Jesus Commissions His Representatives (10:1-4)

Jesus Commissions His Representatives (10:1-4)

Cf. Mk 3:16-19; 6:7; Lk 6:13-16; 9:1; Acts 1:13.

Jesus authorizes the Twelve to expel demons and heal (10:1).¹ Jesus assigns the Twelve to carry on his own mission of healing (9:35) because the laborers were so few (9:37); he is multiplying the laborers. The text explicitly recounts that Jesus’ mission included not only proclaiming the kingdom but also demonstrating it (see comment on 4:23-25). The model of training other miracle-workers fits the ancient Israelite model of prophetic guilds: Elijah trained Elisha and also apparently led a revival of wilderness prophets (cf. 2 Kings 2:3-18); Samuel also was training a prophetic movement that had not existed when God first began calling him (1 Sam 3:1; 19:20-24).

The number of disciples signifies a mission to Israel (10:1). That the title “twelve” remained even after Judas’s death (1 Cor 15:5) suggests a representative function for the number (Jeremias 1971: 234; Sanders 1985: 99-101). Twelve naturally could symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel, and many contemporary interpreters understood other references to “twelve” in this manner (perhaps even the twelve signs of the zodiac! — e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:5; Pesiq. R. 4:1; 29/30A:6; cf. Jos. War 5.217). The Qumran community included a leadership of twelve special officers, a number that comported well with their vision of themselves as the true remnant of Israel (1QS 8.1-2; F. F. Bruce 1969: 76). Although Jesus had many disciples, he apparently selected a core group of twelve (e.g., Mk 3:16; 1 Cor 15:5) to make a statement similar to that of the Qumran community (F. F. Bruce 1969: 75; Sanders 1985: 104): Jesus’ disciples were the leaders of the true remnant of God’s people (19:28). The spiritual community built on this foundation of the twelve leaders of Israel’s remnant represents the true heir of God’s ancient promises.²

Jesus chose a band of disciples that was in some respects diverse to reach all Israel (10:2-4). Ancient literature provides many lists of heroes or those who do exploits (e.g., 2 Sam 23:8-39; 1 Chron 25:1-7; Hom. Il. 3.161-242; Ap. Rhod. 1.23-228); more critically, lists of disciples seem to have been conventional (though not mandatory) in Jewish literature (Davies and Allison 1991: 150 cite m. ʾAbot 2:8; Diog. Laert. 8.46) and may stem from an early stage of the tradition, despite variations in our extant sources. For effectiveness in reaching Israel, Jesus naturally limited his disciples to free male Jews; perhaps due to the pool of available disciples, he also seems to have selected mainly Galileans. Of the roughly half his disciples whose occupations we know, all were drawn from middle-income professions in which less than 10 percent of Jewish Palestine’s population engaged (fishermen and tax gatherers), perhaps to give emphasis to more socially prominent individuals who were nevertheless unassociated with any religious or social elite, hence who would be respected by most people. The Gospels may also report only those more noteworthy professions (a tax gatherer and fishers). (Later commentators often emphasized instead the lack of aristocratic presence, thus that he chose common people — Euseb. P.E. 3.7 — and uneducated people — Origen First Principles 4.1.2; Euseb. P.E. 3.7; ACCS, 18-19.)

Despite the commonalities among the disciples, however, the list also indicates some diversity. That Jesus included in the same band of disciples a “tax gatherer” on one hand (10:3) and on the other possibly a revolutionary, but certainly one zealous for Israel’s ancestral law (10:4), is striking. That Simon was a “revolutionary” is not absolutely clear. Luke’s “Zealot” translates Matthew’s and Mark’s Kananaios, an Aramaic word for “zealous one” spelled in Greek letters.³ But whereas “zealot” could mean a particular kind of “revolutionary” to writers after the first Jewish revolt (66-70), it is doubtful whether most people employed the term this way in the earliest period of the church when Aramaic was the primary language of faith (Horsley and Hanson 1985: passim; Davies and Allison 1991: 156; cf. Witherington 1990: 97-98). Whether the nickname implies exceptional zeal for the law (no one else in the list receives the title) or some sort of revolutionary patriotism (or social banditry),⁴ however, a “zealot” would hardly be predisposed toward favorable relations with a tax gatherer.

At least four of the other disciples were fishermen (4:18-22). The mention of Peter first suggests his influential position (cf. 16:16-17).⁵ The meaning of “Iscariot” is unclear,⁶ but the title’s most important original function among the disciples was probably to distinguish Judas from another of Jesus’ disciples (Lk 6:16; Jn 14:22; Acts 1:13), though he may bear the name “Thaddeus” in Matthew’s list for this reason (following Mark; also Jeremias 1971: 232). Hebrew burial inscriptions attest that biblical names were common in this period, hence Jesus’ circle included three persons named James (literally “Jacob”), four Simons, three Judases, and so forth (Dalman 1929: 28).⁷ Both nicknames (e.g., p. Soṭa 9:13, §2; Dion. Hal. 7.2.4; Hachlili and Killebrew 1983b) and double names (e.g., CIJ 1:24, §30; 2:111, §879; CPJ 2:143, §261; Leon 1960: 107, 111; Acts 1:23; Wilkinson 1978: 47-48) were fairly common.

The Mission of Jesus’ Agents (10:5-15)

Cf. Mk 6:8-11; Lk 9:2-5. Jesus’ instructions here show that the disciples would carry on most aspects of his mission (9:35-38). A historical basis surely stands behind the account of Jesus sending his disciples; teachers could train disciples in part by giving them practice among themselves and with others, and that Jesus did so best explains the disciples’ rapid imitation of his miraculous ministry in the years immediately following the resurrection (cf. 2 Cor 12:12).⁸ Historical data clearly limit Matthew’s freedom to adjust the account; although Matthew stresses the Gentile mission (28:19), his Jewish-Christian audience remains well aware that before the cross Jesus sent his disciples only to Israel (10:5-6). Yet Matthew provides these instructions not merely as a matter of historical interest — had Matthew’s interest been merely historical he would not have rearranged this section so thoroughly to be relevant to his communities — but as a living message to his own audience.

Thus he includes some material strictly irrelevant to the first mission but which his community would recognize as particularly relevant in their own day, including prosecution before synagogue and pagan courts (10:17-18).⁹ Likewise, Matthew 11:1 does not actually report the disciples’ mission (contrast Mk 6:12-13) because for Matthew the mission must continue in his own generation. Summoning his community to greater commitment to the Gentile mission, he provides instructions for those who would go forth to evangelize, and in more general ways for the churches that send them.

First, Jesus “sent,” or “apostled” these disciples (10:5; cf. Hunter 1944: 63). Thus he provides a relevant model for his appointed agents in subsequent generations (whether they are “apostles” in the narrower sense or not); the “Twelve” constituted only some of the apostles (for distinctions between the groups, see Acts 14:4; 1 Cor 9:5-6; 15:5, 7; Gal 1:19; Sanders 1985: 105). Although verbs do not always recall their cognate nouns (the noun does not appear in the Septuagint), the language used here for “sending” probably connotes commissioning agents with delegated authority (in recent studies, e.g., Witherington 1990: 133-35; Davies and Allison 1991: 153; Hagner 1993: 265; cf. Mt 2:16). This recalls a wider spectrum of ancient practices. The verb applies to anyone sent, but in the case of a kingdom “sending” representatives it applied particularly to “ambassadors” (Diod. Sic. 40.1.1). Surrounding cultures had long used heralds and ambassadors, the latter acting on the sender’s authority and responsible to carry out his wishes (e.g., Demosth. On the Embassy 4; Dion. Hal. 6.88.2; Jos. Ant. 4.296; 18.1, 265; Pliny Ep. 10.18.190-91; cf. 2 Cor 5:20); philosophers could likewise send disciples to teach in their stead and act as their representatives (e.g., Diog. Laert. Lives 7.1.9).¹⁰ Ancient Israelite circles also used formal agents or messengers (e.g., Prov 10:26; 13:17; 22:21; 25:13; 26:6). Agency eventually became a legal custom so pervasive that both Roman and Jewish law recognized the use of agents, or intermediary marriage-brokers, in betrothals (Cohen 1966: 295-96).

Later sources suggest that an agent (shaliaḥ) did not necessarily have high legal status (b. Ketub. 99b-100a); even slaves were permitted to fill the position (b. Giṭ. 23a). Yet agents carried delegated authority, because they acted on the authority of the one who sent them. Thus later teachers commonly remarked that a person’s agent is “equivalent to the person himself” (t. Taʿan. 3:2; m. Ber. 5:5). How one treats Jesus’ messengers or heralds therefore represents how one treats Jesus himself (10:40-42; cf. Did. 11.4); similarly, mistreating a people’s envoys was the epitome of treachery, warranting severe punishment (Polyb. R.R.E. 15.2; Diod. Sic. 36.15.1-2; Dion. Hal. 8.43.4; Appian R.H. 3.6.1-2; 4.11; 8.8.53). Treatment of representatives (e.g., Jos. Ant. 8.220-21; Dio Cassius R.H. 19.61; Diod. Sic. 4.10.3-4), including God’s representatives (e.g., Moses in Jos. Ant. 3.85-87; 4.329; Boring 1995: 83), reflected one’s feelings toward the one who sent them, though some ancient characters distinguished between the feelings of messengers and the one who sent them (Hom. Il. 1.334-36).¹¹ Because the agent had to be trustworthy to carry out his mission, teachers sometimes debated the character the pious should require of such agents (m. Dem. 4:5; t. Dem. 2:20; cf. Plato Laws 12.941A; Demosth. On the Embassy 4-5). This also implies, of course, that a shaliaḥ’s authority was entirely limited to the extent of his commission and the fidelity with which he carried it out. That Jesus authorizes disciples to perform acts of compassion (9:36) in his name does not authorize them to use his power to get whatever they want (4:3).

While some scholars reject the “agent” background for early Christian apostles (e.g., Malan 1976: 57; Ehrhardt 1958: 5), the early and broad Mediterranean parallels for the general concept support the idea (cf., e.g., Rengstorf 1969: 27; Dix 1947: 228-30), and it was accepted as early as Jerome (Comm. in Ep. ad Gal. 1.1, in Dix), long before it was advocated by Lightfoot in the last century (Lightfoot 1869: 93-94, citing Epiph. Haer. 30). The concept of agency informs the early Christian idea of apostleship in a general way (see Lake 1979b), but differences also exist (Käsemann 1980: 5-6; Kirk 1975: 252).¹² These differences point us to a specific kind of “agent” in this passage: in biblical history, God’s agents were the prophets. The connections in this text between Jesus’ commissioned messengers and prophets should not be overlooked (10:41; cf. Boring 1982: 89).¹³ When Jesus “sends” disciples (10:5, 16; cf. 22:3; 23:34, 37), the disciples stand in the tradition of the prophets (21:34, 36; 23:37), John (11:10), and Jesus himself (15:24; 21:37).

Second, Jesus limited his disciples’ initial mission to Israel (10:5-6). This limitation fits the historic priority of Israel in salvation history (cf. Rom 1:16; 2:9-10; 15:8-9), was practical (these disciples were not yet equipped to cross such cultural boundaries), and would undoubtedly not have been objectionable to the first disciples themselves (cf. Acts 10:28). The saying is undoubtedly authentic: even those early Jewish Christians least inclined to cross ethnic barriers would probably not have invented such a mission saying for Jesus themselves, since Judaism did not oppose making proselytes (Witherington 1990: 124). Further, the prohibition fits a short-term mission during Jesus’ ministry. Jesus undoubtedly did see a future hope for the Gentiles in the Scriptures (see comment on 8:11-12), involving the kingdom that his ministry was introducing (see comment on 4:17). Nevertheless, Jesus historically limited his own mission primarily or exclusively to Israel (Sanders 1985: 11; Ellis 1974: 49). Perhaps the Hebrew Bible’s emphasis on blessing the nations through Abraham stood behind his interest in first establishing a renewed remnant within Israel from which to reach the nations (cf. Scott 1990).

Jesus’ concern for the “lost sheep” of Israel (10:6; 15:24) echoes his complaint that his people were “helpless” like “sheep without a shepherd” (9:36; cf. 10:16).¹⁴ The biblical prophets complained that the irresponsibility of Israel’s shepherds allowed the sheep to go astray (Jer 50:6; Ezek 34:5); Jesus may also have recalled the price God would pay through him to restore the “lost sheep” (Is 53:6). Jewish people often thought that ten of the twelve tribes were lost and would be restored only in the end time (Jeremias 1971: 235; Sanders 1985: 96-97; Esth. Rab. 2:14; though contrast some in m. Sanh. 10:5; t. Sanh. 13:12); Jesus’ choice of “twelve” apostles signified the imminence of the end-time regathering of God’s scattered people (10:1; cf. Jeremias 1971: 235; Sanders 1985: 98-106).

Nevertheless, Jesus’ orders address geography more than ethnicity. “Way of the Gentiles” (NRSV’s “among the Gentiles” is interpretive and probably mistaken) merely prohibited taking any of the roads leading to hellenistic cities in Palestine (Manson 1979: 179; cf. Jeremias 1958: 19n.3, who renders the phrase “toward” Gentile populations). Since Samaria and Gentile territories surrounded Galilee, Jesus’ orders de facto limited his disciples’ mission geographically, restricting their activity to Galilee (see Gundry 1982: 185). Because Jesus’ earliest followers extended this prohibition beyond its minimal sense, it undoubtedly remained in the background of early Christian opposition to the Gentile mission (cf. Acts 11:3; Meier 1980: 106-7).

In contrast to Jesus’ treatment of other commandments in this chapter, however, Matthew indicates that Jesus later revokes this one, specifically clarifying that this one command was a temporary measure during his earthly ministry. For Matthew, the critical prerequisite for the end that the church can affect is world evangelization (24:14); his Gospel’s climactic conclusion is likewise the commission to disciple all nations until the end of the age (28:19-20). Indeed, the contextual literary function of 10:5 may best explain why Matthew both retains and emphasizes it: by highlighting that the gospel’s recipients are Jewish, hence that even Jewish people may reject the kingdom and be treated as Gentiles (10:14-15), this verse implies for Matthew a supraethnic view of the covenant that ultimately necessitates the Gentile mission. Whatever the saying might have meant in previous contexts, its sense in Matthew’s Gospel cannot undermine the Gentile mission; Matthew places the saying in the context of a mission discourse that includes testimony before Gentile authorities (10:18; Stanton 1993: 140).¹⁵

Third, their message is the good news of God’s impending kingdom (10:7). That Matthew intends this proclamation to remain the church’s message (cf. Acts 8:12; 20:24-25; 28:31) is clear not only from the fact that Matthew nowhere revokes it but from the parallel formulation in his Gospel’s conclusion: “as you go” (not the imperative “go” as in the NRSV rendering of 28:19) is a participle in both instances (though 10:7 is present and 28:19 aorist). That Jesus has all authority in the universe (28:18) and appears alongside the Father and the Spirit (28:19) indicates his rule or kingdom, especially in view of the allusion to Daniel 7:13-14 in Matthew 28:18. To make disciples for this king is to proclaim the good news that God’s future kingdom is already active in this age (cf. 28:20).

Fourth, both for Jesus and for the Matthean community, signs constitute one critical authentication of the kingdom message (10:8). “The disciples’ mission (vv. 7-8) replicates and extends the mission of Jesus in preaching the coming of God’s kingdom and in healing the sick (see 4:23)” (Harrington 1982: 45; cf. Stanton 1993: 81; on Mark, cf. Delorme 1974). Cleansing lepers, for instance, extends Jesus’ own ministry (cf. 8:1-4; 11:5). Jesus’ commands in 10:8 are all sharp, parallel statements that would communicate emphasis in both Aramaic and Greek (Jeremias 1971: 21-22; they need not represent prophetic speech, pace Boring 1982: 145-46). Although hard-hearted people would never be satisfied with signs (15:37–16:1; cf. Jn 11:47-48; 12:10-11; Acts 4:16-17), signs could draw other people’s attention to the gospel of the kingdom (11:3-6, 21, 23; cf. Jn 2:11; Acts 9:35, 42). Matthew again emphasizes a point not merely for historical interest, but for the missionary activity of his community.

Fifth, Jesus’ agents live simply (10:8-10). Manson remarks that the disciples here depend on the people of the land, “like an invading army” (1979: 181). In a traditional Jewish proverb of uncertain date God commissioned Torah teachers to offer Torah freely as he did (b. Bek. 29a; D.E. 2.4; Dalman 1929: 226; Lachs 1987: 180; cf. m. ʾAbot 1:3; Sifre Deut. 48.2.7; p. Ned. 4:4); some early Jewish teachers prohibited accepting pay for teaching (Jeremias 1969: 112; Gundry 1982: 187).

A more general backdrop for Jesus’ command is not difficult to envision. Peasants, at least in the poorest parts of the Empire like Egypt, often owned only one cloak (cf. 5:40; Theissen 1978: 34-35). Cynics voluntarily limited themselves to a single cloak; they chose a simple and toilsome lifestyle living on the street (unlike Jesus’ disciples here) to prepare themselves for hardships (Crates Ep. 18, 30). Since some Cynics were known in hellenistic cities of Syria (Freyne 1988: 241), a distant and indirect Cynic connection is not impossible, though they are unattested in Jewish Palestine (and certainly in the traditional towns Jesus frequented). Cynics were hardly alone, in any case; other ancient Mediterranean people, probably especially the Romans, valued such harsh lifestyles for purposes of discipline (e.g., Livy 21.4.5-7; Plut. Dinner of Seven Wise Men 12, Mor. 155; see more fully the excursus on Mt 6:19-24). Yet more to the point, some Jews known as Essenes showed their devotion to God by a simple lifestyle, those who lived in the wilderness devoting all their goods to the community (1QS 1.11-13; 6.22-23; Jos. Ant. 18.20; War 2.122; Philo Prob. 76; Hypothetica 11.4-5; Fitzmyer 1966: 243; Mealand 1975; cf. Fabry 1977). Josephus also indicates that the Essenes did not take provisions when they traveled, expecting hospitality from fellow Essenes in every city (War 2.124-25). Even disciples of rabbis often lived sacrificially to achieve their education (e.g., ARN 11A).

Perhaps most relevant is the model of Israel’s ancient prophets in times of national apostasy (e.g., 1 Kings 18:13; 2 Kings 4:38; 6:1; cf. Meeks 1986: 106). One may recall Elisha’s unwillingness to accept Naaman’s gifts, preferring to allow the Aramean God-fearer to remain wholly indebted to Israel’s God (2 Kings 5:15-19); his servant Gehazi, however, determined to profit from Naaman and suffered for it (2 Kings 5:20-27). Elisha reminded Gehazi that the current time of spiritual crisis rendered the acquisition of material possessions a vain pursuit (2 Kings 5:26); many early Christians viewed their own time as analogous (1 Cor 7:29-31). A reader of this Gospel would find the most immediate prophetic model in the lifestyle and garb of John (3:4).

On long trips, one typically brought both a change of clothes and money in a bag tied to one’s belt or fastened around one’s neck (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 38; cf. 1 Sam 17:40; Prov 7:20); one could even stuff loaves of bread and other food into such pouches (Babrius 86.2). Jesus hence forbids the normal basic apparatus for travel. Jesus’ prohibition of the “bag” (10:10; Mk 6:8) prohibits begging (see Deissmann 1978: 108-9), the survival method of the otherwise equally simple Cynics (Liefeld 1967: 247; Meeks 1986: 107; also of priests of Cybele — e.g., Babrius 141.1-6).¹⁶ Mark allows at least staff and sandals, but Matthew’s demand for simplicity is still more radical, prohibiting even these.¹⁷ This is not a matter of asceticism but of priorities, as in 6:19-34 (France 1985: 179). At least for the Gospel writers’ audiences, these prohibitions would distinguish the disciples from other kinds of wandering preachers (probably similar to Cynics in the Greek world) “whose questionable reputation they did not want to share” (Liefeld 1967: 260; cf. Overman 1996: 146-47; Eddy 1996: 461-62). In contrast to Mark, Matthew not only prohibits taking money on one’s journey, but acquiring any money while there (cf. Mk 6:8; Gundry 1982: 186).

The “staff” was an instrument for self-protection (sometimes against robbers, perhaps against wild beasts; cf. Hom. Od. 17.236) and perhaps an aid in walking or keeping one’s balance on uneven paths (Hom. Od. 17.195, 199).¹⁸ Some Jewish teaching forbade the staff, but usually only on the Sabbath (m. Rosh Hash. 1:9), on holy days (2:9), or in the temple (m. Ber. 9:5; Sifre Deut. 258.2.2, which also require the removal of profane dust from one’s feet — cf. 10:14). Thus these prohibitions might underline the sacredness of the mission (cf. Schweizer 1975: 239). The point of the prohibitions can hardly be limited to this explanation, however, for this explanation fails to account for details such as “the additional prohibition of two tunics” (Gundry 1982: 187), which applies to discipleship in general (in Lk 3:11). Although Matthew is not endorsing a lifestyle for all disciples, whether itinerant or not, the first disciples’ obedience to their calling challenges Matthew’s audience to consider what they will sacrifice for the work of God’s kingdom (cf. similarly comment on 3:1, 3-4). Even the best Cynics recognized that the significance of their lifestyle was the values it reflected rather than merely the simplicity itself (Julian Or. 6.200C-201C in Malherbe 1986: 35; Crates Ep. 19; cf. Aul. Gel. 9.2.4-5; Plut. Isis 3, Mor. 352C; Petron. Sat. 14; Diog. Ep. 15).

Paul’s examples of his qualifications by suffering for true apostleship (1 Cor 4:9-13; 2 Cor 4:8-12; 6:4-10; 11:23-33, presented in terms of philosophers’ lists of sufferings) probably reflect the Jesus tradition in view here. Churches provided hospitality for traveling apostles, prophets, and evangelists in the late first century, but Christians had to become wise about hucksters and charlatans (2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 1 Thess 2:3-6). One early church document advises that prophets and teachers are worthy of their food (Did. 13.1-2), but warns that if a prophet wants to stay more than three days or asks for money, he is a false prophet (Did. 11:5; cf. 2 Cor 11:7-15); Matthew may have had such false teachers in mind as he dictated this warning (Gundry 1982: 186), for receiving the right travelers affects one’s reward (10:40-42; 2 Jn 8-11).

Matthew would probably not expect all missionaries in all contexts to follow these specifications exactly (just as Mark apparently toned down Q’s instructions for his own community);¹⁹ hospitality might be less dependable in the Diaspora than it was in first-century Jewish Palestine. Nevertheless, in this text he summons his audience to value radically their mission above all possessions, and to live as simply as necessary to devote their resources to evangelism.

Sixth, the disciples can travel light because they trust God to supply their needs where they minister (10:10-11). Ancient Mediterranean peoples emphasized hospitality (e.g., Hom. Od. 1.118-20; 3.345-58; 4.26-36; 6.207-8; 9.176; 14.57-58; Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.3.4; Cic. De Offic. 2.18.64; Epict. Disc. 1.28.23; Malherbe 1983: 95), and Jewish people, who avoided inns when possible due to their unsavory moral reputations, particularly stressed this virtue (Gen 19:3; Judg 19:20; Tob 5:10-15; 7:8-9; 10:6-10; Ps-Phocyl. 24; Test. Job 10:1-4; Lk 11:6; Acts 16:15; 1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:8; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9; see Koenig 1985).²⁰ Because strangers could abuse this system, however, Jewish people outside Palestine depended heavily on letters of recommendation showing that the traveler was of good reputation (e.g., Rom 16:1-2; cf. Kim 1972; other sources in Keener 1992: 251). Like the early Christians (2 Jn 10-11; Did. 11–12), most Jewish people would not embrace someone they believed to be a messenger of false teaching (cf. Sir 11:29, 34; t. Dem. 3:9; Sifre Deut. 1.10.1; p. Giṭ. 5:10, §5; cf. perhaps suspicion of strangers in Oakman 1991: 166). Jesus’ messengers had better backing than a letter of recommendation, however; the authority of Jesus himself stood behind them (10:40-42; cf. 2 Cor 3:1-6).

Finally, their hearers would be judged by whether they embraced Christ’s messengers (10:12-15). The missionaries were to use one home as their base of operation for evangelizing the community (10:11-12; cf. Mk 6:10; Lk 10:7). They would find the home first by inquiring around who might hear their message (10:11), then by finding out whether the household welcomed them to stay there (10:12-13). The workers are “worthy” (10:10; cf. Lk 10:7; 1 Tim 5:18) because they have made Jesus their first priority (10:37-38); the question must be whether others would prove worthy to welcome them (10:11-13).²¹

Greetings constituted an essential aspect of social etiquette in Mediterranean antiquity (Soph. Oed. Rex 596; Isoc. Demon. 20, Or. 1; cf. p. Taʿan. 1:4, §1; 4:2, §8), and social convention dictated particular rules for whom to greet and how to do so (23:7; cf. t. Ber. 2:20; p. Ḥor. 3:5, §3; Ketub. 12:3, §6; 2 Jn 10), as they still do today in most Middle Eastern society (Eickelman 1989: 234). But Jewish people also viewed their greetings as “wish-prayers”: Shalom, “peace,” meant, “May it be well with you” (e.g., 1 Chron 12:18; 1QS 2.9; 4 Bar. 7:35; Jas 2:16; also in some other societies; see, e.g., Mbiti 1970: 85). Just as an undeserved curse would not take effect (Prov 26:2), Jesus declares that the blessings will be efficacious only if they prove appropriate (the concept would have been widely understood; cf. PGM 4.749-50; Mt 10:34). Disciples thus did not need to fear offering them in good conscience — if they thought the recipient worthy of the blessing — as if such blessings would take effect magically, warranted or not.

Those who received the agents of Christ received Christ himself (10:40-41; cf. 18:5), even if the only hospitality they had available to offer was a cup of water (10:42; cf. 25:35, 42). But those who rejected Christ’s agents (or their words — 10:14; cf. 7:26) were to be treated like spiritual pagans (10:14). Just as Jewish people returning to the holy land might shake the dust of Gentile lands from their feet,²² or those entering the holy temple might shake the relatively profane dust of the land of Israel from their feet (m. Ber. 9:5; t. Ber. 6:19; Sifre Deut. 258.2.2), so Jesus’ disciples were to treat as unholy those who rejected their message (Acts 13:51; cf. 18:6; 22:23).²³

God would treat these nations not merely like Gentiles in general, but as worse than Sodom and Gomorrah (10:15), for they had rejected a greater revelation, a greater opportunity for repentance, than Sodom and Gomorrah had (11:23-24).²⁴ The prophets had employed Sodom as the epitome of evil, a city that merited judgment (Is 13:19; Jer 50:40; Zeph 2:9) and regularly applied the image to Israel (Deut 32:32; Is 1:10; 3:9; Jer 23:14; Lam 4:6; Ezek 16:46-49; cf. Jub. 20:6).²⁵ Sodom’s rejection of angelic messengers (Gen 19) merited less damnation than Jesus’ contemporaries’ rejection of him (cf. Mt 12:6, 41-42; 23:35-36).²⁶

Persecution Is Promised (10:16-23)

Cf. 24:9-14; Mk 13:9-13; Lk 10:3; 12:11-12; 21:12-19. Matthew’s inclusion of material concerning persecution (cf. Mk 13:9-13) in his discourse on the kingdom mission indicates his view that persecution and proclamation are inseparable (Hare 1967: 113; cf. Matthey 1980), as does a brief perusal of Acts or Paul’s letters (e.g., Paul’s defense of his true apostleship in 2 Cor 11:23-33). For early Christians, true ministry inevitably involved suffering, especially if that ministry was a frontline ministry to nonbelievers.²⁷ Yet as Jesus reminds the disciples in the next section, the worst persecutors can accomplish is the disciples’ death, and disciples die anyway with or without persecution (10:24-33).²⁸

First, Jesus promises to empower his followers in the midst of opposition (10:16-20). Jesus “sends” them (10:16), persecution becomes an opportunity for testimony (10:18), and the Spirit of prophecy will provide the words they need (10:20). Jesus portrays his followers as powerless in their own strength (10:16): first of all as sheep, like Israel of old (10:6; cf. 9:36). Sheep were notoriously defenseless against such predators as wolves (Sir 13:17; cf. Diog. Laert. 6.5.92; Dion. Hal. 7.11.3; Aelian Animals 7.27; Terence Brothers 534-35), and Jewish texts often portray God’s people in this manner (Ps. Sol. 8:23; Ex. Rab. 5:20; Pesiq. R. 9:2; cf. Wis 19:9; 2 Clem. 5). While Jewish texts contain similar statements in which the sheep represent Israel or the pious among them (1 Enoch 90.6-17; Tanḥuma Toledot 5; Vermes 1993: 89), Jesus drives home the point still more graphically: his sheep are actually sent among the predators (Vermes 1993: 89). People thought of doves and similar birds as weak and timid (Hom. Od. 20.243; Soph. Ajax 139-40; Phaedrus 1.31; Athenaeus Deipn. 11.490d; or inconspicuous, Hom. Il. 5.778; or gentle, Chrysostom Matthew 12.3, ACCS, 13).²⁹ Matthew’s readers, probably in conflict with the Pharisees, might well recall earlier denunciations of the fruitless as wolves (7:15) and of the Pharisees as fruitless (3:7-8; cf. 12:24, 33) in this Gospel. Christians should therefore avoid unnecessarily provoking their opponents (“shrewd”), while remaining “guileless” (NRSV; NIV: “innocent”).³⁰

Disciples must endure physical suffering and shame for Jesus’ sake (10:17). The hostility of synagogue officials (cf. Jn 16:2) would extend as far as scourging (10:17; 23:34), recalling the more deadly scourging the Lord himself would undergo (20:19; 27:26). “Sanhedrins” probably also links their judgments with Christ’s (26:59), and most hearers would be familiar with them from the tradition.³¹ Second-century rabbis expected local “sanhedrins,” or judicial assemblies, in every town (t. Sanh. 3:10; cf. Sifra Qed. par. 4.206.2.9), and ruled that local synagogue courts must include at least three or, for capital cases, twenty-three, judges (m. Sanh. 1:1-2; t. Ḥag. 2:9; Sanh. 3:1); it is unlikely that local courts observed these numbers strictly in the first century, but they might suggest an average reflecting something like a normal practice. First-century local courts may have employed an average of seven local elders, with levitical assistants (Jos. War 2.571; Ant. 4.214, 287). Local councils probably consisted of town elders, with special privileges for local priests.³²

Many synagogue scourgings probably conformed to the later standard for the local beth din: a strap of calf leather with interwoven thongs, brought against the condemned person’s back 26 times and breast 13 times (m. Mak. 3:10-12; Lane 1974a: 461n.60; cf. Deut 25:3).³³ Those acting as officers stripped the condemned person, binding his hands to a pillar (or with the person lying down — Sifre Deut. 286.4.1). Then a servant of the synagogue would stand on a stone behind the condemned person and administer the multiple straps of animal hide (m. Mak. 3:12) as hard as he could, one-third on the chest and two-thirds on the shoulder (m. Mak. 3:13; Sifre Deut. 286.5.1). Whether they actually read from Deuteronomy 28:58-59 at that time (cf. m. Mak. 3:14) is debatable.

Paul, maintaining his solidarity with the synagogue, suffered this public disgrace at least five times (2 Cor 11:24).³⁴ Although the fair-minded Pharisees apparently opposed corporal punishment officially for matters of theological disagreement (Hare 1967: 44), it is not difficult to imagine how popular sentiments could yield to violence (cf. Jer 20:1-2; 37:15), and even Pharisees might permit it for disrupting public order (Acts 5:40; Hare 1967: 45-46).³⁵ That the disciples would be “betrayed” to such hardship underlines their connection with Jesus’ sufferings (e.g., 10:4), just as their being “sent” (10:16) symbolizes their solidarity with their predecessors (10:5; 11:10; 15:24; 21:34; 23:34).

God will also empower the disciples to speak his message before Gentile rulers when disciples are on trial before them (10:18-20). Like Jesus (27:21), his followers would face Roman officials. The “governors” refer to propraetors, proconsuls, and procurators, various types of Roman provincial administrators (A. B. Bruce 1979: 163; Nineham 1977: 349; cf. 24:14). That this passage speaks of them in the plural (when Judea had only one governor; cf. Theissen 1991: 56) indicates that Matthew again points beyond the immediate mission of the Twelve to the continuing mission of the church among the nations. When disciples are arraigned before them, God is allowing it for a testimony (cf. Mk 13:10-11; Acts 9:15; 23:11; 26:2) and will empower them with the Holy Spirit of prophecy (cf. Rev 19:10; Jn 14:26; Keener 1991b: 69-77), much as God promised to empower Moses (Ex 4:10-12; Kennedy 1980: 127). Thus despite the ancient aristocracy’s valuing of rhetorical skills (e.g., Cic. Brutus 24.110; Lucian Teacher of Rhetoric; Quint. 1, pref. 13, 18; MacMullen 1974: 107) and, when possible, advance preparation (Sir 36:4), disciples need not be anxious about what they will say (cf. Lk 12:11-12; 21:13-15; Jn 16:1-11).

Second, the persecution will divide even families (10:21-22). The hatred of “all” (10:22; Mk 13:12; cf. “all nations,” 24:9) on account of Jesus’ name (5:11-12; Jn 15:19-21) will extend even to those in closest relation to the disciples; the gospel is offensive to those who reject its demands or whose culture or tradition it challenges. Although Judaism considered betrayal to Gentiles a heinous act (m. Ter. 8:12), even family members would now betray one another to death (10:21; cf. 10:35; 24:9; Mk 13:9, 12; Lk 21:12, 16); slaughter by relatives signaled an especially awful time (Diod. Sic. 17.13.6; Appian C.W. 4.4.18; R.H. 7.5.28; 1 Cor. 7:16; Lucan C.W. 2.148-51; Ovid Metam. 1.144-48; Sen. Benef. 5.15.3; Jos. War 6.208-12). Because only a remnant of many families would be saved (cf. Jer 3:14; contrast Acts 16:31), in the time of judgment personal needs would supplant natural affections (cf. Ezek 5:10). In a culture dominated by honor and shame, in which the opinion of family members was paramount, such a threat demanded an incomparably high allegiance to Christ (10:37-39).

Third, even in Jewish Palestine persecution would be so intense that disciples would have no secure refuge until Jesus’ return (10:23). Persecution would cause disciples to flee (cf. 2:13; Acts 14:5-6; 17:14; negatively in Mt 26:56) from one city to another (10:23; 23:34; cf. 10:11, 15). Some regarded flight as undignified (e.g., Jos. Life 146, though he fled on other occasions), but most people could distinguish between fleeing and openly denying their faith (e.g., Gen. Rab. 82:8). The expectation of flight suggests that whereas Matthew values martyrdom (as perhaps in Phil 1:20-25), he (as in Mart. Pol. 4) would reject gratuitous martyrdom in the sense in which some might find it in Ign. Rom. 3.2–8.3; cf. Ign. Trall. 10).

This persecution in Israel would not subside fully until the Son of Man’s return (cf. 16:28; 24:27). Their missionary task and its attendant persecution would not be completed until Jesus’ return (Kümmel 1957: 61-62); in the end, however, Israel would repent (23:39), just as the prophets had spoken (e.g., Deut 4:30; Jer 31:33; Ezek 37:23; Hos 2:14-23; 11:5-11; 14:1-7; Mal 4:6).

Either judgments (Amos 4:8) or persecution (2 Macc 5:8) might force God’s people to flee from one city to another; in one Jewish account, those seeking refuge from persecution finally abandoned Israel’s cities altogether and fled to Egypt (2 Macc 5:8; cf. Mt 2:13-14). Although this persecution saying, unlike much of its context, does not appear in Mark’s end-time discourse, an analogous Jewish saying confirms that Jesus probably uttered it while speaking of the final testing (m. Soṭa 9:15; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Song Rab. 6:10, §1; Pesiq. R. 15:14/15; Bammel 1961; Essame 1961; Witherington 1992: 39). Why does Matthew include sayings about tribulation and Jesus’ return in instructions to the Twelve on their short-term mission? Because for Matthew the mission of this discourse, minus the ethnic/geographic restriction of 10:5-6, must continue until the end of the age (24:14; 28:19-20; Ladd 1974: 200). Thus if one place rejects and persecutes disciples (e.g., 23:34), they should move quickly to the next (cf. 7:6; Acts 14:5-7), spreading the gospel as widely as possible in view of the potentially imminent end of the age (France 1985: 184).³⁶

Promises for the Persecuted (10:24-33)

Cf. Mk 4:22; Lk 6:40; 8:17; 12:2-9. Since a disciple was to be like a servant (a common observation, e.g., Dalman 1929: 229; see comment on 3:12), he could not be greater than his master (10:24-25; cf. Lk 6:40; Jn 13:16; 15:20); the greatest role to which a disciple could aspire was equality with his teacher (Epict. Disc. 1.2.36).³⁷ Servants were considered part of the household in antiquity; if opponents called the household head “Beelzebul” — or made that the source of his power (9:34; 12:24) — they would not hesitate to apply the charge to those of yet lower social status.³⁸ (This is a standard Jewish qal waḥomer, or “how much more” argument.)

In view of the impending end-time vindication (11:19), Jesus’ followers should preach boldly, fearing no shame from their peers in this world (10:26-27). What is now “covered” (hidden, 13:44) will then be revealed; and if God will reveal everything in the end anyway (m. ʾAbot 4:4; Targ. Qoh. 12:13 in Lachs 1987: 185; 4QpNah 3.3; 1 Enoch 38:3; 49:4; b. Soṭa 22b; Ex. Rab. 8:2; Num. Rab. 9:12; 19:6; 2 Clem. 16; cf. 1 Enoch 98:6; Sir 1:30; 1QpHab 10.4-5; 1 Clem. 50), there is no reason to withhold any proclamations now.³⁹ What Jesus speaks “in darkness” (i.e., in secret — Judg 6:27; 1 Sam 28:8; 2 Kings 25:4; Is 29:15; 45:3, 19; Dan 2:22; 1 Cor 4:5; Pesiq. R. 8:2; Soph. Antig. 494; Electra 1493-94; Eurip. Electra 90; Iph. Taur. 1025-26; Ovid Metam. 7.192; Lucian Phalaris 1), Jesus’ messengers (Lk 12:3) should reveal publicly. Because the flat housetops above the streets (24:17) provided easier hearing than the streets themselves, “shouting from the housetops” (10:27) hyperbolically underlines the boldness with which the disciples must make God’s message known. A persecuted disciple should not fear (cf. 1:20; 17:7; Jer 1:8) because one would share Christ’s sufferings (10:26), because God could destroy far more than the persecutors could (10:28), and because one would face nothing without one’s caring Father permitting it (10:31).

Because God is the judge in the end, Jesus’ agents should not fear even persecutors who threaten death (10:28). Mortals can destroy only one’s body, but God can resurrect the body for damnation and destroy the whole person (for God’s destroying “soul and flesh” in judgment on Assyria, cf. Is 10:18; see Gundry 1976).⁴⁰ The choice is not between courage and fear but between whom one will fear more (Minear 1950: 169). Judaism regarded the fear of God as an essential mark of piety (e.g., m. ʾAbot 1:3; 3:9), although loving God was considered more crucial still (cf. Bonsirven 1964: 28). Jesus may here recall the Jewish martyr tradition, which exhorted its followers not to fear those who think they kill because eternal suffering awaits the soul that disobeys God’s command (4 Macc 13:14-15). Although some Jewish teachers spoke of the instantaneous annihilation of the wicked at the judgment, “destroy” presumably refers to the same picture of judgment that recurs in the Synoptic tradition: Jesus will burn the wicked with “unquenchable,” that is, eternal, fire (see on 3:12).

Jesus assures his disciples that they can trust God’s sovereignty in their protection or their death (10:29-31). Often ancient teachers exhorted their hearers to reevaluate matters of worth (Epict. Disc. 1.4.16), as Jesus does here (cf. 6:26; 12:12). Sparrows were the cheapest commodity sold in the markets (as food for the poor), probably sold both in pairs and by fives (Deissmann 1978: 272-73); an assarion was a small coin that varied in value over time, but in the Roman east sometimes ranked less than one-sixteenth of a denarius, thus equivalent to less than an hour’s wage (cf. 5:26; MacDonald 1989; Wheaton 1982: 792). Yet as worthless as sparrows were to people, God watched over them. Even some Jewish teachers who followed the traditional insistence that one should not pray for something as insignificant as a bird’s nest (m. Ber. 5:3; Johnston 1982: 208-12) or even think that God’s laws really concerned animals (Ep. Arist. 144; cf. 1 Cor 9:9-10) could recognize that God was sovereign over each bird’s fate (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:16; Gen. Rab. 79:6; Qoh. Rab. 10:8, §1; Esth. Rab. 3:7; cf. Gen. Rab. 33:3; Pesiq. R. 48:2, 4).⁴¹ Qal waḥomer, “how much more,” then, may disciples be assured that nothing happens to them when God is “not looking” (Ps 121:4; cf. 1 Kings 18:27-29).⁴²

This was good Jewish teaching (Bultmann 1968: 107), fitting the biblical perspective of a God sovereign over history. Indeed, he has counted every hair on his people’s heads (10:30; cf. Acts 27:34; 1 Sam 14:45; 2 Sam 14:11; 1 Kings 1:52; b. B. Bat. 16a).⁴³ One may contrast God’s gracious providence here and in many Jewish texts (e.g., Wis 7:15-16; cf. Sent. Sext. 436)⁴⁴ with the more capricious Greek view of Fate or Fortune in pagan texts (e.g., Dion. Hal. 9.25.3; Apul. Metam. 10.13). Fate and Fortune play important explanatory roles in Greco-Roman history (e.g., Polyb. 1.4, 58, 62; Dion. Hal. 6.21.1; Diod. Sic. 1.1.3; 31.4.1; Plut. Fortune of Romans, Mor. 316C-326C; Fortune or Virtue of Alexander, Mor. 326D-345B; Aemilius Paulus 36.1) and poetry (e.g., Horace Ode 1.7.25; 1.31.10; 1.34.14-16; 1.35.17; 1.37.11-12; 2.1.3; 2.6.9; 2.17.16; 3.1.14-15; 3.24.6; 4.2.38; 4.13.22-23; 4.14.37; Epode 4.6; 13.15; Carmen Saeculare 25), and as a helpful plot device in novels (e.g., Petron. Sat. 29; Char. Chaer. 1.13.4; 2.8.4; 5.1.5; 5.5.2; 8.1.2; Ach. Tat. Clit. 1.3.2; 4.1.3; 5.11.1; 6.3.1; 7.13.1; Apul. Metam. 6.28; 7.16; 9.1; Philost. V.A. 4.1).⁴⁵

If one faithfully confesses Jesus in one’s witness to others, including earthly tribunals (10:17-20), Jesus will also faithfully confess one before God’s tribunal, justifying one before him (cf. 12:36-37; Jn 12:42; 1 Tim 6:12-13; Rev 3:5).⁴⁶ He will also deny those who deny or are ashamed to testify boldly of him (10:32-33; Mk 8:38; 2 Tim 2:12; cf. Mt 16:24), though in practice mercy may mitigate this judgment for the repentant (26:34). Thus Tertullian protests that whereas the government tortured other detainees to make them confess their crimes, “the Christians alone you torture to make them deny” (Apol. 2.10; LCL 13). Jewish people often spoke of “confessing,” that is, proclaiming, God (Abrahams 1924: 17; Smith 1951: 153; cf. Mt 12:36-37; Rom 10:9); denial of God and his commands was a heinous offense (Sandmel 1978b: 187). Jesus thus probably calls for a confession of faith in himself here equivalent to confession of faith in God (cf. also Gundry 1975: 214). At the very least, the logion, which may echo Daniel 7:13-14 (including the context of persecution), makes clear Jesus’ distinctive soteriology: “it makes Jesus and his proclamation the deciding factors in the coming judgment” (Davies and Allison 1991: 214; cf. Jn 14:6).

Unrivaled Devotion to Jesus (10:34-39)

Cf. Lk 12:51-53; 14:25-27; 17:33; Jn 12:25. Although Jesus values peace (5:9; cf. Lk 2:14) and normally opposes swords (26:52), one should not think (cf. 5:17) that Jesus’ mission brings peace rather than a sword (10:34).⁴⁷ Given the whole context of Jesus’ ministry, the language may even indicate that Jesus’ mission would inaugurate the messianic woes, the ultimate tribulation for his followers (Witherington 1990: 123; on the woes, see comment on 24:4-14).⁴⁸ The demands of the kingdom are so offensive to a world already convinced of its rightness that they provoke that world’s hostility.

Jesus promises the opposition of unconverted family members (10:34-36). Many members of Matthew’s audience may well have experienced ostracism from their families because of their commitment to Jesus; by recording this earlier tradition (cf. Lk 12:51-53) Matthew would thus encourage them. Although Jesus values families (5:27-32; 15:4-6; 19:4-9), the division his mission brings appears particularly in families (cf. 10:21).⁴⁹ Jesus’ example demonstrates how this division is accomplished: although God’s agents are “harmless” (10:16; 12:19-20), they proclaim the kingdom uncompromisingly and thus face hostility from others (13:57; cf. 12:46-50; Jn 7:5). Jesus’ mission separates disciples from the values of their society, and society responds with persecution. Although strife between father-in-law and son-in-law was also viewed as tragic (Lucan C.W. 1.115-18), Jesus selects the specific example of in-laws he does (e.g., mother-inlaw and daughter-in-law) because young couples generally lived with the man’s family (Malina 1981: 101; Derrett 1973: 38; see comment on 8:14). Relations with mothers-in-law were not always ideal (Plut. Bride 35, Mor. 143AB; Juv. Sat. 6.231-32).

Jewish literature also recognized that one could not always trust friends (Sir 6:7-13; 12:8ff.), and that in the worst of times family members could become enemies (1 Enoch 100:2; Sib. Or. 1.75-76; 5.468-69). Micah 7:6 spoke of Israel’s sin before their restoration; some Jewish interpreters thus applied the familial division of this text to the period of messianic woes, the great tribulation that would precede the Messiah’s coming (m. Soṭa. 9:15; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Pesiq. R. 15:14/15; cf. also Edgar 1958: 49). Some other Jewish writers associated familial division with the final tribulation without explicitly referring to Micah’s prophecy (Jub. 23:16, 19; cf. 1 Enoch 56:7; Gk. Ezra 3:12-13; 2 Tim 3:2).

Jesus probably knows this tradition (cf. Grelot 1986), hence here indicates that his first coming has initiated that period of travail (24:8), just as his second coming will complete it (10:23; 24:29-31). No less radical grounds could justify the countercultural, apparently counterfamily, stance Jesus’ ministry seemed to suggest to outsiders (cf. Hengel 1981b: 13; 1 Cor 7:26-31); those unconvinced that the kingdom was near would not be satisfied even with these grounds. The eschatological Elijah was to reconcile familial differences (Mal 4:6; Sir 48:1, 10), but Jesus here warns his followers to expect the messianic woes first.⁵⁰ The kingdom takes precedence over family ties (cf. 4:21-22; 8:21-22; Ex 32:27; Deut 13:6-10).

Jesus matters more than the approval or even civility of one’s family (10:37). “Hate” (Lk 14:26) could mean “love less” (Mt 10:37) in both the Hebrew Bible and later Jewish literature (Manson 1979: 131; Ex. Rab. 51:8); Jesus undoubtedly employed the more graphic expression originally as hyperbole, and Matthew has translated more freely. Many viewed honoring one’s parents, however, as the highest social obligation (Ep. Arist. 228; Jos. Apion 2.206; Ps-Phocyl. 8); even if some spoke of honoring one’s teacher more (m. B. Meṣ. 2:11; p. Ḥag. 2:1, §10), no teacher would speak of “hating” one’s parents by comparison. God alone was worthy of that role (Deut 13:6; 33:9; 2 Macc 7:22-23; cf. Gen 22:2-12; 4QTest. 16-17; Test. Job 4:5/6; Epict. Disc. 3.24.60; 4.1.107, 159; though cf. oaths of allegiance to emperors and the Roman state in CIL 2.172; IGRR 3.137; OGIS 532; ILS 190; 8781; Sherk 1988: 31, 78); Jewish texts hence extolled those Gentiles who forsook the acceptance of their families by turning to Israel’s God (Jos. and Asen. 12:12/11).

Yet Jesus calls for disciples to love him not only more than their families, but more than their own lives (10:38-39). Then, as today, people understood that the vast majority of people cling desperately to life (cf. Eph 5:29; Epict. Disc. 2.22.15-16). But the Gospel tradition emphasizes that once one becomes a follower of Jesus one’s own life is forfeited; one chooses a path that could lead any day to one’s execution for Christ’s name (16:24).⁵¹ In Jesus’ day “taking up the cross” meant being forced to bear the instrument of one’s execution past a jeering mob to the site of one’s imminent death as a condemned criminal (e.g., Tasker 1961: 109; see Hengel 1977; cf. 16:24). The promise of eternal life should be sufficient motivation for one who genuinely believes Jesus’ claims (cf. the parallel in Dalman 1929: 228), but disciples sometimes prove less committed than they suppose (26:41). That even the first disciples were not initially prepared for such a demand (26:56) does not mitigate the level of commitment the saying seeks from the Matthean community: if one wants to follow Jesus, one must be ready to die.

Honoring Christ’s Agents (10:40-42)

Cf. Mk 9:41; Lk 10:16; Jn 13:20. The world persecuted disciples in Jesus’ name (10:18, 22, 39; cf. 5:11), but some would welcome them in his name (10:41). One who loses one’s own life (10:38-39) becomes a representive of Jesus (10:40-42; cf. 18:5; Mk 9:37; Lk 10:16; Jn 13:20), and one must receive a herald or ambassador in the same way one would receive the one who sent him (for the principle applied to an apostle, cf. 2 Cor 5:20–6:2, 11-13; 7:2-4). An early Jewish saying that may have been circulating in Jesus’ day ran similarly: it was reckoned to one who received the sages as if that one had received God himself (Jeremias 1971: 254; Smith 1951: 154);⁵² Jewish people viewed Israel as God’s representative in a similar manner (b. Sanh. 58b; Bonsirven 1964: 49-50). For Jesus, however, it was not great sages but those who became like children — the epitome of dependence and powerlessness in antiquity — who were his representatives (10:42; 11:25; 18:5-6).⁵³

As one treats God’s prophet, so one treats the God who sent the prophet (Ex 16:8; 1 Sam 8:7). Matthew repeatedly emphasizes that disciples as Jesus’ agents are his prophets, even greater than the prophets of old (5:11-12; 11:9; 13:17); he thus employs the titles “righteous” and “prophet” interchangeably in this passage (cf. 13:17; 23:29; cf. Deut. Rab. 1:6; not simply a class of teachers; cf. Hill 1965). This passage probably also evokes the Jewish legal image of the appointed agent, who carried the full authority of the one who had authorized him for the specific task on which he was sent (cf. Ladd 1974: 381; Smith 1951: 100; cf. comment on 10:5; for God’s agent sending an agent, see Josh 11:15). Disciples were also “little ones,” the easily oppressed and powerless who could not or would not defend themselves (10:42), and hence depended solely on God (18:3-6, 10; cf. 11:11, 25; Mk 9:37; 10:14-15).⁵⁴

Receiving Jesus’ representatives with even a cup of cold water (10:42; Mk 9:41) probably refers to accepting into one’s home the missionaries who have abandoned their own homes and security to bring Christ’s message (10:11; cf. also 25:35-40).⁵⁵ One must offer some gesture of hospitality to strangers, no matter how humble one’s means (e.g., Eurip. Electra 357-63). A cup of cold water might be all that a peasant could offer, but hospitality given in faith to a prophet who requested it would be rewarded (cf. 1 Kings 17:12-16; 2 Kings 4:8-17). Although one should ideally offer food if one could (e.g., Hom. Od. 1.123-24), everyone would understand the significance of water as a sign of hospitality to a weary traveler; it appears even in pagan myths (Ovid Metam. 5.449-50; cf. Hom. Od. 15.312; 17.10-12). A Roman historian ridicules an emperor who rewarded a man for something as insignificant as cool water (Suet. Claud. 40), but Jesus rejects that sort of aristocratic perspective and values whatever sacrifice one can offer to show that one embraces his messengers. Some Cynics dispensed with cups, but this was rare (Diog. Ep. 6, 13). The typical “cup” in Jewish Palestine could not stand upright on a table (Safrai 1974/76b: 742), hence it would have to be passed from the host’s hand into that of the guest.

The following narrative may illustrate the point twice: some would not receive a prophet who came in a prophet’s name (11:7-19; cf. 10:41); John himself had to continue to “receive” Jesus, to embrace his identity in the midst of challenges to his faith (11:3-6).

1. Some documents emphasize “authority” over demons in contexts referring to commanding them or manipulating them for magical purposes (e.g., Test. Sol. 1:5), but Jesus and his disciples just silenced them and cast them out (e.g., Mk 1:22-27).

2. The tradition of the Twelve — which is older than any given list of the names themselves — is a nearly certain bedrock tradition going back to the historical Jesus (Sanders 1985: 11, 98-101; Witherington 1990: 126-27). (In contrast to the slight variations in the canonical lists, one may compare the forms in the Apostolic Church Orders and the Epistola Apostolorum — Lake 1979b: 41.) Most Jewish people expected an eschatological restoration of the lost tribes (e.g., Tob 13:6; 2 Macc 2:18; Ps. Sol. 8:28; Test. Benj. 9:2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:3; Gen. Rab. 98:9; Sanders 1985: 96-97; for their mythical place of exile, cf. 4 Ezra 13:40; Gen. Rab. 73:6; Pesiq. R. 31:10), though some dissent seems to have arisen (m. Sanh. 10:5; t. Sanh. 13:12).

3. Most scholars acknowledge this: e.g., Gundry 1982: 183; Smith 1951: 1; Cullmann 1956b: 15; idem 1953: 22n.24; F. F. Bruce 1972b: 93; Filson 1964: 52; Klausner 1979b: 284n.11. The rabbis used qannaim more broadly than for Zealots only (cf. Salomonsen 1966).

4. The epithet must be significant in some respect because Simon alone receives it (Witherington 1990: 98); France thinks that, while the term did not connote a revolutionary this early, it might have already depicted the sort of zeal for God’s rule that led to the later party (1985: 177), perhaps rooted in the model of Phinehas (Num 25:7-13; 1 Macc 2:23-27, 50; cf. Ps 106:28-31; 1QH 14.13-15).

5. Some go so far as to argue Peter’s primacy in Matthew from this position in the list, comparing the position of the firstborn in OT genealogies (Salerno 1980); since this list is not a genealogy, one should not press nuances of the “firstborn,” but the parallel is instructive in informing us that the sequence is significant. In this case even Overman 1990b: 136-40 may read too much into “first” to think it suggests development of authority within the community (against which Matthew must work in 23:7-8). For Peter’s title, see comment on 16:17-18.

6. Cullmann 1956b: 15; idem 1953: 22n.25 relates it to “Sicarius,” hence a revolutionary, but this is too early for this title and he surely was not the son of a sicarius as well (Jn 6:71; 13:26; Witherington 1990: 98; Brown 1994: 1414-15); Filson 1964: 52 and others suggest “man of Kerioth,” perhaps in southern Judea (Josh 15:25). After Brown 1994: 1413-16 surveys the major proposals and the evidence against them, he concludes that the specific meaning had probably been forgotten even by the time of the evangelists.

7. Simon was perhaps the most popular name of the period (Fitzmyer 1974: 105-12), requiring a distinguishing name to accompany it (“Peter,” “son on Jonah,” etc.). Although a Greek name, it functioned as the equivalent for the biblical and Jewish “Simeon” (Brown 1994: 915) and was common for Jews (CIJ 1:117, §165; 2:117, §890; 2:126, §905; CPJ 1:29; 3:191-92). Given the few extant traditions about most of the disciples, the production of two similarly named persons to harmonize divergent traditions (as in Diod. Sic. 4.4.1-5; Arrian Alex. 2.16.1-3; 4.28.2; Indica 5.13) is unlikely here.

8. Sanders 1993: 123-24 doubts that the disciples were as misunderstanding as the Second Gospel implies or as independent as this passage implies; otherwise it would be difficult to reconcile the two pictures. Yet even in Mark Jesus expects the disciples to exercise more faith, and it is only the especially difficult cases (like Mk 9:18-19, 28-29//Mt 17:16-20) that stump them. Disciples were sometimes known to fall short of their masters’ faith (cf. 2 Kings 5:20; 6:15-17; the later story about Levi ben Sisi and two generations after him in p. Taʿan. 3:8, §2). Since Matthew does not report the results of their mission, it would actually be Mark (if either of them) who would be exaggerating their success (Mk 6:13; cf. Malina 1993: 131).

9. Matthew’s application for his own generation is often acknowledged; see, e.g., F. F. Bruce 1972a: 68; Morosco 1979; Beare 1981: 252; Edersheim: 295; Meier 1980: 102-3; Theissen 1991: 55; Bartnicki 1988; Doohan 1988; pace Schweitzer 1968: 361; Wilkinson 1974b. Meier 1980: 102 notes that Matthew also meshes Mark and Q material (the latter found in Lk 10:1-20).

10. Similarly, the Jewish aristocracy (Jos. Life 28-29) clearly used such agents (Jos. Life 65, 196-98), who commanded widespread respect (Life 72-73). Nevertheless, this background by itself would be too narrow to explain “apostleship” (contrast De Ridder 1971b: 124-26).

11. Pagans had also long observed the sancitity, hence inviolability, of heralds (e.g., Hom. Il. 1.334; 7.274-82; 8.517; Eurip. Children of Heracles 272; Herodian 6.4.6), and demanded accuracy of them (e.g., Eurip. Children of Heracles 292-93). Letters of recommendation frequently identify the sender with one he recommended (Malherbe 1983: 102-3).

12. Schmithals 1969: 108 objects that the evidence for sending agents by twos (Mk 6:7; Lk 10:1: Acts 13) is late and rare; but while most rabbinic evidence is by its nature late, it is abundant (cf. p. Rosh Hash. 2:8, §4; quite abundantly, Liefeld 1967: 225-27; cf. Jeremias 1971: 235). He further neglects the historic model of paired heralds traversing a distance (e.g., Hom. Il. 1.320; see Gordon 1965a: 110) as well as the frequent custom of disciples (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 144; Safrai 1974/76a: 968). Matthew’s arrangement of the disciples’ names by twos may hint at Mark’s pairs (Hill 1972: 183).

13. Some Jewish teachers viewed as agents Moses (Sifra Behuq. pq. 13.277.1.13-14; ARN 1 A, MSS), Aaron (Sifra Sav Mekhilta DeMiluim 98.9.6), the Old Testament prophets (Mek. Pisha 1.87; ARN 37, §95 B; as ambassadors, see ARN 34A), or, most generally, anyone who carried out God’s will (Sifra Sav Mekhilta DeMiluim 98.9.5). Jewish teachers who saw the prophets as God’s commissioned messengers were consistent with the portrait of prophets in their Scriptures; Israel’s prophetic messenger formulas echo ancient Near Eastern royal messenger formulas such as, “Thus says the great king,” often addressing Israel’s vassal kings for the suzerain king Yahweh (Holladay 1970: 31-34; Rabe 1976: 127; cf. Judg 11:15; 2 Kings 18:19). OT perspectives on prophets inform the early Christian view of apostleship (Grudem 1982: 43-54), although they do not exhaust its meaning (cf. Hill 1979: 116-17); early Christianity clearly maintained the continuance of the prophetic office (Acts 11:27; 21:10; 1 Cor 12:28), while seeming to apply to apostles the special sort of position accorded only certain prophets in the OT (such as prophet-judges like Deborah and Samuel, and other leaders of prophetic schools like Elijah and Elisha).

14. Concern for the marginalized of Israel, as against the elite rulers, may also be implicit in Matthew’s understanding of the “lost sheep”; see Levine 1988: 56.

15. Perhaps Matthew prepared for this saying in advance by using Jesus as a model in 4:15, which purposely locates him on a “way” near Gentiles. In the context of his whole Gospel, Mark’s account of the sending of the Twelve (Mk 6:7-13) may also imply a universal commission; cf. Anthonysamy 1980.

16. Cynics typically wore rough robes (e.g., Epict. Disc. 3.22.10; cf. 4.8.12, 15) and carried only a bag and a staff (Epict. Disc. 3.22.10; Crates Ep. 16, 23, 33; Diog. Ep. 6, 7, 13, 19, 26, 30, 46; Diog. Laert. 6.1.13; 6.2.22-23, 33, 76; cf. Anacharsis Ep. 5). Many of these references also emphasize that Cynics let their beards grow long, but coins indicate that Palestinian Jews in this period generally already had beards, so this feature of Cynic lifestyle would not be relevant to mention. Liefeld 1967: 167-79 treats the distinctive cloaks of many philosophers and religious figures and notes that some kinds of philosophers — not just Cynics — traveled with only one.

17. Mark very likely toned down the more radical formulation in Q (see Lk 10:4; Boring 1982: 145), yet even Mark is stricter than the Cynics, and the historical Jesus very likely was stricter (cf. Thompson 1985: 182). Pace Mack and Crossan, the likeliest direct point of contact with the Cynics in the Jesus tradition is a contrast, possibly even deliberate, rather than an analogy (e.g., Witherington 1994: 126).

18. Even Cynics carried staffs when traveling, as did beggars (e.g., Aristoph. Acharn. 448). Aside from aiding on steep paths, they provided protection against animals like snakes (Schweizer 1975: 239; Gundry 1982: 186) and especially “human attackers,” perhaps suggesting that this saying implies pacifism in the face of attack (Davies and Allison 1991: 173, who note that this was more restrictive than the Essenes viewed it — Jos. War 2.125 — and so radical that Origen used it as an argument against taking the Bible literally — De princ. 4.3.3).

19. Still, those traveling on foot would probably have carried little besides what they “could carry with ease” (Llewelyn 1994: 88-89).

20. Hospitality implied a potential reciprocal obligation, to be fulfilled when the host himself might be in need; but because they brought a spiritual gift of far greater worth than the hospitality they sought, they fulfilled their reciprocal obligation immediately (cf. Crates Ep. 2; Rom 1:11); indeed, the initial burden of obligation lay primarily on the host (1 Cor 9:14; 1 Tim 5:18). Liefeld may be correct that Jewish people disliked the lower-class Greek philosophers’ method of simply preaching on streets (a method including but not limited to Cynics); thus Jesus may have encouraged his disciples to work from homes when possible (cf. Acts 18:7; 20:20; Liefeld 1967: 208-9).

21. By extension Q’s “food” of which laborers were worthy could easily become Luke’s “wages,” but Schwarz 1992 specifically finds behind both the same Aramaic term.

22. Many commentators find this background here: e.g., Manson 1979: 76; Gundry 1982: 190; Nineham 1977: 170; Lake and Cadbury 1979: 160; Anderson 1976: 164; Witherington 1990: 137; Hagner 1993: 273. On the uncleanness of pagan soil, see Jos. Apion 2.203; m. Ṭohar. 4:5; Ohol. 18:6.

23. The act was purely symbolic; more prominent Roman roads were paved (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 37).

24. For the expression “day of judgment,” meaning the final judgment here and in 11:22, cf. also Jdt 16:17; 1 Enoch 10:6, 12; 84:4; 94:9; 96:8; 97:3; 98:8; 99:15; Jub. 24:30; 36:10; 1QpHab 12.14; 13.2-3; 1QM 1.11; 7.5; 1 Jn 4:17; 4 Ezra 7:38; 2 Enoch 50:4, 5A; 51:3; Ps. Sol. 15:12; Test. Levi 1:1; cf. Test. Moses 1:18.

25. Later Jewish texts also employ Sodom as the epitome of immorality (e.g., Sir 16:8; Jub. 36:10; 3 Macc 2:5; t. Sanh. 13:8; Shab. 7:23; Sifra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.3; Sifre Deut. 43.3.5; b. Sanh. 109ab; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:2; Gen. Rab. 41:7; 50:5, 7; Song Rab. 8:9, §2; Test. Naph. 4:1; Asher 7:1; Benj. 9:1; cf. CIJ 1:417, §567; Katzoff 1987/88; Bodendorfer-Langer 1994); cf. 4Q180.2-4.8.2.7 (Sodom as a burnt offering) in Lange 1993.

26. Judgment for ignorantly rejecting, and blessings for unwittingly accepting, divine messengers occurs frequently in ancient literature, both Greco-Roman (Hom. Od. 1.105, 113-35; 17.484-87; Ovid Metam. 1.212-13; 2.698; 5.451-61; 6.26-27; 8.621-29; Paus. 3.16.2-3; cf. Acts 14:11-12; other examples of disguised deities approaching mortals abound, e.g., in Hom. Il. 4.86-87, 121-24; 13.43-45, 69, 215-16, 356-57; 14.136; 16.715-20; 17.71-73, 322-26, 554-55, 582-83; 20.79-81; 21.284-86, 599-611; Od. 1.420; 2.267-68, 382-87, 399-401; 6.21-22; 7.19-20; 8.8, 193-94; Ovid Metam. 1.676; 14.765-71) and Jewish (e.g., Heb 13:2; cf. Gen 18; Tob 5:4-6, 12; 9:1-5; Philo Abr. 114; the shipwreck victim who turned out to be the king in Qoh. Rab. 11:1).

27. So much was persecution a guarantee for a true disciple (2 Tim 3:12) that the leaders of the apostolic church would probably have questioned the authenticity of the witness of those not experiencing any (cf., e.g., 5:11-12; Acts 5:41; 14:22; Gal 5:11; 1 Thess 3:3; Rev 1:9).

28. One may compare the peristasis catalogues, or hardship lists, in Greek philosophic literature and elsewhere (Fitzgerald 1988: 47-49; Hodgson 1983; cf. Jub. 23:13; 4 Macc 18:2-3; Test. Jos. 1:4-7; such catalogues may have roots or an analogy in the earlier Herculean labor tradition — Alexander 1993: 59-60; cf. Epict. Disc. 1.6.32-33), which apostles in the Greek world could adapt as a sign of perseverance and genuineness, both for themselves (1 Cor 4:9-13; 2 Cor 4:8-10) and for the church (Rom 8:33-39).

29. At least as early as the Neo-Assyrian Empire some used doves in treaties (Begg 1989a). They were, however, hardly heralds of “peace” in all texts; a dove (peleias), perhaps meaning the oracle at Dodona, stirred two nations to war (Aelian On Animals 11.27); elsewhere a dove could function as a decoy (Aelian Animals 13.17).

30. A later rabbi said that Israel was innocent like doves before God but shrewd like serpents before the nations (Song Rab. 2:14, §1); the tradition on which he draws may be later than Jesus. Some ancient Near Eastern cultures viewed serpents as prudent (Carson 1984b: 246), but standing alone the image would not be a pleasant one to Jewish hearers (Gen 3:1-2 LXX). If left to themselves, doves, conversely, could easily be deceived (Hos 7:11; Phaedrus 1.31; Vermes 1993: 90 also cites rabbinic interpretation). Cunning that one viewed as “wisdom” another might envision as deceit, as in traditions about Odysseus (Soph. Philoct. 54-55, 107-9, 119, 431, 1228).

31. Warning of beatings in the synagogue likely derives from the earliest stratum of Gospel tradition, when (or before) disciples remained in submission to the discipline of their synagogue communities (Anderson 1976: 293). This is the period when the Jesus tradition would have been transmitted most reliably. Matthew’s own audience probably remains subject to this, however (Setzer 1994: 38).

32. Cf. t. Ḥag. 2:9; Sanh. 7:1. Diod. Sic. 40.3.5 supposes that Moses appointed priests to function as judges.

33. Biblical law prohibited more lashes than 40 (cf. also, e.g., 2 Cor 11:24; Jos. Ant. 4.238, 248; m. Kil. 8:3; Mak. 1:1-3; 3:3-5; b. Ketub. 33b; Num. Rab. 5:4; Deut. Rab. 2:18; superhuman beings sometimes received 60, as in b. B. Meṣ. 85a; Ḥag. 15a; but contrast 40 in b. Yoma 77a), but whereas Gentiles sometimes used 40 lashes (Petron. Sat. 105), they were not always so merciful, assigning even 100 stripes to slaves (Plato Laws 9.881C; Petron. Sat. 28; P. Hal. 1.188-89, 196-99). Later rabbis might allow fewer stripes if someone’s physical constitution could not bear 39 (m. Mak. 3:11; p. Nazir 4:3, §1), or in some cases monetary payment in lieu of the flogging (b. Ketub. 32ab).

34. This punishment may have been rarer in Diaspora courts (cf. p. Mak. 1:8, §1). It could apply to technical blasphemy (cursing with God’s name, Pesiq. R. 22:6), breaking ritual law (t. Tem. 1:1), including violating festivals (p. Beṣa 5:2, §11; cf. m. Pesaḥ. 7:11), or breaking a Nazirite vow (m. Nazir 4:3), but one could be beaten for more questionable infractions (as Akiba presumably was in Sifra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; but the punishment is not corporal in the parallel in Sifre Deut. 1.3.2), including questionable teaching (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3; Gen. Rab. 7:2; Num. Rab. 19:3, 19; Qoh. Rab. 7:23, §4; Pesiq. R. 14:9). At least Hillelite Pharisees may have supported the later custom of making certain the person was warned before flogging him (p. Ter. 7:1) and being conservative on the offenses for which flogging was appropriate (b. Pesaḥ. 24b). The flogging could be repeated more than once if necessary, in extreme cases (b. Ker. 15a; Pesaḥ. 24a).

35. Davies and Allison 1991: 183 note reports of floggings in synagogues (23:24; Acts 22:19; Euseb. H.E. 5.16) but suggest that, if rabbinic reports are relevant here, the language may be used loosely (perhaps instrumentally) for discipline at the order of synagogue officials, since it took place outside the synagogue building proper (citing m. Mak. 3:12 on the reasonable assumption that the person was not bound to a pillar and whipped inside).

36. Schweitzer made this verse central to his eccentric construct of Jesus’ eschatology; his interpretation fails to “reckon with the composite character of the chapter” (Ladd 1974: 200; cf. Glasson 1963b: 99). Schweitzer came to this view before critically evaluating the Gospel sources, then continued to endorse it (see Perrin 1963: 32-33). Bultmann, by contrast, saw part of it as a spurious addition in view of the Matthean community’s sufferings, ignoring the Mishna parallel (Albright and Mann 1971: 125). Nevertheless, the verse could be authentic and even stem from Q; Luke would probably have dropped the verse (Theissen 1991: 55), though its alleged confidence regarding the Jewish mission (Theissen’s argument for pre-Matthean earliness in 1991: 55-56) may also misread the verse, given m. Soṭa 9:15. The interpretations of Jeremias (1958: 20) and Sabourin (1977) fail to interpret the saying properly in the context of the Jesus tradition as a whole.

37. Smith 1951: 153 cites a parallel in Sifra in which God and Israel are the master and servants in this saying; if Jesus’ saying depends on the one later recorded in Sifra this passage presents Jesus’ deity, but the fact and direction of dependence are unclear (cf. also the later Pesiq. R. 36:2, which applies it to God and the Messiah).

38. Because bilingual readers could render “Beelzebul” as “head of the household” (10:25; cf. MacLaurin 1978; Jeremias 1971: 7; Meier 1980: 111; Hagner 1993: 282), Jesus’ lecture here may involve a wordplay, as was common in ancient instruction. His accusers played on the pagan Baal-Zebub, originally a local form of the Baal cult in Ekron (2 Kings 1:2). Stein 1997 thinks Beelzebub here represents the demonized Baal, not the devil per se; proposed associations with “flies” might also link the term with evil (b. Ber. 61a).

39. I assume an allusion here to the end time due to the context and the sense in Mark, although the saying in its Matthean context could refer merely to making Jesus’ words known (cf. 11:25; Mk 4:22; Lk 8:17; 12:2; for varied applications cf. Jeremias 1972: 221n.66; Gundry 1982: 196). Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 90 argue that Jesus’ audience would have heard the words positively, given villagers’ suspicion of secrecy. For the revelation of what is hidden, see 1 Enoch 63:3; Mt 6:4; 11:25; 13:35, 44; Rom 2:16; 1 Cor 4:5; 1 Tim 5:24; for earlier deeds later coming to light, cf. Diod. Sic. 14.1.1-2.

40. Greeks and Romans often distinguished soul and body (e.g., Arist. N.E. 1.12.6, 1102a; Soul 1.5, 411b; Sall. Catil. 1.2, 7; Diog. Laert. Lives 3.63; Heraclitus Ep. 9, to Hermodorus; Crates Ep. 3; Epict. Disc. 1.25.21; Diog. Ep. 39, to Monimus; Plut. Plat. Q. 3.1, Mor. 1002B; Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 1.79; Marc. Aur. Med. 6.32; Greek Anth. 7.109; cf. Long 1974: 171; la Croce 1981; Isaacs 1976: 15), even at times in animals (Arist. Pol. 1.2.10, 1254a), and generally believed in the soul’s immortality (Herod. Hist. 2.123; Porphyry Life of Pyth. 19; Plato Phaedo 64CE, 80DE; Phaedrus 245C; Rep. 10.611BC; Laws 8.828D; Cic. Tusc. Disp. 1.8.18-24; De Senect. 20.78; Diog. Laert. Lives 6.1.5; 8.1.14, 28; 8.5.83; Dion. Hal. 8.62.1; Plut. Divine Vengeance 17, Mor. 560B; Sen. Dial. 6.26.7; 12.11.7; Ep. Lucil. 57.9; Apul. Metam. 11.6; Plot. Ennead 4.7-8; 7.12, 14; cf. Egyptian Book of Dead, spell 20, T.1.2-3; 30, P-1; 31a, P-1; 35a, P-1; 53, P-1; 79, P-1, S-2; 124; 177, P-1; PGM 4.646-48, 748-49; Nilsson 1957: 116-32; Lodge 1928: 394-409; Patterson 1965), with notable exceptions (e.g., Diog. Laert. 10.124-25; Lucretius Nat. 3.417-829; cf. Bels 1982). Many Greeks even saw the body as a tomb (sōma-sēma), e.g., Plato Cratylus 400BC; Phaedo 64-67; Plut. Isis 5, 28, Mor. 353A, 362B; Epict. Disc. 1.9.11-12; 3.13.17; 4.7.15; Fr. 26; Marc. Aur. Med. 3.7; 4:5, 41; 6.28; 11.3; Plot. Ennead 1.7.3.20-21; Patterson 1965: 20-21; Guthrie 1966: 154-58; cf. also hellenistic Jewish and Christian authors, e.g., Philo Som. 1.138-39; Virt. 67; Jos. War 2.155; 4 Ezra 7:96; Ep. Diogn. 6; Nock 1964b: 263; Hagner 1971: 85. Contrary to most commentators, most extant early Jewish writers also distinguished body and soul (e.g., Wis 9:15; 2 Macc 7:37; 14:38; Ep. Arist. 139; 236; Jos. Apion 2.203; 1 Enoch 22:7; 102:5; Test. Job 20:3; Test. Sim. 2:5; 4:8; Naph. 2:2-3; Asher 2:6; 4 Ezra 7:78; Apoc. Ezek. 1–2; Ps-Philo 3:10; t. Sanh. 13:2, 4; Sifre Deut. 306.28.3; b. Ber. 10a; 60b; Yoma 20b, bar.; Gen. Rab. 14:3, 9; Lev. Rab. 4:8; 34:3; Deut. Rab. 2:37; Qoh. Rab. 6:6-7, §1; Pesiq. R. 31:2; cf. Urbach 1979: 1:218-22, 248-49; Gundry 1976: 87-109) and usually seem to have regarded the latter as immortal, at least for the righteous (Sir 9:12; Jos. War 1.84; 2.154-55, 163; 7.341-48; Ant. 17.354; 18.14, 18; Philo Abr. 258; Mos. 2.288; Test. Abr. 1.24-25A; 4, 9B; Ps-Phocyl. 108; Apoc. Mos. 13:6; 32:4; 33:2; Jos. and Asen. 27:10; Wolfson 1968: 395-413), albeit with exceptions (1 Macc 2:63; Jos. Ant. 18.16). The departure of the soul meant the body’s death (Bar 2:17; Wis 16:14; Qoh. Rab. 5:10, §2; James 2:26; cf. Lucretius Nat. 3.121-23, 323-49).

41. Pace Vermes 1993: 86-87, the logion was not “distorted in the process of transmission” (based on divergence from the rabbinic lesson); God’s sovereignty is assumed in the saying.

42. In its Matthean context, the line may mean that no sparrow nor disciple may suffer apart from God’s plan, just as Jesus died according to God’s purposes (16:21; 26:39; Cook 1988).

43. Although I think this interpretation more likely, one should also note Allison 1990, who thinks the text alludes to God in his omniscience counting hairs (Ps 40:12; 69:4), hence knowing rather than protecting. Allusion to a single hair figuratively represented what was tiny (cf. Pub. Syr. 186).

44. Jews were influenced by pagan ideas of Fate and Fortune (e.g., inscription in Carmon 1973: 100, 216; Gersht 1984; Sib. Or. 1.40. 294; 3.502, 513, 517, 571-72; 5.215, 227, 230, 245, 324; 11.221; Ep. Arist. 201), though most undoubtedly viewed these as identical with or executioners of God’s purposes (see, e.g., Wis 19:4; Ep. Arist. 17, 195, 197, 210, 227, 231, 237-39, 243, 244, 246, 248, 251, 252, 255, 256, 266-72, 274, 276, 278, 282, 287, 290; Sib. Or. 1.304; 3 Macc 4:21; Ps-Philo 13:6; Test. Moses 12:4; Test. Job 37). For Josephus’s historiography, see, e.g., War 2.162-65; 6.84, 268; Ant. 8.409, 419; 13.172-73; 18.13, 54; Bilde 1979; Martin 1981; Attridge 1986: 327; on Philo, see Winston 1976: 14-15.

45. From the classical period (e.g., Demosth. Or. 60, Funeral Speech 21; 4th Philippic 38; Answer to Philip’s Letter 15; On the Crown 289; Isoc. Demon. 29, Or. 1; Panegyricus 26, Or. 4) on (e.g., ILS 1980 in Sherk 1988: 238; CIL 6.32323.90-92 in ibid. 21; Mart. Epig. 4.73; 7.47; Juv. Sat. 9.135-36; 12.63-65; Plut. Poetry 6, Mor. 23DE; Dio Chrys. 64th Disc. 8), the view that Fate or Fortune was sovereign prevailed. Some philosophers probably influenced the growth of this idea, though others contended for free will (cf., e.g., comments in Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus 134 in Grant 1953: 160; Lucretius Nat. 1.455-58; Cic. De Fato; Topica 15.59; Sen. Dial. 6.16.5; 7.23.2; Ep. Lucil. 54.7; Epict. Disc. 1.6; 1.12.25; 3.17; Plut. On Fate, Mor. 568B-74F; Chance, Mor. 97C-100A; Quint. 5.7.35; Marc. Aur. Med. 2.3; 4.2; 12.1.1; Diog. Laert. 1.35; 7.1.149; 9.1.7; 9.7.45; 10.144.16; Philost. V.A. 8.31; Plot. 3.1.10; in Stoicism in particular, see Murray 1915: 40-41; Long 1974: 163-70), but eastern astrology probably had a larger influence on the masses. The deities sometimes exercised more autonomy, especially in the earlier period (Paus. 8.37.1), but Fate often reigned even over gods (e.g., Herod. Hist. 1.91; Sen. Dial. 1.5.8; Jos. Apion 2.245); as Fate’s dominance grew, many appealed to deities that they believed could free them from it (Horsley 1981: 20; Isis aretalogy in Grant 1953: 133; PGM 4.662-73; Apul. Metam. 11.6, 15). Burial inscriptions repeatedly emphasize the inevitability of Fate (e.g., Horsley 1987: 20-21, 25, 33-34; CIL 2.4313 in Sherk 1988: 168; CIL 11.1421 in ibid., 34; cf. Quint. 6.preface 1-2; Sen. Apocol. 3).

46. The prophecy of Rev 3:5 reflects the original Jesus tradition rather than the reverse; for Aramaisms in the Gospel saying, see Burkitt 1910: 19-20. Whereas Abrahams (1924: 192) doubts the Jewish use of periphrasis parallel to “angels/God” in Mt 10:32-33//Lk 12:8 (cf. Mt 18:14 with Lk 15:10), McNamara (1972: 95) thinks it common.

47. Garland 1993: 118 cites Jewish traditions in which the Messiah would establish peace (Is 9:5-7; m. ʿEd. 8:7). The logion is surely authentic; to “cast peace” in the Lukan parallel is also Semitic (Witherington 1990: 121), and “I came” bears marks of authenticity (Semitisms, Qumran parallels — Witherington 1990: 120; Hill 1979: 66-67). Lk 12:51 renders the graphic Semitic idiom in less dramatic Greek (“division”).

48. Matthew Black associates the “sword” with the final war against Belial in the Scrolls (1984: 287-94), but because it was standard metonymy for violence and war in Jewish literature (e.g., Gen 27:40; Ex 5:3; Jer 14:12; 15:2; 39:18; 41:2; 42:16-17; Ezek 5:2, 12, 17; 6:3, 8, 11-12; Mic 5:6; 6:14; Nah 2:13; Hag 2:22; Rom 8:35; Rev 6:4; 1 Enoch 14:6; 88:2; 90:19; 91:11-12; Jub. 5:9; 9:15; 20:6; 22:8; 23:22; CD 1.4; 1QM 11.11-12; 12.11-12; 15.3; 16.1; 1QpHab 6.10; 4QpNah 2.5; 2 Bar. 27:3-5; Sib. Or. 3.316, 689; Test. Jud. 23:3; t. B. Qam. 7:6; Sukk. 2:6), the sense need not be so narrow (cf. Tannehill 1975: 141-44, noting also the metaphorical and hyperbolic components of the image). Davies and Allison 1991: 218 list texts in which the sword represents eschatological judgment or suffering (including, e.g., Jub. 9:15; 1 Enoch 90:19; 91:11-12; 4QPsDan Aa; Ps. Sol. 15:7); for other examples, see Witherington 1990: 122.

49. This saying may be attested in a different form among so-called agapha (Jeremias 1964c: 76). Other passages in the Gospel tradition show that Jesus was not antifamily (5:32; 15:4-6; 19:9), but some ancient teachers may have been. Many Stoics, while upholding household codes, also despised relatives who did not share their philosophy (Diog. Laert. 7.1.33; Epict. Disc. 3.3.5; 3.15.11); Hesiod W.D. 182-85, 188-89 viewed children’s ingratitude as a sign of the end time.

50. Hill 1972: 194, tentatively following McNeile 1915: 147, suggests that Jesus may have been hinting that he was not the messianic herald Elijah; one must evaluate this interpretation based on its cohesiveness with the rest of the Jesus tradition since the saying may, but need not, be read thus.

51. In Pauline tradition this initial determination becomes itself a death to one’s own right to make selfish choices (e.g., Rom 6:3-4; cf. Col 3:3, 5).

52. This repeats the more general shaliaḥ principle, which appears in this chapter (see comment on 10:5), but is most obvious here, with Jesus as God’s agent and the disciples as his followers (with Witherington 1990: 136, 143; Davies and Allison 1991: 226-27).

53. Some later teachers said that you should reckon the good you hear from a child as if you had heard it from an adult; from an adult, as if from a sage; from Moses, as if from God (p. Sanh. 10:1, §9). Jesus expresses greater respect for one whose status is that of a child. The Ethiopic Jewish work Te’ezaza Sanbat, in which God declares that those who honor his Sabbath honor him and who reject his Sabbath reject him, is probably later (pace Boring 1995: 113).

54. Davies and Allison 1991: 229 suggest that “little ones” derives from depictions of the oppressed righteous in apocalyptic circles (citing Zech 13:7; 1 Enoch 62:11; 2 Bar. 48:19; the first reference derives from a context significant in early Christian apologetic — cf. comment on Mt 26:31, including eschatological use in the DSS). Vermes 1993: 162n.12 compares Qumran’s “simple” ones (1QpHab 12.4; 1QH 2.9).

55. Others suggest that the text applies especially to harboring persecuted church leaders and disciples (Gundry 1982: 201-2). Some hold that “little ones” in Matthew refers especially to the least honored disciples rather than all disciples in general (cf. Agourides 1984).

↑ Back to top