used of “things which change their nature, to indicate their entering a new condition” (BAGD, I.4).
14 Hill sees the temptation as that of “breaking the vow of fasting,” but this goes beyond the text; Matthew says nothing about a “vow.”
Glover R. Glover, A Teacher’s Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew (London, 1956)
15 δέ.
16 ἐπί is the use for “that upon which a state of being, an action, or a result is based … live on bread” (BAGD, II.1.b.γ).
17 Buttrick brings out the point: “The famished Bedouin, finding treasure in the desert, cried, ‘Alas, it is only diamonds.’ Man in his deepest hunger always cries, ‘Alas, it is only bread.’ He lives by bread, but not mainly by bread. The bread is the means, not the end.”
18 ἀλλά, which Matthew uses 37 times, is commonly employed in the New Testament for a strong contrast.
19 Matthew has the verb ἵστημι 21 times but the transitive use as here only 4 times; it is not characteristic.
20 πτερύγιον (found only here and in Luke 4:9 in the New Testament) is a diminutive of πτέρυξ, “wing,” but our trouble is that we do not know which “little wing” was named in this way. Robertson was in no doubt: “Here the whole point lies in the article, the wing of the Temple overlooking the abyss” (p. 756). Josephus speaks of the Royal Portico overlooking the ravine: “the height of the portico standing over it was so very great that if anyone looked down from its rooftop, combining the two elevations, he would become dizzy and his vision would be unable to reach the end of so measureless a depth” (Ant. 15.412). There was a rabbinic view that the land of Israel was higher than other lands and that the temple was the highest place in Israel (Qidd. 69a).
21 Many translations take ὅτι as recitative, introducing the quotation, but γέγραπται is not followed by ὅτι elsewhere in this narrative and it does occur at this point in the Psalm.
22 μήποτε may be an emphatic form of μή, but here it is a conjunction denoting purpose. Matthew uses it more than does any other New Testament writer (8 times).
23 This is Matthew’s first use of φημί, a verb he employs 17 times in all. The meaning “say, declare” is much the same as that of λέγω.
24 πάλιν means “back”; the word can signify “back to a previous state” and thus “again.” There may be some adversative force here; thus BAGD gives the meaning “on the other hand.”
25 In that case “Religion would become a divine service done to man, not a human service done to God” (Gutzwiller).
26 Luke’s account diverges considerably from that of Matthew. Of the words in this verse Luke has only 5, while in the next verse Luke has 19 words not in Matthew, though of Matthew’s 11 words 7 are in Luke.
27 ὑψηλός, used again of a mountain in 17:1, may mean “exalted” in the sense of “haughty,” but clearly here it is altitude that is in mind. λίαν (see on 2:16) intensifies the idea: it was not simply a “high” mountain, but a “very high” one. Cf. the instruction to Baruch, “Go up to the top of this mountain, and all countries of this earth will pass before you, as well as the likeness of the inhabited world …” (2 Bar. 76:3).
28 δείχνυμι (3 times in Matthew) may mean “point out, show” in the sense of literal sight or “explain” in the sense of making the meaning clear.
29 The condition is introduced by ἐάν, which usually takes the subjunctive (as here) and does not assume anything about the fulfilment or otherwise of the condition. Satan leaves it open whether he thinks Jesus will do as he suggests: he simply makes the promise of what will happen if he does.
30 πίπτω is a Matthean word (19 times, a total exceeded only by Revelation, a book with a great deal about worship, with 23). The verb may mean no more than descending suddenly from a higher to a lower point, but it may also be used in the sense “fall down, throw oneself to the ground as a sign of devotion, before high-ranking persons or divine beings” (BAGD, 1.b.a). προσχυνέω was “used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or someth. holy” (BAGD). See further on 2:2.
31 ὑπάγω is mostly transitive in classical Greek, meaning “bring under” or the like, but in the New Testament it is predominantly intransitive with the meaning “go, go away” (BAGD).
32 There are significant differences from LXX, but the quotation is almost identical in Luke, even though in the narrative as a whole the two Gospels have many differences.
33 λατρεύω, “to serve,” is derived from λάτρις, “a hired servant” (AS, who notes that the verb properly means “to serve for hire, LXX (as sometimes in cl.), always of service to the deity on the part of both priests and people”; sub λειτουργέω). λατρεύω may be used of either priests or people, but it is always the service of God; λειτουργέω denotes the service of priests (in the New Testament that of apostles, prophets, and other officers of the church), not laypeople, but it may be the service of God or of people.
34 The only words common to Matthew and Luke in this verse are “the devil.” The two Evangelists have their own ways of rounding off the story.
35 διαχονέω originally meant the service of a table waiter, and this kind of thing may be meant by REB’s “attended to his needs” (Gundry makes it explicit: “The ministering of angels to Jesus includes the serving of food”); others understand the service to be more general, translating “helped him” (GNB) or “attended him” (NIV). The imperfect points to an ongoing service.
36 παραδίδωμι occurs 31 times in Matthew, the most in any one book. In addition to meanings connected with arrests, the word may mean “commit, commend,” and, when used of oral or written tradition, “hand on.”
37 “When Jesus went to Galilee, his move was an answer to Herod; he took up in Herod’s territory the work which Herod had tried to stop by arresting John; he began his ministry with a challenge rather than with a retreat” (Filson).
Barclay William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1958)
38 The form Ναζαρά (indeclinable) is found here and in Luke 4:16. It is a variant of “Nazareth” (see on 2:23).
39 Fenton comments, “the rejection of God’s word in one place leads to the preaching of it in another place; and in particular … the rejection of it by the Jews leads to its offer to the Gentiles.”
40 IDB, I, p. 248.
41 BAGD points out that the accusative ὁδόν, “following the Hebr. דֶּרֶךְ, and contrary to Gk. usage … is used as a prep. toward” (1.a). It means “seawards” rather than referring to a road leading to the sea (M, III, p. 247).
NIV The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids, 1978)
42 Gundry comments, “The description of Galilee as ‘of the Gentiles’ provides the key point in the quotation. Though Jesus will minister in Galilee mainly to Jews, this description makes that ministry prefigure his disciples’ wider mission to Gentiles.”
43 Josephus tells us that Aristobulus I defeated the Itureans, annexed a large part of their land, and compelled the inhabitants to be circumcised (Ant. 13.318). The Itureans ruled Galilee, and thus the Galileans were included in the process of Judaizing. B. Reicke remarks, “Although the larger cities remained Hellenistic, the general population kept the Jewish laws that Aristobulus had forced upon them” (The New Testament Era [London, 1969], p. 69).
44 Davies brings evidence to show that “Galilean Judaism can be differentiated from Judaean Judaism even among the rabbis. … R. Johannan b. Zakkai, for example, found the spiritual climate in Galilee much less congenial than in Jerusalem” (SM, p. 450).
45 There is no record of Jesus visiting places like Sepphoris or Tiberias, centers where Hellenistic culture flourished. With the church so strongly Gentile when the Evangelists wrote, it is unlikely that such visits would have been ignored if they had taken place. “There is no trace of a planned effort to reach the Gentiles who were all about him. The mission to Gentiles had roots in the teaching and attitudes of Jesus, but its actual inauguration waited until the Apostolic Age” (G. E. Wright and F. V. Filson, eds., The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible [London, 1946], p. 86).
46 λαός often refers to Israel the people of God, but here the reference seems to be wider than that to one nation. Matthew is surely referring to all in darkness, be they Jew or Gentile.
47 Hendriksen points out that when darkness is used figuratively it mostly means delusion, depravity, or despondency; he holds that while all three may be in mind here, the emphasis is on the last mentioned.
48 ἀπὸ τότε also occurs elsewhere; some regard its occurrences in 16:21 and 26:16 as marking the major divisions of the Gospel. Carson is probably right in rejecting this, but the expression does lead into something significantly new.
49 The redundant ἄρχω (which Matthew has 13 times) is an Aramaism. Turner notes that, in passages common to Matthew and Mark, our first Evangelist has reduced the number of examples from 26 to 6 (M, IV, p. 32). But here he has added it to Mark, so it is surely meaningful: it marks the beginning of a new state of affairs, while χηρύσσω (see on 3:1) characterizes it as basically concerned with proclamation. McNeile remarks that in Matthew it “is never quite superfluous” (as sometimes in Mark or Luke); “it either describes the beginning of a continuous action or marks a fresh start or phase in the narrative.”
50 We should not miss the point that Jewish teachers did not normally “call” their disciples. We read in the Mishnah, “Rabban Gamaliel said: Provide thyself with a teacher and remove thyself from doubt” (’Abot 1:16). It was something new that Jesus took the initiative and called those whom he would have as disciples. Cf. Davies, “there was a marked difference between a life dedicated to study at the feet of a Rabbi, in which the aim was an increasing knowledge of the Law, which would eventually ‘qualify’ a student himself to become a rabbi, and the life of the Christian disciple (often not markedly studious by nature!) called to personal loyalty to Jesus in His way” (Sermon, p. 133).
51 For Matthew’s interest in brothers see on 1:2. He manages to use the word brother 4 times in verses 18 and 21.
52 Matthew has 89 words and Mark 82, of which 54 are common. This points to a good deal of resemblance, and indeed Fenton can say that there are “almost no alterations.” But when we allow for the verbatim words of Jesus and bear in mind that the story could scarcely be told without the names and words like “brother” and “father,” the differences are not inconsiderable. Matthew may well have based his account on that of Mark, but he has made significant alterations.
53 Bruce comments, “we naturally postulate previous knowledge in explanation. But all indications point to the uniquely impressive personality of Jesus.”
54 The ἀμφίβληστρον (which I have seen in use near Sidon) was a circular net with weights on the circumference and lines from the circumference to an opening in the middle. The net was thrown out so that it fell flat on the water, the weights took it to the bottom, the lines were pulled to draw in the circumference, and any fish underneath the net were trapped.
55 ἁλιεύς is connected with ἅλς, “the sea.” The word occurs again in the New Testament only in verse 19; Mark 1:16, 17; and Luke 5:2.
56 His imperative is δεῦτε, an adverb used as the plural of another adverb, δεῦρο. Matthew uses it 6 times out of 12 in the New Testament.
57 BAGD cites Diogenes Laertius (3rd cent. A.D.) for the use of the metaphor of hunting with the meaning “catch someone for one’s point of view” (sub ἁλιεύς). This may be relevant, though it is from a later time as well as employing a different metaphor. But clearly the fishermen understood what Jesus meant.
58 εὐθύς indicates immediate action. It is a favorite word of Mark’s (42 times); Matthew has it 7 times, which is second only to Mark’s total. Matthew frequently omits the word in matter he shares with Mark, but here he retains it.