Religion for Show (23:1-12)

This chapter begins Matthew’s final discourse (chs. 23–25). Although a brief amount of narrative interposes a scene change between chapters 23 and 24, the thought of judgment on the religious establishment (23:12-33; 24:24–25:30) and the temple’s demise (23:35-38; 24:1-3, 15) continues. Further, this final section approximately balances the first discourse (Mt 5–7) in length, and concludes with the same summary statement as the other discourses: “When Jesus had finished all these words” (26:1). But whereas the first block opened with blessings (5:3-12), this final block opens with woes (Harrington 1980: 100). Perhaps these were together in Q (cf. Lk 6:20-26), like the blessings and curses of the covenant, but Matthew has chosen to frame his summaries of Jesus’ teachings with eschatological promises.

Within the logic of Matthew’s narrative, the hostility of the Jerusalem elite (21:23; 22:23), including some scribes and Pharisees (19:3; 21:15, 45; 22:15, 34, 41), during Jesus’ recent public debates with them, invites the harsh condemnation of them in this chapter.

Matthew’s audience will naturally hear in such words a vindication of their own spiritual status vis-à-vis that of their opponents; the use of such polemical labels for enemy groups “was always credible, for hypocrisy belongs to the human condition and so can always be found in the enemy camp” (Davies and Allison 1997: 271). Yet while Matthew’s specific emphasis on scribes and Pharisees may reflect the intensity of polemic between Jewish Christians and successors of the Pharisees after A.D. 70 (Cohen 1987: 150; cf. Saldarini 1994: 44-67; idem 1992), at numerous points it also reveals its dependence on earlier Jesus tradition (e.g., Mk 12:38-39; Lk 11:39-52). What we can know of Jesus’ actions suggests that his ministry would have generated at the least vigorous debate with many of his Pharisaic contemporaries (Falk 1985: 118-27 limits this probably too narrowly to Shammaites). Matthew’s narrative structure retains conflict from Mark’s plot movement, but particularly intensifies it in this final discourse (23–25). God’s Son must face opposition from those who wish to usurp his sovereign role in the world; his followers must expect opposition from the same kind of people.

The harshness of Matthew’s language does not imply his alienation from his Jewish heritage — only from rivals for religious power within Syro-Palestinian Judaism. Indeed, more general observation of groups in conflict indicates that the more conflicting groups have in common, the more intense is their conflict (Stanton 1993: 98). Later rabbis themselves were quick to condemn the hypocrisy of some kinds of Pharisees whose motives were less than holy (m. Soṭa 3:4; ARN 37A; 45, §124B; b. Soṭa 22b, bar.; p. Soṭa 5:5, §2),

and acknowledged hypocrisy among scholars (b. Yoma 72b) and within Israel (cf. Bonsirven 1964: 58). They regarded hypocrisy in general as morally reprehensible and deserving of judgment (b. Sanh. 103a; Yoma 86b; Moore 1971: 2:190, citing, e.g., b. Soṭa 41b; 42a). Matthew’s critiques, like these, are Jewish critiques within Judaism, “no more ‘anti-Semitic’ than the Dead Sea Scrolls” (Davies and Allison 1997: 260-67), and not intended for exploitation by Gentile anti-Judaism.

The language of these woes reflects the regular conventions of ancient polemical rhetoric (e.g., Ael. Arist. Plat. Disc. 307.6; Johnson 1989). Thus, for example, Josephus complains that the accusations of a particular opponent of Judaism merely prove the accuser’s ignorance and inferior moral character (Apion 2.3); the accuser is like a dog or an ass (2.85). In a detailed study, Overman has demonstrated that the language of Matthew 23 is not ancient anti-Judaic language, but the language of sectarian Judaism like 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, or 4 Ezra (cf. also Psalms of Solomon) against the establishments of their day, which they viewed as corrupt (1990b: 16-23; cf. McKnight 1993). On our view, Matthew’s audience, like much of early Christianity, continued to see itself as part of early Judaism; to be anti-Pharisaic was not to be anti-Jewish (Boccaccini 1991: 215).

At the same time, scribes and Pharisees are hardly the Matthean address’s primary audience; despite rhetorical judgments against them, the scribes and Pharisees become a warning, a negative paradigm.

The explicit audience, as in the first discourse section (5:1; 7:28), consists of disciples and crowds (23:1). Some Christian preachers have caricaturized Pharisaic piety to avoid the demands Jesus’ condemnations otherwise would make on Christians today (see Odeberg 1964). Matthew, however, appears to apply the warnings directly to his own community. “In comparison with Q, Matthew emphatically turns the conception of judgment ‘inward,’ i.e., the parenesis of judgment applies to the church” (Luz 1989: 76; cf. Viviano 1990b).

For Matthew, the judgments on Jesus’ opposition at his first coming prefigure judgment on the leaders at his second coming (23:12-33; 24:24–25:30); Jesus’ own professed servants could belong among the “hypocrites” (24:51; cf. 6:2; 15:7; 22:18). Like Paul in Romans 1–2 and Amos in chapters 1–3, Matthew forces leaders in his own community to see themselves through the prism of a disobedient religious establishment that opposed their Lord, thereby summoning them to take warning.

Excursus on Scribes

The Christian tradition that essentially equates “scribes and Pharisees” with the whole of the Jewish people (e.g., Justin Dial. 17) is a wholesale misrepresentation of the evidence. In the villages of the Roman Empire, “scribes” were literate (not always well-educated) professionals who executed legal documents (CPJ 1:157, §21; 1:188-89, §43; Lewis 1983: 82). Such persons also existed in Palestine and surrounding territories (cf. Goodman 1983: 59; Sanders 1993: 179).

Yet the Gospels can hardly apply the term in so broad a sense, and ancient views of special education in Judea (cf. Stern 1974: 8-11, 46, 50) suggest that many “literate” professionals did more than execute documents (cf. Ezra 7:10-11; 1 Macc 5:42).

Presumably many also instructed children in reciting the law, and the more advanced among them would have had adult disciples (i.e., disciples older than thirteen). Many of the scribes may have been priests (Sanders 1990: 80; idem 1993: 170-71), who may have been better equipped financially to pursue such training. Likewise, some may well have been Pharisees (cf. Sanders 1993: 177-78), given the Pharisees’ popular reputation for skill in the law (see below) and availability for training. Occasionally later rabbis could look ill upon their scribal predecessors, perhaps recognizing their great responsibility to guide Israel rightly (ARN 36A). The scribes should be credited for raising the level of biblical literacy among their people (McNamara 1983: 172-73).

Excursus on Pharisees

“Pharisee” may derive from a term meaning “specifiers,” those exact in the law (Baumgarten 1983b); or, considerably less likely, “Persianizers.” Most scholars, however, associate the term with a root implying “separatists” (Dalman 1929: 13; Moore 1971: 2:60; Finkelstein 1962: 1:76; Davies 1967: 6; Cohen 1987: 162; Borg 1984: 58).

At any rate, their emphasis on tithed food and purity prohibited them from eating with Jews nonobservant in these regards (e.g., t. Shab. 1:15; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 70b, haberim). Nevertheless, they constituted primarily a lay rather than a priestly movement (see Sanders 1993: 404), and probably did not eat ordinary food as if they were priests, as some have contended (see Sanders 1990: 131-54, 235-36). They merely agreed to follow a limited number of purity laws (ARN 41A) and were known as “exact” interpreters of the laws who drew on Pharisaic tradition (Jos. War 1.110; 2.162; Ant. 13.297-98; Life 191).

Although they held political power under Salome Alexandra (Jos. War 1.110-13; Ant. 13.399-405), the families of Herod and the Sadducean priestly aristocracy formed the regional and municipal governments under the Romans in the Herodian period (Sanders 1990: 128-29; Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 101). This is not to say that they were unimportant in this period;

from various perspectives, the rabbis, Josephus (especially in the Antiquities), and the New Testament (the Gospels; Acts 15:5; 23:6; Phil 3:5) coincide in stressing their prominence (Cohen 1987: 163; cf. Neusner 1984: 45-61; Mason 1990).

They were probably more influential than Josephus allows in War (where he may wish to exculpate them from influence in the revolt) but less powerful than many modern scholars have supposed on the basis of his Antiquities. By the time he wrote his later Antiquities, Pharisaism had become a predominant party within Palestinian Judaism, and Josephus apparently chose to lend greater support (Sanders 1985: 195-96; 1993: 410-11, 488-89; though cf. differently Mason 1992: 140-43; idem 1991; Williams 1993).

As Neusner puts it, “Though Josephus exaggerated the extent of their power, the Pharisees certainly exerted some influence” before A.D. 70 (1984: 27).

In this period, the Pharisees’ popular influence may have stemmed mostly from popularity with the people rather than official, political power (Jos. Ant. 13.298; 18.15, 17; Sanders 1993: 402-4; cf. Rivkin 1978: 38-42).

With a total of only 6,000 Pharisees in an earlier period of influence (Ant. 17.42; in a population of as many as 500,000, by the older estimate in Simon 1967: 15), their influence derived more from popular respect than from numbers. Later texts typically contrast their views with those of the Sadducees (e.g., t. Ḥag. 3:35; b. B. Bat. 115b; Nid. 33b; Sukk. 48b), with whom they undoubtedly vied for influence (cf. Acts 23:6-9; Jos. Ant. 13.297; cf. Mantel 1973).

Nevertheless, Josephus’s autobiography suggests that some prominent first-century Pharisees participated in Jerusalem’s municipal aristocracy, working together with the leading priests (Jos. Life 21). Simon ben Gamaliel, who was wise and powerful (Jos. Life 190-92), joins with Ananus the high priest to authorize legates to execute their will in Galilee (Jos. Life 216). When the priestly aristocracy sent aristocratic representatives to Galilee, some were Pharisees (Jos. Life 196). Thus some have viewed the Pharisees in this period as a political “retainer” class (Overman 1996: 128; Horsley 1995: 149-50). Their influence with the populace was sufficient to allow the criticisms of Matthew 23, the contents of which can therefore reflect pre-70 tradition (Newport 1991).

Pharisaism formed one part of larger Jewish piety in common Judaism, rather than ruling or “normative” Judaism (Sanders 1993: 449; Smith 1961: 355-56); thus they had no choice but to participate with other elements in Judaism for the common society (Sanders 1990: passim, e.g., 12).

Later rabbis, who probably included heirs in some sense of earlier Pharisaic scribes, found themselves in a much better position to try to establish a “normative” Judaism, and even they were not wholly successful (cf., e.g., Goodman 1983: 127; Cohen 1987: 223-24). For fuller evidence that the Pharisees did not control Palestine in the time of Jesus, see Sanders 1993: 388-402, 458-90.

Luke correctly distinguishes the scribes and the Pharisees (Lk 11:45), but like many modern preachers, Matthew retells the story in a manner relevant to his own community. In this case he addresses the enemies of his community, of which Pharisaic scribes seem to be the dominant element (cf. Hare 1967: 81). It seems likely that Matthew’s community still included some scribes (13:52; 23:34) and possibly Pharisees (Acts 15:5; cf. Acts 23:6) who followed Jesus; because the dominant Pharisaic scribal movement repudiated faith in Jesus, however, a more conciliatory approach like that of James (Acts 21:20-25; Gal 2:12; cf. Jos. Ant. 20.200-201) had given way to polemic. Matthew is sensitive to the Jewish orthodoxy of his own constituency, but he is not afraid that his polemic will alienate members of his own community, who have already been marginalized by or in conflict with the Pharisaic leadership.

In this passage Jesus publicly critiques his opponents (23:1), providing a public challenge to their honor that would invite their retaliation (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 141). Religious leaders must live what they teach (23:2-4). Jesus agrees that many of the ethical teachings of the scribes and Pharisees are good; the problem is not their teaching but their behavior (23:2-3; Rom 2:21), a dichotomy known to exist among many religious professionals and other religious people today. One could teach what was right but not live accordingly (23:3; cf. Rom 2:21).

Josephus testifies that some aristocrats exploited popular piety for personal reasons, and that those who valued popular support dare not appear to fall short in such piety (Jos. Life 291).

They have seated themselves in Moses’ seat,

probably meaning that they have adopted the role of the law’s interpreters, since instructors sat to teach (cf. 5:1; m. ʾAbot 1:1-12; Dodd 1967: 63; Neusner 1972: 74; Rivkin 1978: 83). Carson 1984b: 472 lists many examples showing that the formula “to sit on X’s seat” frequently indicates succeeding X. Moses’ seat was also a seat for judging the people (Ex 18:13).

Pharisaic ethics emphasized being as lenient or strict with others as one was with oneself (ARN 23, §46B), but in practice the moral authority of a teacher often lends itself to abuse. Jesus accuses them of being too strict with others while too lenient with their own failings (cf. 5:18-20; 15:1-20; Lk 11:46; Gundry 1982: 455); for a contrast between such “burdens” and Jesus’ “yoke,” see comment on 11:28-30.

The Pharisees found ways to circumvent direct teachings of Torah when necessary (v. 4), that their spirit might be more easily fulfilled (e.g., the prosbul, attributed to Hillel; cf., e.g., Albright 1963: 8).

Religious leaders must not seek marks of honor (23:5; cf. Mk 12:38). Those who sought their own praise indiscreetly (cf. Plut. How to Praise Oneself Inoffensively) invited others’ reproach. Epideictic rhetoric dealt with praise and blame, and Jesus here heaps reproach on religious leaders who appear arrogant to Matthew and his audience.

Greek philosophical teachers often wore identifying apparel that provoked respectful greetings (Justin Dial. 1; Tert. De Pallio 6; Liefeld 1967: 168-70; contrast the apparel of Cynics), and Jewish scribes may have preferred identifying raiment as well, though the evidence here is much weaker (cf. b. B. Bat. 98a).

Among deeds to be noticed by others (cf. 6:1), Jesus includes the broadening of phylacteries. Although the Greek term applies more broadly to amulets and not merely tefillin (Gundry 1982: 456), some of Jesus’ contemporaries (and many people in later times) seem to have employed tefillin in this manner (Lachs 1987: 366). Tefillin were Scripture boxes fixed to one’s head and left hand during some prayers (Tigay 1979; pace perhaps Kümmel 1965: 115).

A later Jewish teacher could also recognize that “hypocrites” used tefillin deceptively (Pesiq. R. 22:5). Whether “broadening” refers to broadening the leather strap that attaches the box to the head or hand, or to wearing them more frequently than during the designated morning and evening times for prayers, is debated (Manson 1979: 230); the critical point is that, whereas phylacteries were supposed to glorify God (Bonsirven 1964: 61), the wearers here draw attention to themselves.

Jewish sources associated tefillin with ṣiṣith as well as Deuteronomy 6:9’s mezuzoth (b. Menaḥ. 43b, bar.; Jos. Ant. 4.212-13), which appears after the tefillin of 6:8. The objects of Jesus’ lesson thus also lengthen their tassals, or ṣiṣith, the fringes attached to the outer cloak’s four corners (Num. 15:38-40; Deut 22:12; see Sandmel 1978b: 152).

Matthew takes Mark’s “robes” (12:38) as a reference to the tallith, then the regular outer garment but eventually the basis for the later prayer shawls. Matthew apparently believes, probably accurately, that Jesus himself wore both tefillin and ṣiṣit (9:20; 14:36); the issue here is not whether one observes Jewish customs, but whether one seeks honor for oneself rather than for God alone.

Religious leaders must not seek honored treatment (23:6; cf. Mk 12:38-39). Jesus accuses his opponents of seeking the (literally) “first seats in the synagogues,” a practice that conflicts with dependence on God to exalt when he wills (20:16). Although this discourse focuses on the Pharisees, the practice of coveting the most honored seats was widespread.

As in much of the Mediterranean world, Palestinian Jewish society included a heavy emphasis on honor and even hierarchy (e.g., Ahiqar 142-44, sayings 54-55; Ps-Phocyl. 220-22; cf. Bowker 1973: 35), though the Essenes seem to have taken this to an extreme (sometimes praised by outsiders — Jos. War 2.150; Philo Every Good Man Is Free 87). Young men should rise before elders to offer their seats (Lycurgus 14 in Plut. Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 227F), and assemblies often sat according to honor, especially by seniority (Gen 43:33; t. Sanh. 8:1; p. Taʿan. 4:2, §12; b. Hor. 13b, bar.). In the same way esteemed sages were granted special rank (t. Sanh. 7:8; b. Hor. 13b, bar.; p. Sanh. 1:2, §13; Taʿan. 4:2, §§8-9). Seating by rank was the customary practice at banquets (Lk 14:7-11; Plut. Table-Talk 1.2.3, Mor. 616E; p. Taʿan. 4:2, §§9, 12; Ter. 8:7) and other events (Apul. Metam. 10.7; 1QS 2.19-23; 1QSa 2.11-17; p. Ketub. 12:3, §6; Rosh. Hash. 2:6, §9). Those in the Sanhedrin were reportedly seated by rank (m. Sanh. 4:4). Remains of synagogues suggest a similar seating by rank: prominent elders sat on the raised platform with the Torah scroll, facing the congregation (t. Meg. 4:21; Lachs 1987: 367).

Religious leaders must not seek honorary titles (23:7-11). Most of the people respected sages and their disciples (Goodman 1983: 77-78), and honors for rabbis seem to have grown in time (cf., e.g., Neusner 1972: 76, 101; Edersheim 53).

In later rabbinic teaching, the whole town must mourn when a sage died (t. Moʿed Qaṭ. 2:17); disciples served rabbis (ARN 25A; Gen. Rab. 22:2) and could not give legal rulings in the presence of their own teachers (Sifra Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.5.6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:6/7). Still later, one who despised a rabbi despised one’s own help (b. Shab. 119b); only those who followed the sages would share eternal life (Pesiq. R. 11:2); one who was stingy with rabbis might inherit hellfire (b. B. Bat. 75a), as would those who spoke negatively of them after their death (b. Ber. 19a). But Jesus was not the only teacher to recognize that one should assume a lower place rather than seek one’s own honor (Ben Azzai, early second century, citing Prov 25:7, in ARN 25A; 33, §73; cf. Lk 14:8-11). And whereas disciples were seated by rank in proximity to the sage, rabbis acknowledged that this was irrelevant to heavenly reward (ARN 40A); a sage should also value a disciple’s honor (m. ʾAbot 4:12). The saying of a later rabbi illustrates the emphasis on humility: if a sage boasts, his wisdom vanishes (b. Pesaḥ. 66b).

Greetings (23:7; cf. 26:49) were virtually mandated by social custom (e.g., Soph. Oed. Rex 596); kind greetings softened social relations (Dion. Hal. 8.61.1). Social etiquette dictated the matter of greetings;

with the noticeable exception of an urgent prophetic mission (cf. 2 Kings 4:29; Lk 10:4) or during prayer (m. Ber. 5:1), one dare not be silent when greeted (Sir 41:20; cf. b. Ber. 6b). One should greet one’s social superior first, which to later rabbis meant one’s superior in the knowledge of the law, though the person with superior status could waive the right by greeting the other first (Manson 1979: 99). Later tradition assumes that protocol in greeting rabbis is essential (Goodman 1983: 78, citing t. Ned. 5:1; Sifre Deut. 32,

), and teachers should show respect to one another as well (b. Sanh. 24a), bowing before one another in greeting (Gen. Rab. 33:3).

Fitting this context of public honor and salutations (23:6-7), in Jesus’ day “Rabbi” was probably an honorary greeting, “my master” (23:7-8);

only gradually did it come to be applied along with someone’s name (hence “Rabbi Akiba,” but not “Rabbi Hillel”; see Sandmel 1978b: 106). Once teachers whose disciples could make disciples were called rabbis, one with highly praised disciples came to be called “rabban” (t. ʿEd. 3:4). Although Jesus’ disciples will teach, they will make disciples for him rather than for themselves (28:19).

Scholars today are more apt to debate the purpose of Jesus’ or Matthew’s prohibition against calling someone on earth “father” (23:9). It is possible that Jesus originally used the teaching to invite separation from family for the kingdom’s sake (cf. Lk 9:58-62; Gnilka 1997: 201-2), but that proposal by itself does not explain its sense in this Matthean context; others have attempted various proposals. One rare view proposes that Jesus here prohibits calling the patriarchs fathers, that is, prohibits trusting in descent from Abraham (Townsend 1961; cf. 3:9). More likely, despite some detractors, is the view that Jesus addresses the custom of using abba as a respectful title for older men and other prominent individuals (Jeremias 1971: 68), especially teachers.

Sufficient evidence suggests the general use of such fictive kinship terminology in an honorary manner, sometimes in direct address (e.g., 2 Kings 5:13; 13:14; Diod. Sic. 21.12.5). From the earliest period one could address even an older stranger with the title (e.g., Hom. Il. 24.362, 371; Od. 7.28, 48; 8.145, 408; 17.553; 18.122; 20.199). Various texts apply “father/son” language to teachers and their disciples; this language is also frequent in wisdom texts that would reflect and influence the vocabulary of sages. Some early sages even used the title “abba” in the same way that most came to use “rabbi” (cf. Sandmel 1978b: 106; Manson 1979: 232). This is not unexpected, since rabbis sometimes claimed greater respect than parents (m. B. Meṣ. 2:11; Ker. 6:9; Sifre Deut. 32.5.12; p. Ḥag. 2:1, §10; among Gentiles, Theon Progymn. 3.93-97). Jeremias connects this prohibition to Jesus’ distinctive use of “abba,” which he suggests supports the saying’s authenticity (1964a: 43). Jesus emphasizes that with God as their Father, his disciples are all siblings (12:48-50; 18:15; 28:10). The final term for authority has various possible senses but may represent merely a private tutor (cf. Winter 1991); though various levels of tutelage existed, Jesus could be warning against accepting even the simplest titles of respect, all of which disciples must reserve for God’s chief representative alone.

In any case, if we assume a Syrian provenance and a date for Matthew in the mid-70s to 80s, Matthew’s community was well aware of the honor accorded the Pharisaic leadership in Jamnia (rabbis had servant-disciples — Davies 1966b: 134-35). They would hear Jesus’ teaching as a warning not to be like their competitors by seeking honorary titles or a position above others.

In short, exalting was God’s business alone (23:12; cf. Lk 14:11). Matthew often reports Jesus’ sayings about greatness in the kingdom (5:19; 18:4; 20:26), suggesting that the broader culture’s emphasis on social status had carried over into his community. The Hebrew Bible (e.g., Is 2:11-12; 5:15-16; Ezek 21:26) and later Jewish sources (Sir 11:5-6; b. ʾAbot 6:4, bar.; ARN 11A; 22B; b. ʿErub. 13b; Gen. Rab. 1:5; Der Er. Zut. 9; Moore 1971: 2:274; Lachs 1987: 368) provided a picture of eschatological reversal of the proud and humble, echoed by Jesus here.

Jesus emphasizes the model of humility for his own followers here more than the condemnation of outsiders who exalt themselves (cf. 20:25-27; 24:49-51); in antithetic parallelism, one expects the emphasis on the second line (Jeremias 1971: 18-19).

Woes against Human Religion (23:13-32)

Woes such as these would not have commended Jesus to those against whom he directed them, but his teachings on humility and grace would not by themselves have evoked hostility (pace Goppelt 1964: 58-59). Rabbinic Judaism, which probably sprang in large measure from Pharisaism, harshly condemned hypocrisy (e.g., t. Yoma 5:12; b. Soṭa 41b-42a; Pesaḥ. 113b; Esth. Rab. 1:17; Odeberg 1964: 63). Modern Christian readers often think of “Pharisees” as hypocrites, and hence do not feel threatened when hearing them denounced, nor do they recognize the scandal Jesus represented to his religious contemporaries. But the Pharisees’ contemporaries thought of them as the most devoted practitioners of religion, and of the scribes as Bible experts. One who studies Pharisaic ethics will find them generally comparable with Jesus’ teachings (also 23:2-3); it is the human heart, rather than an ethical system, that Jesus here confronts (see Odeberg 1964).

Though a Semitic term, the Greek sense of “woe” can convey a sense lamentation (“Alas”) rather than a threat (Argyle 1963: 174; cf. 24:19). Nevertheless, lamentations often functioned as a creative prophetic way of sounding impending judgment (18:7; Is 15:5; 16:11; Jer 48:36; 51:8; Rev 8:13; 18:2); “woe” functions here as a direct pronouncement of judgment, as in the pronouncements against self-satisfied sinners in Isaiah 5:18-23. (Cf. also Hanson 1994 for the possible shame dimension.)

Religious leaders can do more harm than good (23:13-15). Jesus first accuses them of “shutting” off the kingdom, using the image of an authoritative majordomo (16:19; Is 22:22; Rev 3:7; cf. the tragic image in Pesiq. R. 26:6) or perhaps a porter abusing authority to keep welcome guests out. This may allude to the scribes’ purported authority of “binding and loosing” by their knowledge of the law (16:19), here used to hinder would-be followers of Christ (Meier 1980: 268-69).

Jewish hearers learning of leaders who abused keys God entrusted to them might expect those keys to be taken away by God (2 Bar. 10:18). Thus they are “blind leaders of the blind” (23:16, 24; cf. 23:17, 19; 15:14; Lk 6:39). Textual evidence favors viewing 23:14 as an interpolation (Mk 12:40; Lk 20:47), leaving a total of seven woes (Plummer 1910: 316; though eight woes would come closer to matching the beatitudes, Matthew’s sets of seven parables show his predilection toward this number as well); possibly Matthew, who omits the widow (Mk 12:41-44), decides to omit the corresponding warning (Mk 12:40).

They are eager to proselytize, but their converts simply mimic and accentuate their flaws (23:15). Possibly the text warns about Pharisees’ making converts to Pharisaism, perhaps from among Gentile God-fearers (Carson 1984b: 478; Levinskaya 1996: 36-39),

but that would be an unusual use of the term “proselyte.” More likely is a reference to seeking Gentile converts to Judaism, although Pharisees would naturally teach them according to their own scrupulous interpretations of Torah (though these varied; cf. the alleged attitudes of Shammai and Hillel toward proselytes). Since Matthew’s Jesus challenges their deeds more than their words (23:2-3), he may mean that the Pharisees engender hypocrisy in those who imitate them.

Although Judaism had no central sending agency and hence no “missionaries” in the formal sense (see, e.g., Hoenig 1965: 49; Lake 1979a: 75; Sevenster 1975: 203; Murphy-O’Connor 1992), plenty of evidence, especially in Diaspora Jewish apologetics (e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.17, 34-36; Apion 2.210)

and Gentile criticisms of Jewish conversions (e.g., Tac. Hist. 5.5; Dio Cassius R.H. 57.18.5; 60.6.7; Hor. Sat. 1.4.141-44), testifies to many Jewish people seeking Gentile converts in the course of their other work. Jewish people actively courted the many conversions taking place in the Diaspora until Christian emperors began enforcing earlier Roman laws to shut Jewish proselytism down (cf. Jeremias 1958: 11-12).

The Pharisees were probably no less interested in this process than others, especially if we may judge from the favorable light in which their successors viewed stories of Hillel’s openness to converts; one cannot therefore use the lack of ancient Jewish “missionaries” to regard the saying inauthentic (pace Flowers 1961). Presumably by exposing them to the truth of God’s standards while allowing hypocrisy through their own bad example (23:3, 13), these proselytizers were leading their converts to be doubly damned. (“Child of gehinnom” was a Semitic way to say “destined for gehinnom”; see, e.g., b. Rosh Hash. 17a.)

Inconsistency in evaluating standards of holiness dishonors God (23:16-22). On 23:16-22, see comments on 5:33-37. Along with Jesus’ common use of periphrasis, his abhorrence of oaths that could abuse God’s name shows that he not only agreed with, but was among the most devout defenders of, the sanctity of God’s name (Jeremias 1971: 179). Oaths involved invoking a deity as witness to the veracity of one’s claim. On the popular level, people had begun using many surrogate phrases for God’s name, hoping to avoid judgment if they broke the oath; the Pharisees endeavored to distinguish which oath phrases were actually binding, but Jesus rejected such casuistry (Sanders 1990: 55, 91; cf. CD 16.6-13). On blind guides (23:16, 24; cf. 23:17, 19; Lk 6:39), cf. 15:14 and the principles in 7:3-5; 6:22-23; 13:14-17.

Even aside from the fabulous golden vine (e.g., Jos. War 5.210; Ant. 15.395; cf. another in Ant. 14.34-36), the temple boasted much gold, including decorations of the sanctuary (cf. Jos. Apion 2.84; Ant. 14.72, 106, 110; War 5.201-10, 222). As in 23:19, Jewish people viewed the altar as consecrating whatever was offered on it (Bonsirven 1964: 124); although pronouncing judgment on a defiled temple (23:38; 24:15; cf. 21:12; 27:25), Jesus elsewhere respects the sanctity of the temple and its altar (5:23). The Pharisees may have prohibited swearing by the gold of the temple because they felt that it, unlike the temple or the altar, was subject to lien (Gundry 1982: 463); in any case, Jesus rejected the reasoning. Even more than the ancient tabernacle (cf. Haran 1965: 202), early Judaism recognized degrees of holiness (m. Kelim 1:6-9; Neyrey 1991: 278-79); but Matthew charges that they did not behave consistently with this belief. Jesus rails in part against the traditions that have created inconsistent standards of holiness. But Jesus’ attack is ultimately directed against the profanation of God’s name; because any surrogate oath nevertheless represents God’s name and implicitly calls him to witness, any breach of truthfulness demands judgment no less severe.

Religion can emphasize holiness in the details while missing more critical matters of holiness (23:23-28). Having remarked on their inconsistency in ritual matters (23:16-22), Jesus now turns to their inconsistency in other respects, beginning with tithing (23:23; cf. Lk 11:42).

Excursus on Tithing (23:23)

Ancient Israel had been an agrarian society, and they brought one-tenth of their produce into storehouses to care for the landless Levites and priests, and once every third year to provide a major festival, paying the way of the poor who otherwise could not participate (Lev 27:30; Num 18:21-32; Deut 14:22-29; Neh 13:10-12), though early Judaism seems to have included different perspectives on how to harmonize these texts (cf. Jos. Ant. 4.68-69; 9.273; Life 63, 80; m. Maʿaś. passim; m. Maʿaś Sh. passim; for the data, see Sanders 1990: 43-44).

Jewish teachers highly regarded tithes (cf. Pesiq. R. 25; Safrai 1974/76c: 818-25), esteeming them as a protection for wealth as tradition provided protection (a fence) for Torah (R. Akiba, m. ʾAbot 3:13; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:1; Pesiq. R. 5:3). Indeed, one area of piety for which Pharisees were particularly known was their scrupulousness in tithing.

Perhaps only the most pious farmers tithed the way the urban Pharisees thought essential; on top of Roman taxes or the share demanded by landlords, economic pressure must have overwhelmed many small farmers (Borg 1987: 85; Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 91; cf. MacMullen 1974: 42). Some scholars (e.g., Sanders 1993: 146-68; Crossan 1991a: 221) are convinced that others (e.g., Horsley and Hanson 1985: 55-59; Oakman 1991: 165) have overstated the amount of taxation; this may be true, but in any case taxes were hard on rural workers throughout the Empire (MacMullen 1974: 34-37). Josephus, perhaps representing an aristocratic perspective, is even harder on the farmers than most rabbis are; but in any case the tithes amounted to 17 to 20 percent of the farmer’s income (see Sanders 1990: 44-45). Clearly some people evaded paying the first tithe, as attested by Pharisaic concern to tithe on foodstuffs acquired from those who may not have tithed it (Sanders 1990: 47). Various sources testify that substantial tithes nevertheless reached the temple (e.g., Jos. Life 63; Sanders 1990: 46).

Building their fence around the law, the Pharisees were careful about minutiae, about tithing substances where it was disputed whether or not they were foodstuffs, hence debatable whether they were covered under the Old Testament agrarian tithe (cf. Jeremias 1969: 254). Dill (anise) and cummin were aromatic plants;

later rabbis settled on dill (probably m. Maʿaś. Sh. 4:5) and cummin (m. Dem. 2:1) being tithed but later denied mint (cf. Goulder 1974: 22). First-century Shammaites doubted that black cummin need be tithed, in contrast to Hillelites (m. ʿUq. 3:6; Sanders 1990: 48). In their eagerness to avoid violating any portion of the law, the ultrastrict Pharisees Jesus addresses here (perhaps a hyperbolic, reductio ad absurdum construct) tithe even the most disputable of substances. Believing that they were showing their faithfulness to God’s law by examining its every detail, they would not have thought of themselves as neglecting the law’s broader principles; Jesus, however, insisted that their commendable attention to the former had neglected the latter (see Odeberg 1964: 43). Jesus accepts that they should have kept these biblical laws, but insists that they have missed the forest for the trees (cf. 7:3-5); their neglect of the basic requirements (Deut 10:12-13; Mic 6:8) was inexcusable.

Most Jewish teachers recognized distinctions in the law, such as those between humanward and Godward commandments (e.g., Philo Spec. Leg. 2.62-63; Sanders 1992: 192-95; in the rabbis, Sanders 1985: 249). Both philosophers like Philo (Wolfson 1968: 2:277, at length; cf. Epict. 1.26.15) and the rabbis came to regard some commandments as “weightier” — more significant — than others (m. ʾAbot 2:1; 4:2; Sifra V. D. Deho. par. 1.34.1.3, par. 12.65.1.3; ARN 1, §8B; cf. Johnston 1982: 207).

This practice, too, could lend itself to detailed analysis: Rabbi Meir (second century) regarded the punishment for neglecting the white threads of the ṣiṣith as heavier than that for neglecting the blue threads (b. Menaḥ. 43b). Although he, like his contemporaries, regarded no commandment as light, Matthew’s Jesus himself taught much about “weightier” matters, even in this context (22:36; 23:5, 17, 19), elsewhere emphasizing justice (e.g., 5:22; 23:33), mercy (e.g., 9:13), and faithfulness (e.g., 8:10).

Jesus illustrates their inconsistency in 23:24 with a witty illustration along the lines of prophetic puns of judgment in Micah 1:10-15 or Jeremiah 1:1-12 (especially because in Aramaic the words gamla and kamla or kalma are almost the same — Black 1967: 175-76; Stein 1978: 13; Chilton 1994: 119). Jesus portrays here Pharisees more scrupulous than Pharisaic legal rulings required. If a fly fell into one’s drink, they might hope to strain it out before it died, lest it contaminate the drink (cf. Lev 11:34). But Pharisaic legal experts decided that any organism smaller than a lentil (such as a gnat) was exempt (Sanders 1990: 32). Since most of us today would not want a gnat dying in our drink either, we may have sympathy with a Pharisee who for a different reason — in his passion for purity — went beyond the letter of the law (cf. Sanders 1990: 38).

These Pharisees were so inconsistent, Jesus said, that they concerned themselves with purity issues as trifling as a gnat but did not mind swallowing a camel whole (cf. Epict. Disc. 1.26.16: amateur philosophers incapable of ingesting a morsel instead swallow an entire treatise). Gnats appear in ancient illustrations as the prototypically smallest of creatures (Sifre Deut. 32.2.1; Babrius 84; Ach. Tat. 2.21.4-5; 2.22); by contrast, camels, which were explicitly unclean under biblical law (Lev 11:4), were also the largest land animal in Palestine (see on 19:24).

Although Jesus speaks metaphorically about the inside of a cup (i.e., the human heart) in verses 25 and 26 (cf. Lk 11:39-41), he may allude to a matter of some discussion among his contemporaries. The Mishnah regularly distinguishes between inner and outer parts of vessels with respect to cleanness (McNamara 1983: 197 cites m. Kelim 25:1-9; Para 12:8; Ṭohar. 8:7), and some discussions of cleanness go back to the first-century disputes between the schools of Shammai and Hillel (b. Shab. 14b, bar.). The Shammaite school of Pharisees were less concerned whether one cleansed the inner or outer part first. By contrast the Hillelite Pharisees thought that the outsides of cups were typically unclean anyway and thus, like Jesus, insisted on cleansing the inner part first (Neusner 1976: 492-94; m. Ber. 8:2).

Jesus’ statement on the surface challenges Shammaite practice (though for the effect of the metaphor); that the Shammaites predominated in Jesus’ time but not after A.D. 70 supports the saying’s authenticity.

Other matters also support the saying’s authenticity. That Luke’s version (Lk 11:41) reads “give in charity” rather than “cleanse” again suggests an original Aramaic saying like the one Matthew records; the former (which fits Luke’s theology of charity, and might be construed as abrogating purity laws) represents the Aramaic zakkau, while the latter (which fits the saying itself) stands for the Aramaic dakkau (Black 1967: 2; Burney 1922: 9; Argyle 1963: 176). But Jesus’ ultimate challenge goes beyond ritual purity practices to the point he illustrates: the heart comes first (15:6-20).

Although dead creatures in one’s fluid (23:24) and menstruation produced impurity, corpse uncleanness (23:27-28; Lk 11:44) was more severe, extending seven days (Num 19:11-14; Jos. Ant. 18.38; m. Kelim 1:4). If so much as one’s shadow touched a corpse or a tomb, one contracted impurity.

Although Jesus may have originally alluded to the practice in the spring of using whitewash to warn passersby and Passover pilgrims to avoid unclean tombs lest they become impure and hence barred from the feast (m. Moʿed. Qat. 1:2; Maʿaś. Sh. 5:1; Sheqal. 1:1; b. B. Meṣ. 85b; p. Moʿed. Qat. 1:2, §7; for other warning markers see t. Maʿaś. Sh. 5:13) as in Luke 11:44 (Argyle 1963: 176; Schweizer 1975: 442; Meier 1980: 271; Sanders 1990: 39), Matthew focuses on an incidental effect of the marking. For him, the whitewash was a beautifying agent to cover the tomb’s corruption (borrowing the image from Ezek 13:10-12). Their outward appearance (cf. 23:5, 28) merely provided a veneer for the impurity, hence lawlessness, of their hearts. To those who prided themselves on obedience to Torah, the charge of lawlessness would be deeply offensive and shaming. In the Septuagint, it involved rebellion against God’s will (Meier 1979: 161); to Matthew’s audience, it evokes one of the signs inviting end-time judgment (24:12; cf. 2 Thess 2:3, 7-9).

Bloodguilt for killing God’s spokespersons merits divine judgment against God’s people (23:29-32; cf. Lk 11:47-48). Jewish tradition emphasized that their ancestors had killed the prophets (Van Tilborg 1972b: 46-72; Amaru 1983; comment on 5:12). More recent prophets, from Onias (rabbinic literature’s Honi the Circle-Drawer; Jos. Ant. 14.22-24) to Jesus’ predecessor John, had shared this very fate. In 23:29-36 Jesus challenges the hypocrisy of those who honor the prophets by caring for their tombs, yet like their ancestors will kill the Prophet who has come to them (so also Jeremias 1971: 146).

Their behavior proves that they are spiritually not “descendants of the prophets,” but rather “descendants of those who killed them”; Semitic languages can describe a person as being another’s son if the person is like the other (Fenton 1977: 376), but descendants who walked in their ancestors’ ways would also reap their ancestors’ judgments (Ex 20:5). Using the testimony of one’s critics against themselves by revealing inherent contradictions was an important rhetorical strategy (Jos. Apion 1.219-20; 2.148).

Employing irony in a manner typical of the prophets (who sometimes told the people to go on sinning but to expect God’s judgment for it — 1 Kings 18:27; Is 6:9; 29:9; Jer 23:28; 44:25-26; Ezek 3:27; Amos 4:4-5; cf. Eccl 11:9; Rev 22:11; Sib. Or. 3.57-59), Jesus tells his adversaries to fill to the brim the role of prophet-murderers they had inherited, and that the judgment collecting for generations would finally be poured out in their generation (23:36; cf. 2 Kings 21:10-15; 22:16-20; 24:2-4).

(The image of “filling up the measure” of suffering should have been a familiar one in ancient Mediterranean culture; cf. Rev 6:11; Hom. Il. 8.354; Ap. Rhod. 1.1035, 1323; perhaps Ps 75:8; Is 51:17; Col 1:24.)

Impending Judgment on the Religious Establishment (23:33-39)

Cf. Lk 11:49-51; 13:34-35. Just as members of God’s own people had murdered God’s spokespeople in the past (23:29-31), so they would do to Jesus (23:32) and his followers (23:34). But whatever judgments past generations might have suffered, the final expression of guilt had been saved up for the climactic murder of this generation — the execution of Jesus (23:32-36; 27:25). The religious establishment of Jesus’ day warranted judgment, as had the spiritually irresponsible leaders of previous generations (cf. Is 3:12-14; Hos 5:1; Amos 7:10-17; Mic 3:9-11; Zeph 3:4). Like Matthew 24, this section views the imminent destruction of the temple, due to occur in their generation (23:35-38), in the context of eschatological judgment (23:33, 39).

Like his predecessor John the Baptist, Jesus asks who had warned these offspring of vipers (cf. 3:7; 12:34) to flee the approaching hellfire yet had failed to call them to bear the fruits of repentance (23:33; cf. 3:7-8)? The prophets, wise men (hokhmim, sages), and scribes Jesus would send represent the various missions of his own followers (5:12; 13:52; cf. “apostles” in Lk 11:49), whether they came as prophetic or teaching figures (cf. 11:18-19).

Jesus here fills a role filled by God in the biblical tradition (e.g., 2 Chron 36:15-16, which also refers to Israel’s rejection of the prophets) and some later Jewish sources (Jub. 1:12; Charles 1902: lxxxiii). That Luke (11:49) and probably Q attribute this saying to divine wisdom suggests that Matthew here presents Jesus as deity or divine wisdom (cf., e.g., Hamerton-Kelly 1973: 31, following Suggs). These prophets, like the earlier prophets that Jesus mentioned (23:29-31; cf. 21:35-36) and himself (23:32, 36; cf. 21:39), would face persecution. Matthew’s additions to Q here (Lk 11:49) evoke the mission discourse: scourging in the synagogues (10:17) and being hunted from town to town (10:23; Luke probably would not have omitted this — cf. Acts 14:6; 17:13). This suggests that persecution for Jewish Christians remaining in the synagogues could be a live issue for Matthew’s community, even if it was not as dramatic as during the editing of Q (probably ca. A.D. 40).

Filling up the cup to the brim refers to meriting all the “blood,” that is, bloodguilt, saved up among past generations, never punished as was deserved (cf. Is 40:2; Deut 32:43; Ps 79:10; Rev 6:10; Sifre Deut. 332.2.1). (Jesus may allude here to the Jewish eschatological concept that a predetermined quantity of suffering was prerequisite for the end — Rev 6:10-11; 1 Enoch 47:2-4; 4 Ezra 4:33-37; Meier 1980: 272.) That generation (23:36) would receive the fruit of this judgment (24:34; 11:16; 13:39, 45; 16:4); such warnings in Q material (Lk 11:51) show that the expectation of impending judgment on the generation was not simply a post–A.D. 70 invention of the church.

Jesus uses the Old Testament language of corporate personality, regularly recited in the Passover liturgy: they stood in continuity with their ancestors. Not simply “their ancestors,” but they themselves had shed the blood of the righteous. He probably chooses as examples the first and final martyrs of the biblical record (in many arrangements of the Old Testament, the Writings, including 2 Chronicles, was the final section).

The blood of Abel, a prototypical martyr and figure for the beginning (Test. Iss. 5:4), had cried for vengeance against his fraternal slayer (Gen 4:10; Heb 11:4; 12:24; Jub. 4:3; 1 Enoch 22:6-7; ARN 31A; Gen. Rab. 22:9; on Heb 11:4, pace Lane 1991: 335). Jewish tradition naturally amplified the judgment on Cain (e.g., Jub. 4:31-32; Test. Benj. 7:3-5; ARN 41A; Gen. Rab. 97 NV). Blood crying out for vengeance becomes an accepted principle (Sib. Or. 3.310-13; Pesiq. R. 24:1; cf. Deut 21:9; Aqhat in ANET 154; 1 Enoch 9:1-2).

Jesus’ second example probably is the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, martyred in the temple.

(In view of the father’s name cited, the tradition here probably conflates this Zechariah with the prophet who wrote the book of Zechariah; see Gundry 1982: 471; pace Wenham 1977: 79.) According to Jewish tradition, Zechariah’s blood, like Abel’s, had cried against his murderers for vengeance, this time yielding the massacre of many priests. The bloodguilt for Jesus’ death would come on that generation (27:25); as Zechariah’s blood had once desecrated the priestly sanctuary and so invited judgment (Lives of the Prophets 23:1; Sifra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.1; p. Taʿan. 4:5, §14; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:7; Lam. Rab. 2:20, §23), so would the blood of the priests in A.D. 66 as the “abomination which brings about desolation” (24:15). That the shedding of innocent blood invited judgment was a biblical theme continued in Jewish tradition (Sib. Or. 3.312; Test. Zeb. 2:2; b. Shab. 33a; Yoma 9b), and one had to take special pains to protect the sanctuary from bloodshed (e.g., 2 Chron 23:14-15; cf. Mt 27:6). The murder of Zechariah in the temple (23:35) recalls their murder of the very prophets whose tombs they build (23:29-31) and their profaning the sanctuary with false oaths (23:16-21).

Jesus here utters another lament (the Aramaic fits the rhythm of a funeral dirge — Manson 1979: 126; Minear 1954: 107).

In contrast to the woes earlier in the chapter (23:13-29), Jesus’ words in 23:37 represent a true lament (cf. Baum 1961: 54). That Jesus laments over Jerusalem is fitting: Judaism never forgot the biblical picture of God’s special love for Israel (see, e.g., the sources in Montefiore and Loewe 1974: 58-85), and Jesus elsewhere demonstrates his special concern for Israel (10:5-6; 15:24-26). That Jesus wished to gather his people under his wings recalls the image of God sheltering his people under his wings (e.g., Ex 19:4; Deut 32:11; Ps 17:8; 36:7; 63:7; 91:4; 1 Enoch 39:7; Sifre Deut. 296.3.1; 306.4.1; 314.1.1-6; b. Soṭa 13b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:1; Pesiq. R. 4:1); Jewish teachers also came to speak of one who converted a Gentile as bringing him or her under the wings of the Shekinah (cf. Ruth 2:12; 2 Bar. 41:4; ARN 12A; Sifra Qed. pq. 8.205.1.4; Sifre Num. 80.1.1; Sifre Deut. 32.2.1; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 13b; Shab. 31a; Gen. Rab. 47:10; Song Rab. 1:1, §10; 1:3, §3; Pesiq. R. 14:2). If Luke’s context is original, it also recalls Jesus’ physical vulnerability to his enemies on Israel’s behalf (Lk 13:32). But as often in the case of God in the Old Testament, Jesus’ love for Jerusalem here gives way to the brokenhearted pain of their rejection (for Jerusalem in particular, cf. Rev 11:8 vs. 17:6; for direct address of Jerusalem, e.g., Jer 13:27). God also weeps over his judgment of Israel (e.g., Jer 8:21-22; 9:1, 10), including over the temple’s destruction (Lam. Rab. Proem 24; contrast Gentile Christian tradition as early as the second century; cf. Bokser 1973: 205-6). Israel had killed (Jer 26:20-23; here, especially 2 Chron 25:16) and persecuted (Amos 2:12; 7:12-13; Is 30:10) the prophets God had sent; Jewish tradition amplified prophetic martyrology further (Manson 1979: 126-27), as did Christian tradition (the interpolation in Sib. Or. 2.248). After 70, Jewish prayers also confessed that Israel’s sins had brought on the calamity of exile (Neusner 1984: 19-20, while disagreeing with their verdict).

For Luke, Jesus’ grief and his promise that they will see him later (Lk 13:34-35) precedes, hence is fulfilled in, the triumphal entry (Lk 19:41); Matthew places it among the woes of coming judgment, but in so doing transforms this into a promise of future hope (cf. 10:23; Glasson 1963b: 96-98; Goppelt 1964: 96; Aune 1983: 176; Patte 1987: 329). Perhaps as in some early Jewish teaching (cf., e.g., Ezek 36:33; Amos 9:8-12; Tob 13:6; Jub. 1:15-18; Rom 11:25-27; b. Sanh. 97b), Israel’s repentance was the goal of history, and her salvation was contingent on her repentance (cf. Allison 1983).

Jesus awaits their cry (cf., e.g., Is 30:19) to enter Jerusalem with acclaim again (cf. 21:9); the Son of Man’s appearance will terrify the nations (24:30; cf. 26:64), but a significant proportion of Israel will have returned to the covenant. Israel’s restoration was a major theme of the biblical prophets, which reappears at least occasionally in early Christianity (Rom 11:26), though the emphasis of early Christian apologetic came to focus on the Gentile mission.

By itself, the “desolation” of the house could refer to anything from a royal palace (Jer 22:5) to Israel as God’s house (Jer 12:7), but in the context of Jesus’ teachings, the Gospel tradition, and the immediate context in Matthew it can only mean the destruction of the temple (24:15; see Meier 1980: 274; Baum 1961: 54; Mt 21:13; Jer 12:7; Tob 14:4). Thus the temple is “left” (cf. 24:2) “desolate” (24:15). This interpretation is the most natural in a Jewish context; the temple was also “your house” (Jdt 9:13). The Babylonians had also left the temple (Jos. Apion 1.154) and city (Apion 1.132) “desolate.” Further, later Jewish teachers even used a bilingual play on words to identify Jeremiah’s mission with the temple’s “desolation” (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 13:12, the same Greek term as here); for them, the house left desolate was plainly the temple (p. Taʿan. 4:5, §11), and exile under a foreign power inevitably followed the “desolation” of their city (4 Bar. 5:28). Israel saw itself rising or falling with its temple (Jer 7:3-15); the restored temple is a symbol of Israel’s restoration and glory in Ezekiel 40–44. We cannot read 23:30-39 without viewing it in the light of 24:1-3, 15; Matthew connects the two discrete units of tradition purposefully.

The Temple’s Destruction (24:1-3)

The Mount of Olives and Temple Mount were close together, and one could pass directly from one to the other without passing through the rest of Jerusalem (24:3; Gundry 1982: 413; cf. 21:12, 23). Though in Matthew’s source (Mk 13:3), this “mountain” balances the mountain in Jesus’ first Matthean discourse (Gundry 1982: 453), it might also evoke the new Moses theme again (as probably in 5:1-2; 15:29); many texts portray Moses and figures patterned after him receiving revelations of the future on the mountain (Allison 1993b: 254-55 cites, e.g., Jub. 1:1-4; Ezekiel’s Exag.; Ps-Philo 19; 4 Ezra 4:5; 2 Bar. 2; Sifre Deut. 357; Targ. Ps-J. Deut. 34:1).

The introduction to the discourse suggests some points that probably would have stood out to the original audience. First, Jesus is not impressed with splendid buildings and other monuments that impress others (24:1-2). In ancient literature (at least after the temple’s demise), this attitude could evoke praise as a mark of his different values (cf. Philost. V.A. 1, §30).

The temple was renowned for its beauty (Jos. War 6.267; ARN 28A; 48, §132B) and known throughout the Roman world (2 Macc 2:22; Ep. Arist. 84-91; CIJ 1:378, §515; Lohse 1978: 151). Perhaps because Judaism’s cult was centralized (Sanders 1992: 50), its temple was larger and more magnificent than virtually any other temple of antiquity (Sanders 1992: 55-69; cf. Wilkinson 1978: 76; Patrich 1988).

The Pharisees, who generally disliked Herod, were sometimes displeased with his abuse of the temple (especially regarding his golden eagle there — Jos. Ant. 17.151-52; War 1.651; Schürer 1961: 144, 157); nevertheless, even they regarded the temple as the most holy site in the world’s most holy city (e.g., m. Kelim 1:6-9; Mek. Pisha 1.48ff., Laut. 1:4). (In succeeding centuries popular synagogue Judaism seems to have liked eagle decorations — Goodenough 1953-68: 8:121-22.) Diaspora Jews were intensely committed to the temple, as attested both by their payment of the annual tax for its upkeep and remarks in Egyptian Jewish literature (e.g., Sib. Or. 3.575-79). A Diaspora Jew like Philo emphasized Jewry’s unanimous love for the temple and expected it to remain forever (Spec. Leg. 1.76; Sanders 1992: 52); even in the Ptolemaic period, before Herod’s grand temple, an Egyptian Jew might view the temple as invincible (Ep. Arist. 100-101). Indeed, if the Greeks believed that gods might fight to defend their temples (e.g., Herod. Hist. 8, §37), why should not Israel believe the same about its temple (4 Macc 4:9-12)? Galilean peasants and other Galilean pilgrims like these disciples would certainly have marveled at its grandeur (see Beasley-Murray 1957: 19; Freyne 1988: 181).

Second, God himself would bring swift judgment against the religious establishment (24:2). The temple, as the ultimate symbol of that establishment, which the people took to be the symbol of God’s glory (cf. Jer 7:4), would be utterly destroyed. This promise, probably already fulfilled by Matthew’s day, would provide a sense of vindication to Matthew’s audience; but it probably also accurately recalls Jesus’ teaching.

Mack asserts, “apart from Mark’s passion narrative, there is no indication that Jesus or his early followers looked for the destruction of the temple” (1988: 10n.4); but few scholars today would find his position consistent with our data.

That Jesus actually uttered such a judgment against the temple a generation before it happened is difficult to doubt historically. Whereas the later church may have forgotten the significance of some of Jesus’ words and deeds against the temple, they nevertheless preserved them: a symbolic act of judgment there (21:12), testimony of witnesses the Christians believed to be false (26:61; cf. Mk 15:29; Jn 2:19; Acts 6:14), and Q material like that of the house being left desolate (Mt 23:38//Lk 13:35). Jewish Christians who continued to worship in the temple (Acts 2:46; 21:26-27) nevertheless remained faithful to a saying of Jesus that they would surely not have created (cf. Hare 1967: 6).

Further, those who question the authenticity of Jesus’ more specific threat to destroy and rebuild the temple based on lack of contemporary expectations for the temple’s destruction and renewal have not examined contemporary expectations carefully enough (Sanders 1985: 365n.5). Some of Jesus’ sectarian contemporaries also predicted judgment on the temple; for instance, if Testament of Levi is pre-Christian at this point, it promises the desolation of the sanctuary on account of the priests’ uncleanness (Test. Levi 15:1; cf. 14:6). The Testament of Moses, which accuses priests of polluting the altar (5:4), prophesies judgment against the temple (6:8-9), and because the Roman ruler destroys only part of the temple in the oracle, the prophecy undoubtedly predates A.D. 70. In some texts, enemy rulers may want to destroy the temple (Sib. Or. 3.665), but God will establish it eschatologically (3.657-60). Sanders 1993: 262 cites the repeated expectation in some strands of early Jewish literature that God would bring a new temple down (1 Enoch 90:28-29; 11QTemple 29:8-10; cf. the hope of restoration in the seventeenth benediction of the Amida). Indeed, some interpreters already took 2 Samuel 7:13-14 as messianic (see 4QFlor), which may have supplied ample reason for picturing the messianic Son of David as building the new temple (Witherington 1992: 92, following Juel 1977: 204).

Likewise, that a Qumran document can accurately warn that the Kittim (by whom they mean the Romans) would carry off the Jerusalem priesthood’s wealth (1QpHab 9.6-7) hardly makes the prediction, in a document undoubtedly predating A.D. 70, post-70!

As Hill observes (1979: 62-63),

that Jesus himself could have made the prediction [of the temple’s destruction] is no more improbable than that Jesus ben-Chananiah should have done so in AD 62 (Jos. Bell. VI.300ff.): indeed, the destruction of the Temple was one of the most important elements in post-Herodian messianism, and not every reference to it requires a date after AD 70.

That the disciples therefore connect the temple’s demise with the age’s end (24:3) — thus allowing for its imminent rebuilding — fits the sort of expectations known to have existed among some of their contemporaries. Jesus hardly expected his own disciples to tear down the old temple; like some of his contemporaries, he expected God to act (Sanders 1993: 259).

Similarly, Jesus’ evocation of the language of the biblical prophets renders superfluous a necessary appeal to prophecy after the event (Robinson 1976: 27, following Dodd; cf. Taylor 1935: 73). That the first temple’s previous violations indicated judgment would have made sense to Jesus’ contemporaries steeped in biblical tradition (Ps. Sol. 2:1-10; 17:5; cf. Song Rab. 8:12, §1; Lam. Rab. 4:22, §25; Ruth Rab. Proem 7), and many, though not all, Jewish teachers in succeeding centuries recognized the destruction of Herod’s temple as judgment (e.g., Jos. War 6.288-315; Pesiq. R. 26:6; cf. Apoc. Abr. 27:3-7; Goldenberg 1982).

Finally, those writing a retroactive prophecy after an event might be more likely to report the prophecy with literalistic accuracy rather than with hyperbole; some stones were left standing on others (Danker 1972: 198; Kaufman 1981: 115; cf. the language of Hag 2:15). In fact, some of these stones from the retaining wall still remain, and are rather conspicuous, most of them between two and five tons, but one, nearly forty feet long, is close to 400 tons. One “prophesying” after the event might have taken better account of the concrete evidence against one’s literal claim (Sanders 1993: 257).

Similarly, one would also never guess from the passage that the temple actually was destroyed by fire (cf. Matthean redaction in 22:7).

In a “prophecy” after the event, the sources would probably also have more clearly distinguished between the temple’s demise and Jesus’ return (cf. Mk 13:2). Similarly, one scholar, who doubts that the Synoptics accurately report Jesus’ teaching about the imminent end time, complains that if the Synoptics are accurate here, Jesus was “mistaken rather than misreported” (Glasson 1963b: 75) — the very sort of conclusion composers of tradition after 70 would have wished to avoid.

Third, this chapter will address two questions: (1) the time of the temple’s destruction and (2) the sign indicating his coming and the close of this age (24:3).

Commentators draw attention to some contrasts between Matthew and his source. For instance, whereas in Mark the eschatological discourse is esoteric, addressing four disciples (Mk 13:3), Matthew addresses the discourse to all disciples (Mt 13:3; Bornkamm 1963a: 21). Mark suggests that Jesus was teaching while he walked from the temple, in the fashion popularized by Aristotle’s school (Mk 13:1; Aune 1983: 186; Robbins 1992: 171, 178, citing Varro De re rustica 1.21 and others); Matthew’s language may emphasize that Jesus had already departed from the temple, perhaps signifying judgment (Mt 24:1; Minear 1954: 109; Meier 1980: 277-78). More importantly, however, Matthew distinguishes two questions.

Although biblical prophecy often linked events according to the kind of event rather than their sequence (e.g., a near locust plague coalesces with eschatological armies in Joel 1:4-7; 2:25; 3:2-17), clarity was essential for Matthew (probably writing after 70) in a way that it was not for Mark (Mk 13:2, probably before 70; cf. F. F. Bruce 1972a: 71; Brown 1979). Jesus’ prophecy about the temple’s destruction had been fulfilled, yet he had not returned; this situation (the oft-heralded “delay of the parousia”) undoubtedly fueled both disillusionment (probably making Christians more susceptible to false prophetic reinterpretations of the parousia, as in 24:23-25) and eschatological speculation.

The final prerequisite for Jesus’ coming is the evangelization of all nations (24:14), the most quantifiable prerequisite is the temple’s desecration (24:15), but the only sign of his immediate coming the passage mentions appears in the heavens when or just before (tote, “then”) Jesus appears (24:30; cf. Wenham 1977: 72; pace Walvoord 1971b).

Not Yet the End (24:4-14)

Although some doubt that Jesus would have spoken eschatological words, particularly in images resembling those often found in apocalyptic literature, their skepticism probably reveals more about their presuppositions about Jesus than about the evidence, as Albert Schweitzer pointed out long ago.

An eschatological Jesus pervades the tradition and in a first-century context is hardly inherently incompatible with Jesus the sage or prophet; Gentile Christians would not have introduced such Jewish imagery, and one doubts that Jewish Christians need have been more inclined to it than their teacher (cf. A. B. Bruce 1979: 288; Beasley-Murray 1954; idem 1957: 1-18).

Indeed, the language of the discourse, though thoroughly Palestinian Jewish, is not apocalyptic revelation in the strictest sense, but exhortation based on some end-time motifs characterizing both prophecy and apocalyptic texts (Morris 1972: 88-90).

The pre-Synoptic source or sources here reflect motifs common to apocalyptic literature, but also a sober, hortatory realism. Disciples may have assembled elements of the tradition before Mark during a crisis of eschatological significance such as Caligula’s public intention to have his statue erected in the temple (e.g., Ford 1979: 23; most fully, Theissen 1991: 125-65).

Jesus’ final discourse in Matthew includes Markan, Q, and special Matthean material, but even some elements of Matthew’s redaction here (such as the trumpet in 24:31) echo definite Jesus tradition, as the allusions in the earliest extant Christian document indicate (1 Thess 4:13–5:11; cf. 2 Thess 2:1-12): clouds, gathering of the elect, angel(s), lawlessness, apostasy, defilement of God’s temple, the parousia (common to Mt 24 and the Thessalonian correspondence), coming as a thief, unknown times and seasons (Acts 1:7), sudden destruction on the wicked, and so on.

That both Jesus’ discourse (see Gundry 1982: 478) and Paul lack many other themes of Jewish apocalyptic (e.g., mutant babies — 4 Ezra 5:8; 6:21; Sib. Or. 2.154-64, following Hesiod W.D. 181) strongly supports the view that they share a common source.

This coincidence of particular motifs and absence of others also refutes the idea that merely early Jewish-Christian scriptural embellishment rather than Jesus himself would stand behind both the extant Jesus tradition and 1 Thessalonians; the latter probably constitutes our earliest Christian document and derives from a very nonapocalyptic milieu. The same coincidence of motifs refutes the thesis that Paul and the Gospel tradition both depend on an early Christian prophecy. Given the abundance of prophecy in early Christianity (cf. 1 Thess 5:20; 1 Cor 14:26-31) and lack of much concrete evidence for recording such prophecies or, with rare exceptions, for their widespread geographical circulation, why would a particular prophecy or particular set of motifs come to preeminence? The best explanation for the coincidence and the “you yourselves already know” (1 Thess 5:1-2), hence the meaning of Paul’s “word of the Lord” (1 Thess 4:15) and “traditions delivered to you” (2 Thess 2:15), is that the earliest dominical tradition stands behind both.

Jesus does not simply seek to stir disciples to short-term eschatological enthusiasm, like some popular modern teachers of prophecy (on whose usual inaccuracy see, e.g., Wilson 1977; Kyle 1998). After listing many of the signs (usually hardships) that characterized the end among contemporary Jewish thinkers and visionaries,

Jesus declares that “the end is not yet” (24:6; cf. Rev 6:1-8). Jewish people sometimes called such events the “birth pangs of the Messiah,” but Jesus declares that these are merely the “beginning of birth pangs” (24:8; cf. Rom 8:22). These are not specifically end-time events, but events that would happen throughout history for which disciples must be prepared (Ladd 1956: 72n.1; pace Frost 1924: 18-19). The end-time discourse presupposes important knowledge about the end time, but its repeated exhortations show that its emphasis is on how to live in light of that reality (see Lane 1974a: 446; Hill 1979: 63).

Jesus’ hortatory tone is clear in his “Watch out” (24:4).

One obstacle for which Christians must prepare themselves is false messiahs (24:4-5). The danger of being misled recurs frequently in this discourse (24:4, 11, 24; cf. Mk 13:5-6, 22), and Matthew elsewhere has cause to report Jesus’ warnings against signs-working prophets (7:15, 22; on signs-prophets, see the Introduction), a warning clearly part of the Jesus tradition (2 Thess 2:9). Advance warning (24:25) could help them to distinguish truth from error (for the principle, cf., e.g., Jn 14:29; Is 48:5). But false messianic figures abounded in the first century (e.g., Jos. War 2.259-63; 6.285-88; Ant. 20.97-98); their attempts at signs, usually failing, may have been attempts “to activate God’s eschatological salvation” (Barnett 1981: 693). (Roughly a half-century after this Gospel’s publication, Jewish Christians rejected the messianic pretensions of Bar Kochba.)

Other obstacles include both human (24:6-7) and natural (24:7) disasters, with Matthew’s particular emphasis possibly lying on the former (Gundry 1982: 475-76). Jesus borrows traditional biblical language here (cf. 2 Chron 15:6; Is 19:2; Jer 51:46; for rumors of wars, cf. Dan 11:44), echoed in some early Jewish texts (Sib. Or. 3.636-37; 4 Ezra 13:31-32; cf. Tr. Shem 5:6; 6:13). By saying that these disasters “must occur” (24:6), Jesus echoes the biblical and Jewish tradition of God’s sovereignty over history and the events of the end time (Dan 2:28-29, 45; Rev 1:1; Hagner 1995: 691).

Pagans also took careful note of omens, or “prodigies,” that boded ill for them (the Romans particularly indulged in this pessimistic exercise), usually as signs of hardship within history, in the impending future (e.g., Livy 21.62.1-5; 24.10.6-11; 27.11.2-5; 33.26.7-8; 43.13.3-6; Arrian Alex. 4.15.7; Aul. Gel. 4.6.2). Sometimes they called such prodigies “signs” (Arrian Alex. 4.15.8). Such prodigies could include familiar images like earthquakes (Ovid Metam. 15.798; Livy 32.8.3; Appian C.W. 1.9.83), an eschatological vice list (Hesiod W.D. 181-201), and signs in the heavens (Livy 25.7.8; 29.14.3; 32.8.2; 41.21.13; Lucan C.W. 1.526-43) like comets (Appian C.W. 2.10.68; Lucan C.W. 1.529). Some standard portents not listed in Matthew 24 appear in early Christian eschatological tradition, such as raining blood or stones (Livy 24.10.7; 25.7.7-8; 26.23.5; 27.37.1; 34.45.7; 35.9.4; 36.37.3; 42.2.4; 43.13.5; 45.16.5; Appian C.W. 2.5.36; 4.1.4; but Rev 8:7 depends primarily on Ex 9:23) and fluid turning to gore (Virg. Aen. 4.453-63; Livy 24.44.8; Rev 8:8-9 with Ex 7:19).

But they also included many omens not paralleled in biblical tradition, including the howling of dogs in temples (Ovid Metam. 15.796-97); animals (e.g., Livy 24.10.10; 27.11.4; 35.21.4; 41.13.2; 41.21.13; 43.13.3; Appian C.W. 4.1.4) or infants speaking; weeping, sweating, or bleeding statues (Ovid Metam. 15.792; Livy 27.4.14; 40.19.2; 43.13.4; Appian C.W. 2.5.36; 4.1.4; Lucan C.W. 1.556-57; cf. Eurip. Iph. Taur. 1165-67); wailing in sacred groves (Ovid Metam. 15.793); animals born malformed or with human parts (Livy 27.4.11, 14; 32.1.11; 40.45.4; Phaedrus 3.3.4-5); or malformed, abnormal, or interspecies births to humans (Livy 27.11.5; 27.37.5; 34.45.7; 35.21.3; 41.21.12; Appian C.W. 1.9.83; Herodian 1.14.1; Lucan C.W. 1.562-63). As also in later Jewish apocalyptic, some Greek texts portray unusual births as signs of the end (infants with gray hair in Hesiod W.D. 180-81).

Other early Jewish texts recognized earthquakes (e.g., m. Ber. 9:2; Sib. Or. 1.187; 3.405 — reapplying Poseidon’s title; 3.449, 452, 459, 476; 5.291, 438-39; cf. Tr. Shem 7.19)

and famines (e.g., Amos 4:6-9; Ps. Sol. 17:18-19; b. Ber. 55a) as God’s works of judgment, and included earthquakes (2 Bar. 27:7; 70:8; 4 Ezra 6:13-15; 9:3; Test. Mos. 10:4), famines (Sib. Or. 2.23; 2 Bar. 27:6; 70:8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Gen. Rab. 25:3; 40:3; 64:2; Ruth Rab. 1:4; Pesiq. R. 15:14/15; Rev 6:5-6), pestilence (Sib. Or. 2.23), strife among nations (Sib. Or. 2.22; 3.660-61, 756; 4 Ezra 9:3; 13:30; Gen. Rab. 42:4), and people hating one another (2 Bar. 70:3; cf. 4 Ezra 6:24; Mt 24:7) among the most commonly listed signs of end-time judgment.

Most of the events of 24:5-14 occurred between A.D. 30 and 70 (Blomberg 1992a: 356, following Thompson 1974). False messiahs seem to have arisen toward the end of this period (Jos. War 2.444; 7.29; Theissen 1991: 265), and more may have arisen or been expected shortly after it (24:23-24).

A Samaritan prophet gained a significant following in A.D. 36 (Jos. Ant. 18.85-87; Theissen 1991: 137-38). A major famine struck ca. A.D. 46 (cf. Jos. Ant. 3.320; 20.51-53) and earthquakes ca. A.D. 61 (Fenton 1977: 379). When Matthew’s audience thinks of nations rising against one another they may recall the recent conflicts of 66-73, when Judea revolted against Rome (Montefiore 1968: 1:299; Meier 1982: 279) and generals vied for power over the Empire in the wake of Nero’s death. Some even believe the gospel of the kingdom was proclaimed among the nations in a representative sense (Rom 10:18; Col 1:6; Blomberg 1992a: 356-57; cf. Munck 1967: 98). The data can fit the first generation, just as some contemporary popular “prophecy teachers” fit them to current generations.

The general character of the language prohibits us from limiting it to any such events, however (Beasley-Murray 1957: 35, 39). Lists of misfortunes appear in texts referring to the past (e.g., Dion. Hal. 1.23.1-5) as well as in texts warning about the future. Such events occurred throughout the period of A.D. 30-70, and continued to occur afterward. Responding to some who blamed Christians for famines, plagues, earthquakes, and other sufferings, Tertullian retorts that these hardships occurred even more frequently before Christ’s coming (Apol. 40.2-3, 10, 13, 15)! Theissen’s specific parallels for the period before A.D. 40 (1991: 125-61) thus lack adequate conviction, though the Caligula incident may well have provoked the first collection of the material in the apocalyptic discourse around 40, as he suggests (1991: 161; for the history of this view, cf. 127).

Third, disciples should expect persecution and the consequent apostasy of some of their fellow professing disciples (24:9-13; cf. 2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 4:1-3; 2 Tim 3:1-9; 2 Pet 3:3; 1 Jn 2:18-19; Rev 13:12-17; Apoc. Pet. Eth. 5.1-2). The “tribulation” to which their persecutors would deliver disciples was especially persecution (24:9; different in 24:21), and this would provide a test of disciples’ faith (13:21). Early Christian exhortation regularly portrayed perseverance and apostasy as the alternatives in times of serious testing (Brown 1969: 146). (Cf. Mt 10:17-22, largely borrowed from Mk 13:9-13; 10:22, which is reused in its Markan context in 24:9, 13, making the expectation of universal hatred and the call to persevere emphatic.)

Like Mark, Matthew intimately connects the suffering of believers with that of Christ, even by prefacing the passion narrative with the promise of believers’ suffering (cf. Feuillet 1980b; Graham 1986; Theissen 1991: 281; more significant than Best 1983: 78 allows).

Mediterranean antiquity regarded loyalty highly and handing over an innocent person negatively (e.g., Apul. Metam. 9.41). Hypocrites might join those set apart for God when persecution relents (Dan 11:34), but in times of persecution many would fall away. Jewish people lamented the danger of apostasy from practicing Judaism,

and expected apostasy as one of the tragic signs of the end time as under previous desecrator-oppressors like Pompey (Ps. Sol. 17:13-15) and especially Antiochus IV Epiphanes (1 Macc 2:15, employing the same term as in 2 Thess 2:3). The greatest expression of apostasy was betraying others who intended to remain faithful (cf. 10:21; 1 Jn 3:16; Did. 16.4-5; many people regarded betrayal of friends to death to save one’s own life as despicable — e.g., Babrius 138.7-8; cf. m. Ter. 8:12), and the Jewish pietist tradition warned of the necessity to flee into the wilderness when apostates controlled Jerusalem (Ps. Sol. 17.14-17; 1QS 8.13-16). “Lawlessness” (24:12) could characterize especially the outwardly religious (23:28; cf. Jude 4), but probably applies to the society as a whole, including wicked rulers (2 Thess 2:3, 7-8; cf. Mt 13:41). Nevertheless, as a consequence even the hearts of “the many,” perhaps the disciples (cf. 20:28) would become loveless (cf. 22:37-39; 5:43; 19:19), hence capable of betrayal (24:10, 12), perhaps aided by false prophets (24:11). Although “enduring to the end” (24:13; cf. v. 22) could refer to survival (cf. 4 Ezra 6:25), the context of apostasy suggests that it here refers to what it does in other NT passages, namely, that only those who continue in the faith will receive salvation at the final day (cf. 7:13-14; Marshall 1974: 73).

Finally, true disciples will spread the gospel among all nations (24:14).

This is the appropriate response to persecution (cf. Farrer 1956a), probably rooted in the biblical prophets’ image of the conversion and tribute of the Gentiles (cf. Thompson 1971). Whereas Jesus says that other phenomena do not mark the end (24:6), in this instance he explicitly declares that universal proclamation does mark the end. (Matthew, with his heavy emphasis on the Gentile mission, makes this even more explicit than Mark does — Mk 13:10.) The world controls many other factors, but this is the one factor Jesus’ followers may determine: they must complete the commission of discipling all nations before this age will come to a close (28:19-20; cf. Rom 11:25-26; 2 Pet 3:9-15; Acts 1:6-11; cf. Marxsen 1969: 177: “this proclamation helps to hasten the coming of the Parousia”). As in the biblical prophets (e.g., Ezek 36:24-29), the end would accompany Israel’s repentance (23:39); but some early Christian texts suggest that this repentance would be completed following the fulfillment of the Gentile mission (Rom 11:25-26). Jesus’ claim in 24:14 does not imply that all peoples will be converted, but that the kingdom will not come in its fullness until all peoples have had the opportunity to embrace or reject the King who will be their judge (25:31-32). Jesus’ early followers recognized that he would rule a remnant with representatives from all peoples (Rev 5:9; 7:9), just as the world’s evil leadership would (Rev 13:7).

We should note the context in which this worldwide evangelism occurs: suffering (24:9-13; more explicitly, Mk 13:9-11, earlier applied by Matthew to his fuller discourse on evangelism).

Many early Christians recognized suffering as a prerequisite for the end (Rev 6:10-11; Col 1:24; cf. 4 Ezra 4:3-37), because disciples’ suffering is inseparable from their witness.

The Tribulation in History (24:15-28)

With 24:15-22, cf. Mk 13:14-20; Lk 21:20-24; with Mt 24:23-28, cf. Mk 13:21-23; Lk 17:23-24. Daniel provides the basis for many motifs in Matthew 24 and its primary source, Mark 13 (Davies and Allison 1997: 332), for instance, the temple’s destruction (Dan 9:26); rumors of war (Dan 11:44); the tribulation (Dan 12:1), the Son of Man on the clouds (Dan 7:13), and especially the abomination (Dan 8:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). Various New Testament passages seem to have reapplied Daniel’s image of tribulation in different ways; but all agree in warning disciples to be vigilant when they face such testing. In contrast to the false prophets who till the end exhorted Jerusalemites to stand firm and expect sudden deliverance (Jos. War 6.285-86),

Jesus warns his followers to accept the perils of this age realistically and to escape them when possible. Eusebius reports that the church in Jerusalem responded to true prophets and fled the city before destruction came (Euseb. H.E. 3.5.3); probably Jesus’ words had guided the Christian prophets to a realistic appraisal of the danger, in contrast to some other Jerusalemites. His words likewise may instruct believers from the Matthean community when they would face peril.

Excursus: The Development of Antichrist Tradition

Antiochus, a typical hellenistic tyrant (see Heininger 1989 on 4 Maccabees), became the ultimate model for the antichrist of Mark 13:14 (F. F. Bruce 1982: xxxvii; cf. Jos. Ant. 11.276; Tarn 1974: 214). Bousset’s later parallels for the antichrist imagery do not form a unified view (Best 1977: 283; F. F. Bruce 1982: 179-88) and miss three primary features of the New Testament portrayal (cf. also Did. 16.3-4; Iren. Haer. 5.25.1-4), which appear in Deuteronomy 13 (Meeks 1967: 49-50; Brown 1982: 335; cf. Giblin 1967: 245), though some of Bousset’s features may be early (Flusser 1988: 207-13; cf. Burgmann 1980). Although some think the Dead Sea Scrolls apply the “Man of the Lie” (CD 20.15; cf. Meeks 1967: 51-52) to Antiochus Epiphanes (Michel 1954) or Simon Maccabee (Burgmann 1978; idem 1980), it probably signifies the Jerusalem high priest (1QpHab 2.1-2; 5.10-12; 10.9-10 in context, e.g., cols. 8-10; 11.4, 12; 12.2, 5-6; cf. CD 2.15) who defiled God’s sanctuary (1QpHab 12.8-9), possibly by persecuting the Teacher of Righteousness and his followers (1QpHab 12.6).

But New Testament and some other early Jewish portrayals of an evil eschatological ruler (cf. 2 Bar. 40:1-2) also derive from the Antiochus tradition, developed in the time of desecrators and oppressors like Pompey (Ps. Sol. 2:29; 17:7, 11-14), and Roman emperors (p. Sukk. 5:1, §7), possibly including Nero (Asc. Isa. 4.1-6 in Segal 1981: 261). Rabbinic memories preserved special hatred toward a conqueror like Titus (ARN 1A; 7, §§20-21B; Sifre Deut. 328.1.1-5; Lev. Rab. 20:5; Qoh. Rab. 5:8-9, §4; for the hideousness of the tradition of intercourse on the law scroll see b. Giṭ. 56b; Meʿil. 17b; Lev. Rab. 22:3; Num. Rab. 18:22, cf. the halakah in b. Ber. 25b), though Josephus, a Jewish client of the Flavian dynasty, naturally felt differently (Jos. Ant. 12.121, 127). Hadrian came in for curses no less severe (Ex. Rab. 51:5; Lam. Rab. 3:58-60, §9), especially because of the massive (and exaggerated — the rabbis report more than the world’s population) slaughter at Bethar (p. Taʿan. 4:5, §10; Gen. Rab. 65:21; Song Rab. 2:17, §1); one tradition mentions three and a half years of siege (p. Taʿan. 4:5, §10; Lam. Rab. 2:2, §4), analogous to the period Antiochus Epiphanes held Jerusalem (Jos. War 1.19, 32-33).

Caligula’s attempt to establish his image in Jerusalem’s temple (Jos. Ant. 18.259-308; 19.1-20; War 2.184-85; Philo Leg. Gai. 115-16, 188, 346; Tac. Ann. 12.54; cf. Dio Cassius R.H. 59.4.4; Bilde 1978; Stern 1974/76b: 354-59; Benko 1971: 51-53) undoubtedly fueled renewed expectations of the final oppressor, and Jewish tradition recalled him harshly (b. Soṭa 33a; Song Rab. 8:9, §3). Philo appropriately charges that Gaius Caligula was zealous for “lawlessness” (paranomia), because he regarded himself as law (Leg. Gai. 119); some who heard of Caligula’s plans sought to rescue themselves from lawlessness (Leg. Gai. 190). As Caird observes, while Caligula may not be the antichrist, “he undoubtedly sat for the portrait” in 2 Thessalonians (Caird 1966: 166; for an alternative, neurological reading of his insanity, see Benediktson 1989); Nero and Domitian seem to serve that function in Revelation (see most commentaries). Other evil figures were accused of erecting an idol in the temple (Test. Mos. 2:8-9; m. Taʿan. 4:5; p. Taʿan. 4:5, §6).

Subsequent Christian and Jewish tradition developed this further, including both New Testament motifs and others more familiar from Bousset’s portrait (cf. e.g., Apoc. Elijah 1:10). Even in the New Testament the language may be mythological at points. Qumran’s probable summation of the Jerusalem high priesthood via the now-mythical image of a “wicked priest” (e.g., 1QpHab 8.8-11; 9.4-7; cf. 1QpHab 11.5-6; 12.5-6 — imperfect verb; van der Woude 1982) suggests the possibility that one antichrist in time became a succession of antichrists (cf. 1 Jn 2:18).

First, no religious symbol, no matter how treasured, provides refuge against judgment that God has decreed. The sanctuary, once desecrated, was doomed (24:15), as Jesus had earlier warned (23:38). The desecration of God’s temple (Ps 74:3-4, 7; Is 63:18) undoubtedly constitutes a recurrent judgment motif in Israel’s history; it provided the ultimate symbol of national and religious humiliation (cf. 1 Macc 3:45; 3 Macc 1:29; 2:14; 2 Bar. 5:1; Test. Asher 7:2; t. Sukk. 4:28; CD 4.17-18), something Jewish people resisted to death (Philo Leg. Gai. 209-10), except in times of national apostasy, when they might cause it (Jos. Ant. 10.37-38; Ps. Sol. 1:8; Apoc. Abr. 27:7). The Syrian ruler had defiled the altar in the second century A.D., causing an “abomination” and ruining the sanctuary with “desolation” (1 Macc 4:38; cf. 1:54). Even before the first exile, the prophets recognized scattering and tribulation as a judgment designed to bring God’s people to repentance (e.g., Deut 4:26-31; Jer 29:12-14; 31:9). One could also profane the temple by persecuting the righteous there: In Jerusalem, “the Wicked Priest did abominable works and defiled the sanctuary of God” (1QpHab 12.7-9); because this Qumran passage interprets Habakkuk 2:17, which refers to bloodshed, it probably refers to the persecution of the followers of the Teacher of Righteousness (cf. 1QpHab 12.6 and context).

But the language of Jesus’ reference to a desolating sacrilege in the sanctuary (24:15) suggests a more specific biblical allusion (cf. Daube 1973: 418-20; Hill 1979: 63; Beale 1984: 5:129). Daniel’s language stands behind that of Maccabees and Josephus. When Daniel spoke of the “abomination that would result in desolation,” one text referred to the events surrounding Antiochus Epiphanes, who claimed to be deity and oppressed Israel (Dan 8:13; 11:31, 36-39; 1 Macc 1:54-56; 6:7; cf. Jos. Ant. 12.253; Jub. 23:21); another text, however, associates the same phenomenon with the cutting off of an anointed ruler, close to the time of Jesus (Dan 9:26; cf. Payne 1962: 146).

Further, the end had not come after Antiochus’s desecration of the temple (Dan 11:31; cf. “then” in 12:1), allowing the possibility that another desolation would come (Dan 12:11-12). The image of this final tribulation period was reapplied; in the Dead Sea Scrolls the period of tribulation extended forty years (CD 20.14-15; for reinterpretation after delay, see 1QpHab 7.13-14); other Jewish interpreters provided still other estimates (e.g., seven in b. Sanh. 97a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Pesiq. R. 15:14/15; 34:1; 36:1-2; see Bonsirven 1964: 212-13). Jewish speculation concerning the end time regularly reapplied Daniel’s figures in various manners (see F. F. Bruce 1956: 177; Russell 1964: 198-201; cf. Ruth Rab. 5:6). Revelation seems to reapply Daniel’s tribulation period to the period between Jesus’ first and second comings (Rev 12:1-6, 10); some scholars have understood Matthew 24 similarly (Davies and Allison 1997: 369; see discussion below). That hearers of this passage needed to consider its meaning carefully is confirmed by Mark’s enigmatic riddle, “Let the reader understand” (Mk 13:14).

Jewish people recognized that shedding innocent blood in the sanctuary would profane it (1 Macc 1:37; Jos. Ant. 9.152; so also Mt 23:35; for guilty blood as well, cf. 2 Chron 23:14; cf. perhaps 1 Chron 22:8; 28:3), and some even saw this defilement as a desolation (1 Macc 1:39; 2:12). Josephus indicated that the shedding of priestly blood in the sanctuary (Jos. War 4.147-201; 4.343; 5.17-18; cf. 2.424) was the desecration, or “abomination,” that invited the ultimate desolation of A.D. 70 (Jos. War 5.17-19). Very close to three and a half years after the abomination (cf. War 6.93), the temple was destroyed and violated even more terribly. After the temple burned,

the Romans erected on the site of the temple their standards, which bore the emperors’ images (imperatorum imagines) and were housed with idols in the army camps (cf. Josephus 1982: 155; Ferguson 1987: 40; Herodian 8.5.9), then offered sacrifice to them (Jos. War 6.316). Jerusalemites had once preferred death to permitting these standards to enter the city (Jos. Ant. 18.55-59; War 2.169-74; cf. also Ant. 18.121; 3 Macc 1:29; Philo Leg. Gai. 299-308); Qumranites had viewed them as the epitome of idolatry (1QpHab 6.3-4). But Jesus’ warning must apply to the earlier rather than the final desecration, because shortly after the Romans surrounded Jerusalem escape became increasingly difficult (e.g., Jos. War 5.420-23, 449).

In Matthew, the tribulation seems to begin with the sanctuary’s desecration in A.D. 66 and concludes with Jesus’ return (24:29). If, as I think most likely, Matthew writes some years after 70, this allows several interpretive options: in Matthew 24 Jesus (1) skips from this tribulation to the next eschatologically significant event, his return (Fuller 1966; cf. Lk 21:24; especially compare Mt 24:21, “nor ever shall,” with Dan 12:1; cf. Jos. War pref. 1);

(2) regards the whole interim between the Temple’s demise and his return as an extended tribulation period (“immediately” — 24:29; e.g., Carson 1984b: 507); (3) prophetically blends the tribulation of 66-70 with the final one, which it prefigures (see Bock 1994: 332-33); (4) begins the tribulation in 66 but postpones the rest of it until the end time; (5) intends his “return” in 24:29-31 symbolically for the fall of Jerusalem.

I currently favor options (1) or (2) with elements of (3). (Against the view of a “spiritual” coming are the many emphatic statements about a personal, visible coming in the context — 24:27; Gundry 1982: 491.) The third option may in fact deserve more attention than my current inclination has given it: certainly the prophetic perspective naturally viewed nearer historical events as precursors of the final events.

Early Jewish texts also telescope the generations of history with the final generation (Jub. 23:11-32). As in Mark, the tribulation of 66-70 remains somehow connected with the future parousia (Hare 1967: 179), if only as a final prerequisite. Further, the context may suggest that Jesus employs his description eschatologically, as in some Jewish end-time texts; in this case, the disasters of 66-73 could not have exhausted the point of his words (cf. Harrington 1982: 96). In any case, the view (circulated mainly in current popular circles) that Matthew 24 addresses only a tribulation that even readers after 70 assumed to be wholly future is not tenable; Matthew understands that “all these things” (probably referring to the question about the temple’s demise — 24:2; Mk 13:4) will happen within a generation (Mt 24:34), language that throughout Jesus’ teachings in Matthew refers to the generation then living (e.g., 11:16; 12:39, 45; 16:4; 23:36; cf. 27:25). Further, Luke dispenses with much of the symbolism and lays the emphasis almost entirely on the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, in which Judean slaves were carried among the nations. For Luke, the “abomination” that brings about desolation becomes simply the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, promising desolation (Lk 21:20; A. B. Bruce 1979: 292; Cole 1961: 202).

Second, believers should flee the impending judgment with the greatest of haste (24:16-20). Although John and Matthew’s Jesus earlier speak of a warning to flee the coming wrath through the baptism of repentance (3:7; 23:33), the “eschatological” judgment here is the imminent destruction of Jerusalem. Although people fleeing a ravaged countryside normally took refuge in cities, Jesus warns the people of the land to flee from both city and open countryside (cf. Lk 21:21). People could leave Jerusalem safely until the spring of A.D. 68 (Jos. War 4.377-80; 410; Lane 1974a: 468). Later deserters to the Romans, suspected of having swallowed jewels to escape with them, were often cut open by Syrian auxiliaries (Jos. War 5.550-52); once the city fell, many captured Jerusalemites died entertaining Gentiles in the games (Jos. War 7.23-24, 37-40).

The command to flee to the mountains (24:16) makes good sense and is probably authentic. Most scholars today accept Eusebius’s report (H.E. 3.5.3) that the Christians did indeed flee to Pella.

That Pella is not in the Judean mountains (Moule 1965: 106) but in foothills and reached from the Jordan valley thus makes doubtful any suggestion that Jesus’ saying was merely conformed to the events of 66-70 (Meier 1980: 283; Gundry 1982: 482). Nevertheless, Palestine’s central mountain range provided a natural place to flee (e.g., 1 Sam 23:14; Ezek 7:15-16; Jos. War 2.504; cf. Ps-Philo 6:11, 18; 27:11), as mountainous areas with caves often did (Diod. Sic. 34/35.2.22; Dion. Hal. 7.10.3; Appian C.W. 4.17.130; Arrian Alex. 4.24.2). Although the exhortation is too general to be sure, the language might even allude to the familiar 1 Maccabees 2:28 (cf. Dodd 1968: 82).

The admonitions to leave the rooftop without entering the house (24:17) and to leave the field without returning for one’s cloak (24:18) indicate that life matters more than even its basic necessities, which might later be replaced (cf. 1 Macc 2:28; Phaedrus 4.23). Because the flat rooftops were approached by outside staircases, one could descend without entering the house to retrieve possessions.

One normally slept in one’s outer garment (Deut. 24:13; cf. Mt 5:40) and wore it as one went to the fields and during the cold of morning labor in the fields, but left it at the edge of the field as the day grew warmer (Lane 1974a: 470; Anderson 1976: 296; Meier 1980: 284-85). As essential as this outer cloak was, Jesus declares hyperbolically that the urgency of running at the news of impending destruction was more urgent still. Others also left behind cloaks as they fled in haste (Ovid Metam. 4.101; Gen 39:12-13; Mk 14:51-52); some moralists emphasized the priority of saving one’s life over possessions in an emergency (Phaedrus 4.23.11-15).

The “woe” (cf. 18:7; 23:13) over the pregnant and nursing (24:19; cf. Sib. Or. 2.190-92, if pre-Christian) signifies the difficulty of the flight and survival (Lk 23:29; 2 Bar. 10:13-15; cf. Apoc. Elijah 2:35-38); the pregnant may also be more susceptible to death (e.g., Dion. Hal. 9.40.2).

But it probably indicates no less the sorrow of losing infants in the trauma (cf. 2 Bar. 10:13-15). Jerusalem’s siege did, however, produce worse sorrows than mothers merely lamenting their children: recalling the language of the curses of the law (Lev 26:29; Deut 28:53-57; cf. 2 Kings 6:28-29; 2 Bar. 62:4), Josephus tells us of starved women eating their children (War 6.208-12; cf. Sifra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.1; Lam. Rab. 4:9, §12). Conditions provoking a mother’s abandonment of her children represented the severest of judgments (1 Enoch 99:5), as did situations producing cannibalism (Diod. Sic. 1.84.1; Appian R.H. 12.6.38).

Verse 20 also reveals foresight concerning the Sabbath and winter (whether Mk 13:18 may omit the Sabbath for theological reasons or Matthew may add it to the tradition is debatable). Commentators suggest that on the Sabbath city gates might be shut; one could also not secure animals for transport. Many Jews considered willfully riding horseback on the Sabbath a deathworthy, almost unforgiveable sin (e.g., p. Ḥag. 2:1, §9; 2:2, §6). While Jewish people agreed that one could break the Sabbath to save life (1 Macc 2:41; Montefiore and Loewe 1974: 258),

only Jesus’ followers recognize the peril of their situation (Gundry 1982: 483). In much of the Mediterranean world winter was the rainy season (Hesiod W.D. 450), the cold of which kept men from their fieldwork (Hesiod W.D. 494; in Greece, this was especially late January to early February, W.D. 504-5). Winter’s cold limited both land (Num. Rab. 3:6; cf. Beasley- Murray 1957: 76) and sea travel; even armies stopped traveling campaigns during this season, and some soldiers who nevertheless marched in “wintry” mountain regions (colder than the Judean hills) reportedly lost their hands and feet (Herodian 6.6.3). Further, cold winter rains could flood the roads and bury them deep in mud (m. Taʿan. 1:3; Jeremias 1969: 58), and the usually dry creekbeds (wadis) were filled with water and difficult to cross (cf. Hom. Il. 5.87-88; 13.137; Od. 19.205-7; Ap. Rhod. 1.9; Livy 44.8.6-7; Appian R.H. 12.11.76; Herodian 3.3.7). Some rivers could, however, flood not only in winter but in spring when mountain snows melted (e.g., Arrian Alex. 7.21.2-3; cf. Herodian 8.4.2-3); indeed, in spring 68, because the Jordan was flowing high, Gadarene fugitives were delayed in crossing and slaughtered by the Romans (Jos. War 4.433; Davies and Allison 1997: 350). The warning to pray in advance regarding the coming peril (24:20) accords well with Jesus’ instructions elsewhere (26:41; cf. 6:13; Prov 22:3; 27:12).

Although Jesus’ words specifically and most importantly surround the fall of Jerusalem, the memory of which would remain fresh for Matthew’s audience and hence vividly vindicate Jesus’ words, they might also provide Matthew’s community, and especially its missionaries, with some current principles. Disciples who remember the nature of the time ought not to be attached to worldly possessions; they should value their lives enough to flee immediately. Nor ought they to believe false prophets of peace proclaiming that judgment will not strike their own localities; rather than sparing a locality, God sometimes warns his servants to leave (Gen 19:15-30).

Third, even in the midst of what seems intolerable distress, God has compassion on his own servants (24:21-22). Daniel spoke of the end-time tribulation greater than any that had preceded it (Dan 12:1); other Jewish writers also spoke of eschatological tribulations (1QM 15.1; 2 Bar. 25:3-4). By indicating that no tribulation before or after this one would rival it, Mark may allow and Matthew may suggest that the tribulation on which they focus is a tribulation within history, not necessarily the final one (cf. Jos. War 1.12, making the same claim for A.D. 66-73), although the language may simply follow an emphatic formula (Jub. 16:8; Ps-Philo 19:16). The memory of Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70 seared itself indelibly in early Judaism’s memory as the most horrible of times (cf., e.g., Sib. Or. 5.397-413; Pesiq. R. 1:5; 28:1), although the revolt in Egypt of 115-17 (cf. CPJ 2:225-60, §§435-50) — followed by the virtual obliteration of Egyptian Jewry — and the revolt under Hadrian in 132-35 ultimately proved no less devastating (see above). Archaeology has provided some samples of the final moments of horror endured by those within Jerusalem during its fall (especially the burnt house; see Avigad 1980: 120-39; idem 1983a).

Finally, disciples should guard against believing anyone who claims to be Christ, for when the Lord really returns even the sky will declare it (24:23-28; cf. Acts 1:11). When faith is tested, patience may wane (cf., e.g., Gen 16:1-2), but true disciples dare not settle for counterfeit messiahs. The claim “here is Christ” might function as a false prophet’s recognition oracle (Aune 1983: 274); “If anyone says to you.… Do not believe” may have functioned as a warning formula (cf. p. Taʿan. 2:1, Rabbi Abbahu), and the repetition of the warning not to believe (24:23, 26) makes it emphatic. Although they are sometimes positive (14:29-31; 17:16-17), signs and wonders (24:24) are by themselves inadequate to demonstrate a prophet’s authenticity (7:21; 2 Thess 2:9; Deut 13:1-5).

Some later Jewish texts expected the coming of the Messiah in the wilderness, as at the first redemption with Moses (e.g., Passover haggada in Black 1967: 237; Num. Rab. 11:2; Song Rab. 2:9, §3; Pesiq. R. 15:10; cf. Acts 21:38; Jos. Ant. 20.189; War 2.259-62). The Qumran community likewise illustrates this wilderness expectation, based on Isaiah 40:3 (1QS 8.13-14; F. F. Bruce 1956: 177), though it is quite unlikely that Jesus has them in particular in view (pace Hjerl-Hansen 1959). Whether due to biblical precedent or to the comparative safety of assembling revolutionary followers in the wilderness (also 1 Macc 2:29; 2 Macc 5:27), signs-prophets of first-century Palestine generally gathered in the wilderness (cf. Jos. War 2.259, 261-62; cf. Theissen 1978: 48-50). But true disciples of Jesus should not go out to meet them (24:26; cf. 25:6; the warning of ben Zakkai in ARN 31, Bonsirven 1964: 173), for when Jesus himself returned it would not be as another mortal. He would illumine the whole sky, shining like lightning from the east (cf. Ezek 43:2) to the west (cf. eschatological lightning in Gaster’s reconstruction of 1QM’s prologue in 1976: 399-400, but contrast Vermes 1981: 124).

Jesus’ “coming” (24:3, 27, 37, 39; 10:23) would be from heaven, and every eye would see him (cf. 2 Thess 1:7; Rev 1:7; 19:11-16).

Although some have taken the “eagles” as an allusion to the eagles on Roman standards, hence as another reference to Jerusalem’s fall (Tasker 1961: 230), both the biblical language (Ezek 39:17-20; cf. Deut 28:26; 1 Sam 17:44; Ps 79:2; Ezek 32:4) and the context in Luke 17:37 suggest that it refers instead to vultures gathering around the corpses of the wicked slain in judgment.

Ancient texts regularly describe the horrible fate of unburied corpses, often after battle, eaten by birds and dogs (Hom. Il. 11.395, 454; 22.42-43, 335-36, 353; 24.411; Od. 3.258-60; Appian R.H. 11.10.64; C.W. 1.8.72; Lucan C.W. 7.831-35). The clearest source of the wording may be Job 39:30 (Stein 1978: 2; Meier 1980: 286; Gundry 1982: 487), but the eschatological context may also evoke Ezekiel 39:17-20, suggesting that Jesus returns for the final battle (Rev 19:11-21). This is no secretive coming in the wilderness, which false prophets could easily fabricate, but a revelation in glory that the whole world must see (24:29-31; cf. 2 Bar. 29:1). Although the Gospel writers have not revised Jesus’ prediction to fit the later situation, his warning may have been helpful in confronting those who already at an earlier date felt that Jesus had returned in some nonphysical sense (cf. 2 Thess 2:2-3; Best 1977: 278).

Jesus’ Return (24:29-31)

Cf. Mk 13:24-27; Lk 21:25-28. “Immediately” ties the tribulation of “those days” to the unidentified final tribulation, a tribulation that may follow it by only a few years (as some of Matthew’s audience could still have held) or, on a more modern reading, can only be identified as the final one by the fact that the parousia concludes it. Yet the tribulation that dominates much of the chapter is hardly the final word; rather, it is the prelude, the beginning and final “birth pangs” (24:8), of what is to come. Like the day of the Lord in the Old Testament (Amos 5:18-20), however, even Jesus’ coming is not good news for everyone.

Assuming that our tentative dating of the Gospel is correct, Matthew’s audience already recognizes the accuracy of Jesus’ prophecy about the temple’s destruction; this should encourage them concerning his prophecies about the future that remain to be fulfilled (assuming a futurist reading of 24:29-31, which again is rejected by a significant stream of scholarship). Ancient documents often would predict events without narrating them, leaving the reader to trust a narrator who has proved reliable and to accept the fulfillment of such events (e.g., Hom. Il. 21.110; 23.80-81; Od. 23.266-84).

First, the effects of Jesus’ revelation will be cosmic and obvious (24:29). As in some Jewish eschatological texts (cf. Dodd 1980: 83), the Lord himself would intervene to culminate history. One could argue that these signs refer only to those surrounding Jerusalem’s destruction, in which Jesus “comes” (cf. Rev 2:16; 3:3) in judgment. Greek and Roman writers recognized heavenly signs as portents of major changes (e.g., Diod. Sic. 1.53.8; Tac. Ann. 14.22; Suet. Nero 36; Paus. 10.23.1-2; Dio Cassius R.H. 56.29.3-6; 57.4.4; Artem. Oneir. 2.36; Herodian 1.14.1; cf. Dupont 1992: 185-86), as do Jewish writers (e.g., Jos. War 3.404 and Josephus 1982: 242n.404b; LCL 9:124-25), including portents of the end (e.g., 1 Enoch 91:16; 102:2-3; Sib. Or. 1.200-202; 3.82, 800-804; 5.512-31; 8.190-93, 204-5; 4 Ezra 5:4-5; 7:38-42; Test. Mos. 10.5).

More significantly, such signs were reported to have heralded Jerusalem’s destruction (Jos. War 6.288-310; followed by Tac. Hist. 5.13),

though these might stem from a tradition circulated by the Flavian emperors (see Saulnier 1989). Moreover, some Jewish texts speak of other historic events in similarly cosmic terms (Jer 4:20-28; Sib. Or. 3.80-83; 4.57-60; cf. Ps 18:7-15 in context; exaggerated language for the Sinai theophany in Ps 68:8; Ps-Philo 11:5; 23:10; cf. Sib. Or. 3.635-56; Petron. Sat. 124), so it is possible that Jesus here merely paints Jerusalem’s catastrophe in cosmic terms (Borg 1984: 217; France 1985: 333). Nevertheless, biblical (Is 13:10; 24:23; Ezek 32:7-8; Joel 3:14; Zech 14:6) and later Jewish texts (Sib. Or. 2.34-38, if pre-Christian; Rev 6:13), including rabbinic texts (Davies 1980: 330), also speak of heavenly signs heralding what most of Jesus’ contemporaries would read as the end; a probably second-century-B.C. Diaspora text lists various signs in heaven and on earth, including warfare in the heavens, as “a very clear sign” (Sib. Or. 3.796-808). This passage cites explicitly Isaiah’s language (Is 13:10; 34:4, as in Mk 13:24-25). In conjunction with the gathering of the “elect” (22:14; 24:22, 31), this coming most naturally refers to the end of the age (as in Rev 6:12-17). For darkness specifically, see comment on 27:45.

Second, the nations will respond to his coming with terror (24:30). Although such terror appears as a signal of the end in some texts (2 Bar. 25:3; 70:2; cf. Lk 21:26), it naturally fits the context of imminent judgment before an all-powerful executor of divine justice.

The nations have good reason to fear. When applied to a king or other prominent dignitary, the term for Jesus’ coming (parousia) was a quasitechnical expression that implied considerable demands for preparation on the part of the local populace (Ladd 1967: 92; Kreitzer 1989; Deissmann 1978: 368-70; Best 1977: 349-54; for preparation, cf., e.g., Ex. Rab. 29:6). In reference to deities, hellenistic usage applied the term to a theophany (Witherington 1992: 150-51, adapting Kilpatrick 1945; Grayston 1984: 95; cf. Test. Judah 22:2; Test. Abr. 13 A; Test. Job 43:14/11; similarly 1 Enoch 91:7; the Messiah in 2 Bar. 30:1; Old Testament language in Glasson 1963b: 1-7, 177-83).

Here the “sign” may be identified with the Son of Man’s appearing itself, referring to Jesus coming in glory (16:27; Meier 1980: 287; Gundry 1982: 488); others suggest an allusion to the “standard” (translated sēmeion, “sign,” in the LXX) signifying God gathering his people (Is 11:12; 49:22). France 1985: 344-45 mentions both views and concludes that in view of the “apocalyptic symbolism” it is difficult to decide; perhaps the term alludes to the latter and its content to the former.

That the Son of Man has authority to dispatch “his” angels to gather “his” elect (24:31; Mk 13:27) portrays Jesus as divine (Meier 1980: 288). (Indeed, early Christian parousia texts regularly reapply to Jesus Jewish eschatological imagery concerning God — Robinson 1979: 140, following Glasson 1962: 162-79.)

As in Mark 13:26, the language of seeing the Son of Man coming with the clouds (presumably of God’s glory; cf. 1QM 12.9) alludes to Dan 7:13,

but Matthew includes an additional allusion to Zech 12:10, in which the nations mourn (24:30). Other early Christian writers connect these texts in Daniel and Zechariah (Rev 1:7), perhaps suggesting that Matthew here echoes authentic Jesus tradition rather than simply redacting Mark without such tradition; cf. Bauckham 1993: 319-21. (Differences of Greek wording may suggest independent translations of a prior Semitic tradition; cf. Lindars 1961: 123 on the Johannine wording.) But whereas Revelation might apply the Zechariah text, according to its context, to Israel (Rev 1:7; Zech 12:10-14), Matthew generalizes the “tribes” to apply to all nations (pace Fenton 1977: 389). Given the reference to mourning, one may doubt whether Matthew would believe repentance still possible at the final appearing of Christ (as in 1 Enoch 50:2-5; some other Jews believed repentance impossible at the judgment, as in b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3a). The apppearance of “great glory” (24:30) is also eschatological (Sib. Or. 3.282; cf., e.g., Is 40:5; 60:1-2; 2 Thess 1:9).

Finally, Jesus’ followers will ultimately be delivered (24:31). Paul likewise observes that deliverance from tribulation in the present age arrives when Jesus comes as king and judges the wicked (2 Thess 1:6-7). The “elect” here can mean only Jesus’ community, as in this eschatological tradition (2 Thess 2:13) and usually in early Christian texts (Mt 22:14; Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:10; Tit 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1; 2:9);

Paul applies this “gathering” to followers of Jesus (2 Thess 2:1; 1 Thess 4:15-17; cf. also Did. 10.5; 16.6-7). “From one end of heaven to the other” means the whole earth (Mk 13:27; cf. Is 11:12; 1 Enoch 57:2), figuratively viewed, as was common in ancient Mediterranean thought, as a circle surrounded by the dome of heaven (cf. references in Gundry 1982: 489; also Hom. Od. 3.1; 19.434; Arist. Heavens 2.4, 286b 10). In biblical and Jewish tradition, the remnant of Israel was “chosen” and would be “gathered” at the end time (e.g., Is 11:12; 43:5; 49:5; 56:8; Pss. Sol. 8:28; 11:2-5; 17:26; 4 Ezra 13:39-40; 4 Bar. 3:11; Test. Asher 7:7; cf. Jesus’ long-range desire for Israel in Mt 23:37); but early Christian texts regularly apply the image of Israel’s remnant to the church, comprised of all those in covenant relationship with God in Christ, who thereby share in Israel’s messianic hope (cf. “gathering” of believers in Jesus in 2 Thess 2:1; Did. 9.4). The gathering here is probably understood as “a rapture to heaven” as in 1 Thess 4:17, but employing language from Jewish eschatology (Davies and Allison 1997: 364). Further, Jesus has been addressing his followers throughout the rest of the discourse (see Payne 1962: 55).

The figure of the trumpet is wholly appropriate, and is one feature of pre-Matthean tradition noted by Matthew but cited earlier by Paul (1 Thess 4:17), who refers to the “last trumpet” at the resurrection of the righteous (1 Cor 15:52) when the final enemy, death, is subdued (1 Cor 15:24-26; recalled in Gk. Ezra 4:36). Biblical tradition employed the trumpet for proclamation, for example, of kingship (2 Kings 9:13), for celebration of triumph (cf. Josh 6:20; for worship in 1 Esdr 5:59, 62, 64-65; 4Q493, Baumgarten 1987; p. Rosh Hash. 4:8, §1), but especially for assembling God’s people (e.g., Num 10:1-10; cf. angels in Apoc. Mos. 22:1-3; 37:1), also at the eschatological time (Is 27:12-13; cf. Ps. Sol. 11:1-4; Pesiq. R. 40:7; Goodenough 1954: 4:194).

Most often trumpets assembled God’s people for war or alerted them to an attack (e.g., Num 10:9; Josh 6:20; Judg 3:27; 7:20; Is 18:3; Jer 4:19; Ezek 33:3-6; Joel 2:1; Zeph 1:16; Jos. Ant. 3.291-94; 4 Bar. 4:2-3); the language could also apply to the coming of God as a triumphant warrior (Zech 9:14). An early commentator on the Qumran texts opined that its portrait of military use of trumpets must stem from the war of 66-70 (Driver 1965: 585), but this position is untenable: the use of trumpets in war figures heavily in all periods throughout the ancient Mediterranean (see especially Maccabean citations in Avi-Yonah 1952: 3, on 1QM 3). Jewish and other armies continued to use trumpets for war (calls to advance, recalling the troops, etc.) in the hellenistic and Roman periods (e.g., 1 Macc 5:31-33; Philo Spec. Leg. 2.190; Jos. War 3.89-91; 3.265; 5.47; Dion. Hal. 7.59.5; Tac. Ann. 1.68; Soph. Ajax 291; Char. Chaer. 8.2.6; Sen. Dial. 4.2.4; Livy 24.46.3; Appian R.H. 6.9.52; Lucan C.W. 4.750; Arrian Alex. 6.3.3; Babrius 76.12; Avianus Fable 39.7-16). Significantly for the tradition our text shares with 1 Thess 4:16, such a trumpet often occurred with a shout (Virg. Aen. 9.503-4; Jos. War 3.265; Tac. Ann. 1.68; cf. further references in Gaster 1976: 387), or a very shrill and terrifying battle shout could sound like a trumpet (Hom. Il. 18.219). In eschatological contexts these images could symbolize the final battle (1QM 8.9-12; cf. 4 Ezra 6:23-25; Knibb 1979: 151; Sib. Or. 4.173-76).

Early Jewish texts continue to apply the trumpet image to eschatological salvation, especially in the regularly recited tenth benediction of the Shemoneh Esreh (e.g., in Davies 1980: 82; Bonsirven 1964: 132).

The Day Nor the Hour (24:32-44)

For Mt 24:32-36, cf. Mk 13:28-32; Lk 21:29-33; for Mt 24:37-44, cf. Lk 17:26-36; 12:39-40. Balancing the seven (or eight) parables that teach the presence of the kingdom in Matthew 13, the central discourse, Matthew includes seven parables about Jesus’ future coming in 24:32–25:46 (Jeremias 1972: 92-93).

First, the temple’s desolation in the first generation constitutes the final visible prerequisite for the kingdom before the cosmic signs of Jesus’ return (24:32-35). Because fig trees, unlike most trees in Palestine, lost their leaves seasonally, fruit on fig trees indicated the season; fig trees also produced leaves before other plants like vines (Jeremias 1971: 106; Meier 1980: 288; Harrington 1982: 97; Song 2:13; cf. Hab 3:17; 1 Enoch 2:1–5:3).

Given the agrarian character of ancient Israel, the choice of the image of a tree naturally evoked rich biblical imagery (rabbis also applied the fig tree image diversely, e.g., for Torah — b. ʿErub. 54ab; for Abraham — b. Yebam. 63a; Gen. Rab. 53:3; Pesiq. R. 42:5; cf. 1QapGen 19.14-23). Some texts compare Israel to a fig tree or other trees (e.g., Hos 9:10; Song Rab. 7:5, §3; Pesiq. R. 15:11), but many either denounce Israel’s failure to surrender her fruit to the Lord who owns her (Is 5:1-7; Jer 24:1-10; Hos 10:1, 4, 11-13) — fruitlessness being catastrophic to an agrarian culture (e.g., Deut 28:18; Hab 3:17) — or speak of Israel’s fruitfulness in the time of restoration (cf., e.g., Ezek 36:8; Hos 14:6-8; b. Sanh. 98a). Unwilling to offer the vineyard’s rightful fruit to its owner (Mt 21:34), the Jewish leaders were fruitless trees meriting destruction (3:8; 12:33). The temple establishment were like fig trees with the veneer of maturity yet without fruit (21:19; cf. Mk 11:12-25).

Whereas the signs Luke mentions mean that the kingdom is near (Lk 21:31; cf. 1 Clem. 23), “these things” in Matthew 24 (cf. 24:2) apply to the desolation of the temple to occur within that generation (24:34).

Though some (mentioned in Cullmann 1956a: 151; Mattill 1979a: 97; cf. Bonsirven 1964: 58) wish to take “generation” (genea) as “race” (cf. the distinct genos in 2 Macc 8:9; Jdt 9:14; 11:10), 23:35-36 leave no doubt that Jesus uses the term as normally (e.g., Jer 7:29) and as elsewhere in Matthew refers to the climactic “generation.” Because Jesus’ warning of judgment must precede A.D. 70 (see comment on 21:12; 24:2), it is interesting that Jerusalem fell about forty years after Jesus’ warning (pace Kidder 1983, who thinks the “generation” follows 70). Once God has judged the fruitless authorities who dominate the temple, Jesus’ return is potentially so imminent (“has drawn near,” as in 4:17; 21:34) that he can be described as “at the door” (25:10; Jas 5:9; in a noneschatological sense, cf. Rev 3:20). In declaring that the whole cosmic order would ultimately vanish but his own words would not pass away (24:35), Jesus ranks his words with God’s words through the prophets (Zech 1:5-6; Mt 5:18).

Second, the day will catch most people unawares (24:36-44). The “day” in this passage is presumably the day of the Lord (as in 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10; cf. Cullmann 1950: 43).

Such a warning prevents those who are suffering from building up undue expectations of the time that would set them up for exploitation (24:23-27); this sort of warning was especially critical in view of the tendency of many of Jesus’ contemporaries to predict signs of the end (cf. comment on 24:6-8). Some Jewish futurists set dates (see, e.g., Bonsirven 1964: 178; Morris 1972: 46-47; cf. Test. Abr. 7B; Gk. Ezra 3:3-4), eliciting a strong reaction among the more conservative rabbis (e.g., b. Pesaḥ. 54b, bar.; Sanh. 97a; Num. Rab. 5:6; see Moore 1974: 2:231; Daube 1973: 289-90; cf. 2 Bar. 21:8). Although some rabbis thought that God revealed all things to his angels, rabbis generally doubted that angels knew the time of Israel’s deliverance (b. Sanh. 99a; Blau and Kohler 1901: 586), and angels were rarely viewed as omniscient (4 Ezra 4:52).

Jesus here claims that no one knows the day nor the hour, not even himself (24:36), and this saying is surely authentic (pace Bultmann 1968: 159; Vermes 1993: 160).

Especially because Scripture already attested that the Lord knows the time (Zech 14:7), the early church would hardly have created a saying limiting divine omniscience to the Father; no circle of first-century Christianity securely known to us could have afforded such a christological concession. Further, had early Christians simply needed a saying to address the delay of the parousia, they would more naturally have created a claim that Jesus denied the imminence of the parousia, not that he was ignorant of its timing (Witherington 1990: 229-30). Because the saying is authentic, however, it incidentally verifies the view that Jesus called himself the Son of God in a distinctive sense, and assigns himself a role among or above the angels, that is, similar to divine Wisdom (Witherington 1990: 232).

Like the flood,

the Son of Man’s coming (Dan 7:13-14) would arrive as sudden and unexpected judgment, without explicit warning (24:37-39; cf. Lk 17:26-27). Jesus’ followers might recognize the completion of requisite signs (cf. 1 Thess 5:4-6), but for outsiders events would continue as business-as-usual. The point of the comparison is unexpectedness as well as sudden destruction (Argyle 1963: 186; cf. 1 Thess 5:2-3), a comparison probably followed by 2 Peter (3:5-7; cf. Justin Dial. 138). This passage echoes the damnable folly of outsiders repeated throughout the Gospel tradition in general and Matthew in particular (e.g., 13:19; 15:10): they did not understand (24:27, 39). “Eating and drinking” could imply sinful revelry (e.g., 24:49; Lam. Rab., Proem 17), but more than likely it simply indicates life as usual. Two men might be in the field working (cf. 24:18), but only one would be “taken” (24:40). The image of “grinding” together with another woman, presumably at a handmill (24:41; this is the normal sense of the earlier textual reading; further, the larger community mill required the strength of a mule or some other work animal — see comment on 18:6), would be equally familiar, depicting the task of most housewives (m. Giṭ. 5:9). Because Galilean families typically shared both a common courtyard and a common millstone there with other families (Horsley 1995: 192), this picture is not at all surprising. If Jesus means “taken in judgment” (Jer 6:11; cf. Jer 8:13 MT; Ps. Sol. 13:11), the taking parallels the different expression in 24:39, where the flood “took” the wicked away (see Lk 17:34-37; contrast Sir 44:16-17).

“Watch” does not mean “look for” or “anticipate immediately,” but borrows the image of a night watchman at his post (24:42; 25:13; Ladd 1974b: 208):

the disciple must remain prepared for his Lord’s coming, remaining alert and awake at his post (26:38, 40-41, 43-46; Did. 16.1). That the time of Jesus’ coming is unknown does not therefore preclude that some signs mentioned earlier in the passage will precede it (cf. Gundry 1982: 491-92; Katterjohn 1976: 118-19), any more than such ideas were incompatible in various expressions of Jewish eschatology (cf., e.g., Bonsirven 1964: 53). In one later eschatological tradition, because the final signs are mixed together the earth dwellers will not understand that the end is at hand (2 Bar. 27:15), and will live at peace because they do not recognize the imminence of judgment (2 Bar. 48:32).

The image of a householder’s (in parables, e.g., 13:52) being unprepared for a nocturnal thief would catch the attention of uncomfortable homeowners (burglary was common; see, e.g., Lewis 1983: 77; Sib. Or. 3.380); one could not predict the coming of a thief.

Although the image is a general one (thieves preferred night and mist; see, e.g., Hom. Il. 3.10-11; Phaedrus 1.23.3-4; Job 24:14), the saying may employ the image of a nocturnal thief as divine judgment developed from the biblical prophets (Jer 49:9; Obad 4-6; cf. Joel 2:9). Although Mark does not explicitly report this saying of Jesus (Mt 24:43), it is unquestionably pre-Matthean and came to figure prominently in early Christian discussion of the end time (1 Thess 5:2, 4; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 3:3; 16:15).

Christ’s Servants Judged (24:45-51)

Cf. Lk 12:41-46. After Jesus exhorts the disciples to “watch,” to stay awake, he illustrates what he means. One stays alert by living in such a manner that one would have no cause for shame if one’s master did come unannounced, since he may in fact do so. Paul may echo the warning against living an unexpectant, self-serving life here (cf. 1 Thess 5:3-9).

First, to whom much is given, from that one much is required. The community’s ministers have special responsibilities to serve others as well as special standards (Lk 12:41-42; cf. Hos 4:6-9; Jas 3:1; 1 Pet 5:1-4). This parable addresses the teachers, the Matthean community’s leaders, showing that the assault on hypocritical leaders in Israel in Matthew 23 is also applicable to those in the church at the second coming, for they would prove equally unprepared (cf. 25:14-30; Jas 3:1; cf. Meier 1980: 293-94; Gundry 1982: 497).

Here the ruling servant exploits the resources meant for others in gluttony and drunkenness (24:49; cf. the demand for sobriety in 1 Thess 5:6-7; Lk 21:34), a biblical image (Is 28:7-8; 29:9-10; 56:10-12). Such banqueting, which sometimes appears as a negative image of excess (cf. Jos. Ant. 10.232; Gen. Rab. 39:8; Lev. Rab. 5:3; Pesiq. R. 52:1; 1 Pet 4:3), typically occurred at night (Sen. Ep. Lucil. 47.7; Juv. Sat. 8.9-12; Jos. Life 220, 223; Philo Cher. 92-93; Rom 13:12-13; 1 Thess 5:7), probably underlining the contextual contrast with “watching.” The false charge against Jesus (11:19) is true with regard to this servant, more interested in feeding himself (Ezek 34:2-3) than in watching for his master (cf. 24:38). Biblical tradition condemns the wastefulness of drunkenness (e.g., Prov 20:1; 31:4-7; Is 5:11-14, 22; 28:1; Hab 2:5, 15-16; cf. 1 Kings 16:9-10; 20:16-21), also applying it figuratively to judgment metaphors (Is 29:9; 51:21-23; 63:6; Jer 13:13; Nah 1:10).

The image resembles some biblical denunciations of exploitative leaders: “with force and harshness you have ruled [my sheep]” (Ezek 34:4, NRSV).

Second, some servants of Christ at his second coming will be found as unprepared as was much of the religious establishment at his first. The image of sharing hell with the “hypocrites” (24:51) explicitly recalls the false servants of 23:13-29. Like the tenants of 21:35-37 or the shepherds failing to feed the sheep in Ezekiel 34:15 (cf. Mt 24:45), these leaders forgot their true role as servants (23:12) and acted as if they could do as they pleased with what God had entrusted into their care (25:14).

Stories were known of servants who had acted in such ways, and precedent inclined Jesus’ hearers to expect such servants to face serious consequences (e.g., Jos. Ant. 15.205-7, 228-29; cf. Epict. Disc. 3.22.3; Jos. War 2.481-83; Ep. Arist. 246, 271; Arrian Alex. 4.22.4; 6.30.2); the most widely known example would have been in the story of Ahiqar, in which a wicked servant mistreated and, in some versions, killed the other servants (3:2; 4:15 Syr.). A century after Jesus, R. Simeon ben Yohai compared Israel to misbehaving servants whom God then locked off from his storage house (Sifre Deut. 40.6.1). A king, husband, or other master in a distant land was a common parable setting (e.g., ARN 1A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:6) and constituted a temptation for those left behind (Prov 7:19-20; Eurip. Hippol. 281; Diod. Sic. 17.108.4; Char. Chaer. 1.4.8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 19:4). Indeed, because they might return unexpectedly early (e.g., Aelian Animals 7.25), Roman men, for whatever reasons, normally warned their wives in advance when they were about to return (Plut. R.Q. 9, Mor. 266A), though some might return unexpectedly at night to check a wife’s faithfulness (Phaedrus 3.10.18-20; in a later Arab tale, see Gordon 1989: 86).

Thus the image of the faithful slave is one of readiness (25:14, 21; cf. 6:24). Warnings to stay ready became increasingly important when the end did not materialize as swiftly as many had expected (cf. the similar phenomenon in 1QpHab 2.3-6); continuing tribulation rather than disillusionment may have contributed discontent (Goppelt 1962: 198).

Finally, Jesus calls ministers to serve their fellow servants; those who exploit the flock for their own interests will be damned (cf. 2 Pet 2:3; Mic 3:11-12; 1 Tim 6:5). Those who abused their master’s property in his absence had cause for terror at his unexpected return (Diod. Sic. 17.108.6-8). The sort of dismemberment depicted here represents the most horrible sort of fate (e.g., Dan 3:29; Hom. Od. 18.339; Livy 8.24.14; Diod. Sic. 16.16.4; 17.83.9; 33.15.1; 34/35.8.1; 34/35.12.1; 34/35.14.1; Paus. 2.2.7). Arrian, for example, declares that his hero Alexander punished Bessus by having his nose and ears cut off before executing him (Alex. 4.7.3; the practice could include nose, ears, genitals, hands, and feet, as in Hom. Od. 22.474-77), but Arrian disapproves of such “mutilation of extremities” as a practice derived from the barbarians (Alex. 4.7.4). More horrible and disgraceful for the corpse was cutting one in pieces and discarding the parts (e.g., Appian R.H. 3.6.1; 4.11).

Remembering that leaders are not lords but “fellow slaves” (18:29; 23:8-11) keeps their duty in perspective.

Awaiting the Bridegroom (25:1-13)

Cf. Mk 13:33-37; Lk 12:35-38; 13:25. This parable most naturally focuses on the same time of judgment as the preceding one (24:45-51; though the transitional tote need not signify so much, being a favorite Matthean particle — cf. Jeremias 1972: 52).

Disciples must watch. Matthew has already emphasized that since the time of Jesus’ coming is unknown, disciples must watch and be ready (24:36). Matthew articulates that principle again by means of a parable quite suitable for his Syro-Palestinian Jewish audience. Although some rabbinic parables address the theme of readiness most often in relation to death (cf. Sifre Deut. 43.15.2; b. Shab. 153a), Jesus’ parables about the end time especially focus on readiness for the Son of Man (e.g., 24:42–25:13).

Although Jewish parables sometimes referred to the wedding of Israel and Torah, the wedding merely provides the setting for the parable; the bridesmaids, rather than the bride herself, constitute the primary characters. Their role might depict Torah scholars in analogous rabbinic parables (Ford 1967), but Jesus addresses all his disciples with this warning. The motif contrasting wise and foolish characters naturally appears in rabbinic literature (Young 1989: 35, citing the king’s servants in b. Shab. 152b).

Until the judgment scene, the setting is largely realistic, fitting what Jesus’ Galilean hearers knew of weddings, the sort of details Jesus used in other parables (e.g., 9:15; 22:3). Wedding processions from the bride’s to the groom’s home, accompanied by song and dancing, normally happened at night, hence requiring light. The lamps here are not the small, hand-held Herodian period lamps, which would generate very little light, but torches (as in weddings in the rest of the Mediterranean world — Eurip. Daughters of Troy 343-44; Virg. Aen. 4.338-39; 7.388; Culex 246; Ecl. 8.29; Ovid Metam. 1.483, 763; 4.758-59; 6.430; 10.6; Lucan C.W. 2.356; Plut. R.Q. 2, Mor. 263F; Ach. Tat. 2.11.1; cf. Safrai 1974/76b: 758). In poorer villages these torches may have been sticks wrapped with oiled rags, as in traditional Arab weddings (Jeremias 1965b; idem 1972: 174-75; followed by Gundry 1982: 498; pace Edersheim 541). Although details differ from one village to the next, traditional Palestinian village weddings in recent centuries climax with women torchbearers leading the bride to the bridegroom’s home, and the torchbearers going out to meet the groom and his male friends (Jeremias 1972: 173). Presumably the bridesmaids wait outside the bride’s home for his coming, to escort her en route to his home (Argyle 1963: 189; cf. Safrai 1974/76b: 758; pace Fenton 1977: 396; Meier 1980: 295).

Greek and Roman weddings also included the torchlit procession to the groom’s residence (Ferguson 1987: 55); the groom’s residence was usually his parents’ home, which would for a time after the banquet become the new couple’s residence (Tob 6:13; Derrett 1973: 38; cf. also for other patrilocal cultures, e.g., Mbiti 1970: 182).

In this particular parable (in contrast to 24:42-44), the issue is not that the virgins went to sleep — both the wise and foolish did so; this detail is merely part of the narrative’s setting. The issue is that some were not watchful enough to have sufficient oil (Beare 1981: 482; Schweizer 1975: 467).

Some scholars have suggested that the torches could burn only fifteen minutes before being rewrapped with more oiled cloth (e.g., France 1985: 351; Witherington 1984: 43). Some other details, like going to buy the oil, fit the logic of the narrative, although most shops would not have been open at night (though for exceptions see Argyle 1975, retracting idem 1963: 189). In traditional Palestinian Arab weddings, messengers might repeatedly announce the bridegroom’s coming, yet it might be delayed for hours (Jeremias 1972: 173); delays occur while the bride’s relatives haggle over the value of presents given them, emphasizing the bride’s great value and hence the wisdom of the groom’s selection (Jeremias 1972: 173-74). That the bridesmaids would be sleepy around midnight is not surprising; because ancient lighting tended to be poorer than today, most people were asleep by midnight (e.g., Ovid Metam. 10.368).

All the virgins would have been ready for the groom had he arrived when they expected, but grooms’ delays were common enough that they should have anticipated it; this provides clear warning that the parousia might be delayed — perhaps for Jesus’ first disciples who expected the kingdom to appear immediately, and surely for those who were disappointed at Jesus’ nonreturn at the temple’s demise in 70 (cf. 24:22-23, 48; 25:19).

The apantēsis, or “meeting,” “rendezvous” (25:6), often suggested going out to meet someone and forming his escort into the place where he would be honored. The “going out” itself, however, fits the parable’s story line and should not be pressed for further significance (cf. 24:26).

Some think that “the calculating self-centredness of the ‘wise’ virgins” contradicts the piety of Jesus’ authentic teaching (Vermes 1993: 113), but this is not quite true. First, the parable represents an analogy arguing that personal choice determines one’s responses to God’s gift of the kingdom, an analogy that does not ask all possible moral questions surrounding that determination (cf. 13:44-45). Second, even if the characters exhibited negative features, this hardly precludes their function in the analogy; Jesus characteristically provides unpleasant analogies even for God (as tyrannical or naive; 18:12-14, 23-25; 21:37; Lk 18:1-8) and himself (Mt 24:43-44). But, finally, the image is simply not a negative one: the unwillingness of the wise virgins to share their oil reflects their concern for their friend’s wedding. Having only enough for their own torches, sharing would cause all the torches to be extinguished, ruining the whole procession (Meier 1980: 295; Gundry 1982: 500).

Bridal processions were so important that later rabbis even suspended their lectures so they could hail the passing bride (ARN 4A; 8, §22B); for the groom and (some held) for the attendants, weddings even took precedence over some ritual obligations (t. Ber. 2:10; b. Sukk. 25b; p. Sukk. 2:5, §1). Later teachers even insisted that God specifically supervised Adam’s wedding (ARN 8, §23B; b. B. Bat. 75a; Gen. Rab. 8:13; 18:1; Qoh. Rab. 8:1, §2). In short, Palestinian Jewish people regarded weddings as critical events (contrast Romans — O’Rourke 1971: 181), and a breach of etiquette was therefore serious.

Those who fail to watch will suffer shame. The host or groom excludes the foolish virgins as a punishment, not merely because the bolt on the door was cumbersome (cf. Meier 1980: 296).

Doors could be bolted or barred shut (e.g., Aristoph. Wasps 154-55), but the door would hardly be locked throughout the feast, which lasted seven days. New guests sometimes arrived during those days, requiring the repeating of the blessings (Safrai 1974/76b: 760; cf. b. Ketub. 7b-8b; p. Ketub. 1:1, §6); elsewhere in the first-century Mediterranean world doorkeepers watched the doors during weddings (Demetrius On Style 3.167). The foolish virgins were not excluded simply because the door was locked (25:10-11), nor because the host actually did not recognize them (25:12), but because they had insulted the bride and groom, as well as all their relatives! The expression “I do not know you” was sometimes used when one wished to treat others as strangers and keep them from approaching (Blomberg 1992a: 371n.76, following Green 1975: 205). This was an offense they would never be allowed to forget.

To participate in their friend’s wedding was a great honor; as virgins, these young women were in a sense practicing for their own impending weddings around the ages of twelve to sixteen. But to have spoiled the wedding for her by failing to do their appropriate part was a great insult to their friend and to the groom and guests. That they would be shut out of the feast in punishment suits their case, but the language used to depict this nightmare points beyond itself to more severe, eternal judgment, probably echoing the sayings in 7:21-23 (Jeremias 1972: 175 compares a rabbi’s temporary ban). Wedding feasts involved great joy;

thus the transgressors will mourn because they have been shut out from it.

The Industrious and the Lazy Managers (25:14-30)

Cf. Lk 19:11-27; perhaps Mk 13:34.

Many aspects of the parable depict social reality in a wealthy household. Householders going on long journeys might entrust their estate to slaves to oversee (cf. 24:45-51), since household slaves often held managerial roles (Treggiari 1975: 49; Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 66; Judge 1960: 38). The Lukan version depicts a master who entrusts to slaves a much smaller sum (especially given the price of slaves themselves), but Matthew paints the story in much grander terms (portraying sixty to one hundred times Luke’s sum; cf. Goulder 1974: 62; Gundry 1982: 503). Although Jesus might have reapplied a similar story line on several occasions, Jeremias may be right to suggest that Matthew and Luke (or, more likely, their sources) have both expanded the figures in an original parable in distinct ways (1972: 27).

Because Luke’s figures for the money are probably more accurate and he says that each received the same amount, Matthew may here make a special point in noting that the master gave “each according to his ability” — he already knew which slaves would be most industrious, but expected all to show some industry. In the Roman Empire, slaves could earn wages and bonuses and could acquire property (Apul. Metam. 10.13; p. Yebam. 7:1, §2; Buckland 1908: 187-238; Finley 1973: 64; Cohen 1966: 179-278), hence they would have more incentive to look out for the master’s property than slaves in many cultures do. Thus the servants understand very well what is required of them.

As in 24:45-51, readiness for Jesus’ return here demands faithfulness in doing the work he has called one to do. This warning applies to all disciples, but perhaps most severely to church leaders: “A Christian leader who does not lead is damned” (Meier 1980: 300). That the householder is on a journey and will return unexpectedly may imply a possible “delay” of the parousia, although it is clearer in Luke (“far” country — Lk 19:12). “Settling accounts” again becomes a figure for the time of judgment (cf. 18:23).

The rewards were commensurate with their faithfulness in pursuing the master’s interest (25:20-23). Elsewhere one encounters the principle that one untrustworthy in what was his own would not be trustworthy in what concerns others (Lk 16:10-12; m. Dem. 2:2; Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.18.25); here one encounters the principle that only those proved in small leadership positions would be prepared for bigger ones.

Similarly, only those who were wise would receive further instruction (Sir 21:12), for as a later rabbi put it, God pours more into a full vessel but not into an empty one (b. Ber. 40a). Although Matthew may know that the Aramaic word translated into Greek as “joy” can also mean “feast” or “wedding feast” (Jeremias 1972: 60n.42; Gundry 1982: 506), purely Greek-speaking readers would lose very little: the term “joy” can connote banqueting with the master (cf. 25:10), and the context of the preceding parable supports this interpretation. Some of Jesus’ contemporaries stressed the “joy” of the righteous in the world to come.

The lazy servant does nothing with his resources because he does not care about the master’s agendas. Temples, including the Jerusalem temple, functioned as banks,

and moneylenders were also common elsewhere in the Gentile world. Most people lacked capital, but those who had it could multiply their investment fivefold or even tenfold (Lk 19:16-18); doubling one’s investment (Mt 25:20, 22) might be regarded as a reasonable minimum return to expect in the ancient economy (Derrett 1970: 24, though citing here Hammurabi; cf. Hock 1988: 140). Burying money (Mt 25:18; cf. Hor. Sat. 1.1.41-42) at least kept that capital safe; ancient law viewed merely wrapping it in a napkin, however, as disrespecting its safety altogether (Lk 19:20; Derrett 1970: 24; Jeremias 1972: 61). But the money would have been no less safe with bankers (m. B. Meṣ. 3:11; Gundry 1982: 509; on ancient bankers, see Lewis 1983: 147-48). When the lazy servant declares, “Here is your own money back!” he refuses to acknowledge responsibility (see Derrett 1970: 25 on a possibly corresponding mishnaic phrase); by failing the master’s trust, he insults the master. His excuse is hardly acceptable: knowing the master’s reputation for sternness, he was paralyzed with fear (25:24-25). The master rightly responds, “On the assumption that I am hard and merciless, you should have been all the more diligent!” (25:26-27).

Disciples who neglect the resources entrusted to them in this life will be damned. As in the preceding parable, the exclusion of the unfaithful, who insult their patron’s trust in them, is explicit: hell’s darkness (8:12; 22:13) and wailing (22:13). The master accepts the servant’s portrait of his severity — supplying both a mark of the parable’s authenticity (the church would hardly have portrayed Jesus thus; Gundry 1982: 508) and, more importantly, a warning not to take the impending judgment lightly. Whereas the other servants are rewarded by the master’s benevolence, this servant, fearing the master’s harshness but unaware of his benevolence (cf. Patte 1987: 346), experiences the very wrath he knew about. This is the punishment for a professed disciple who failed to invest all his or her resources in the work of the kingdom.

The Division of the Sheep and the Goats (25:31-46)

This parable is unique to Matthew in our extant sources, but that neither Matthew nor Luke uses every detail of Mark warns us against rejecting material not documented more than once in extant sources. Those who deny that Jesus could have planned the admission of Gentiles naturally see the parable as inauthentic (e.g., Sanders 1985: 111), but the premise presupposes the exclusion or a particular interpretation of some Jesus material some scholars, including myself, regard as authentic (cf., e.g., comment on 8:11-12). The parabolic form, the “Son of Man,” the use of Amēn (25:40, 45), and similar features recall Jesus’ own style. Generally “Matthean” features may suggest that Matthew has more freely recast oral tradition here than he often adapts Mark, but some purportedly “Matthean” features (like parallelism) make just as much sense in Jesus’ Palestinian milieu. The parallels to many of Jesus’ other sayings (Robinson 1962: 88-89) can argue either for a Matthean construction from other materials or, as I prefer, authenticity on the basis of coherence with authentic Jesus tradition.

Jesus is the final judge. This parable assumes a high Christology consonant with Matthew’s Christology in general (Luz 1996: 308). This observation need not render the parable inauthentic: that Jesus should claim to be King (25:34) fits his actions (see 21:7-8); that he should claim to be the final judge fits some Q tradition (see 7:21-23). But this parable probably goes so far as to assume, in appropriate Matthean imagery, Jesus’ deity (cf. 18:20). To be sure, others sometimes fill the role of final judge in Jewish tradition (e.g., Abel, with Enoch’s help, in Test. Abr. 12-13A; 11B;

Enoch in 3 Enoch 16:1; the son of man in 1 Enoch 69:27 [Similitudes], all on the model of the Greek Minos and Rhadamanthys, Hom. Od. 11.568-71; Eurip. Cyclops 273; Virg. Aen. 6.431-33, 566-69; Lucian Zeus Catechized 18; Menippus 10-13; On Funerals 7; Dialogues of the Dead 24/450-54); the saints also join in the judgment (1QpHab 4.4; 1 Cor 6:2), and the rule of the Son of Man (Dan 7:13-14; Mt 25:31) could be understood in such terms. Nevertheless, the central biblical and Jewish role of eschatological judge that Jesus here assumes normally belongs to God himself (cf., e.g., Sib. Or. 4.183-84; 1 Enoch 9:4; 60:2; 62:2; 47:3 with 46:2; Test. Abr. 14A); as noted earlier, the king in rabbinic parables is nearly always God. Coming with “all the angels” (25:31; cf. 13:41; 16:27; 24:31; 2 Thess 1:7) alludes to various versions of Zechariah 14:5 (see Gundry 1982: 511), where God is in view.

Although in biblical and Jewish tradition shepherds could represent Moses, David, and others, the chief shepherd was God himself.

In the Matthean context, this background may be significant. The sheep, of course, almost always stand for the people of God (e.g., 1 Enoch 90:32-33; Pesiq. R. 9:2; 26:2). In the earlier work 1 Enoch, the “Lord of the sheep” who was judge at the day of judgment (1 Enoch 90:20) was God himself (1 Enoch 89:16, 20, 26, 33, 50, 52, 54, 70). Similarly, Jesus’ claim that whatever others have done to his servants they have done to him fits a rabbinic perspective about God (Smith 1951: 154, citing Midr. Tannaim 15.9), though both cases might simply echo the Jewish custom of a shaliaḥ, an appointed agent or representative (see comment on 10:5). Whether Jesus in this passage claims deity or merely an exalted role as God’s Davidic agent (“in his name” — cf. 1 Enoch 55:4), he clearly becomes the focus of the final judgment, spelling disaster to those who ignore him on this side of the day of judgment.

In Jewish texts, God judges the nations after raising them from the dead (cf. 4 Ezra 7:37); the judgment among nations was an ancient Israelite hope (e.g., Mic 4:3, beyn, between peoples). The same time frame is in view here: as in both the context and the Daniel passage that initially supplied the “Son of Man” title, Jesus here returns after the tribulation (25:31; 24:29-30; Dan 7:13-14), “in glory” (cf. 16:27; 24:31; 2 Thess 1:10; 2:8), “in his kingdom” (16:28), enthroned (cf. 20:23; 22:44). The parable’s “throne of glory” (cf. 25:31) appears frequently in Jewish texts (most frequently of God’s throne), those addressing the final judgment being of special significance here (e.g., 1 Enoch 45:3; 47:3; 60:2; 62:2).

The “nations” or “Gentiles” in Jewish literature would be judged according to how they treated Israel (4 Ezra 7:37; Klausner 1979b: 200). As in other word pictures, here they are “gathered” (cf. 13:40; Is 2:4; Rev 16:16)

and separated (13:30, 49), in this instance the way a shepherd would separate sheep from goats (cf. Ezek 34:17), to keep the goats warm at night while keeping the sheep in open air as they preferred (Jeremias 1972: 206). The parable’s portrayal of the righteous as sheep and the wicked as goats may stem from their relative value to the owner. Goats were sometimes disobedient to the goatherd (Babrius 3.2-3), probably more often than sheep to the shepherd. Moreover, sheep cost more than goats did (Jeremias 1972: 206), and because of their greater utility and value, they were nearly always held in greater quantity.

Jesus portrays the judgment scene in masterful ways.

Ancients, most of whom, like most people today, were right-handed, generally preferred the right side to the left (e.g., Plut. R.Q. 78, Mor. 282E — the left side is physically weaker; Eccl 10:2; b. Ber. 61a, bar.); in one Jewish tradition the angel on the right of the throne recorded good deeds while the one on the left recorded evil ones (Test. Abr. 12A; more fully on right and left in early Judaism and Christianity, cf. Court 1985; Lachs 1987: 394). More significantly, Davies and Allison 1997: 424 note that in Plato Rep. 10.614C the righteous are sent right and up to heaven while others are sent to the left; likewise, in Virg. Aen. 6.540-43 the road to the right leads to Elysium but the road to the left to Tartarus. Also, the vindication of the righteous on specific grounds will leave the wicked after them without excuse: in later rabbinic tradition, the converts to Judaism from among the nations would indict the nations on the day of judgment, proving that conversion had been a viable option (Pesiq. R. 161a in Davies 1980: 65); cf. more fully the comment on 12:38-42.

Who are the sheep, goats, and siblings?

The older dispensational scheme viewed this as the judgment of the nations based on their treatment of Israel, a view that could fit Jewish perceptions of the judgment (cf. Manson 1979: 249-50). But this hardly fits Jesus’ own designation of his “brothers” elsewhere (12:50; 28:10; see below), and perhaps not the shift from the neuter “nations” to the masculine pronoun, suggesting individual judgment of Gentiles (cf. Gundry 1982: 512). Because the passage explicitly declares that this judgment determines people’s eternal destinies (25:46), it cannot refer to a judgment concerning who would enter the millennium, as in some older dispensational schemes (Ladd 1977: 38; cf. idem 1978b: 98-102).

Nor is the popular view that this text refers to treatment of the poor or those in need (e.g., Gross 1964; Hare 1967: 124; Feuillet 1980a; Lapoorta 1989; Jones 1995: 247-49; Davies and Allison 1997: 428-29) exegetically compelling, although that view would on other grounds be entirely consonant with the Jesus tradition (e.g., Mk 10:21; Lk 16:19-25) and biblical ethics as a whole (e.g., Ex 22:22-27; Prov 17:5; 19:17; 21:13; Gardner 1991: 363).

Jewish lists of loving works include showing hospitality and visiting the sick, though not visiting prisoners. Such acts were found praiseworthy in the day of judgment (2 Enoch 63:1-2; b. Ned. 39b-40a; Jeremias 1972: 207-8; cf. Bonsirven 1964: 151-52). Some rabbis felt that when Israel fed the poor, God counted it as though Israel had done it for God (Midr. Tann. on Deut 15:9, in Jeremias 1972: 207); a first-century teacher reportedly claimed that charity could atone for the nations’ sins (b. B. Bat. 10b, bar., in Jeremias 1972: 208). Those who cared for the poor would be saved (Lachs 1987: 394 cites b. Ned. 40a; Midr. Ps. 118:19). One could thus understand Jesus’ disciples as bringers of healing (10:8), caring for the least (Heil 1998a: 203).

But in the context of Jesus’ teachings, especially in the context of Matthew (as opposed to Luke), this parable probably addresses not serving the poor on the whole but receiving the gospel’s messengers. Elsewhere in Matthew, disciples are Jesus’ “brothers” (12:50; 28:10; cf. also the “least” — 5:19; 11:11; 18:3-6, 10-14); likewise, one unwittingly treats Jesus as one treats his representatives (10:40-42), who should be received with hospitality, food, and drink (10:8-13, 42). Imprisonment could refer to detention until trial before magistrates (10:18-19), and sickness to physical conditions stirred by the hardship of the mission (cf. Phil 2:27-30; perhaps Gal 4:13-14; 2 Tim 4:20). Being “poorly clothed” appears in Paul’s lists of sufferings (Rom 8:35), including his most detailed extant apostolic peristasis catalogue (1 Cor 4:11); it may also recall the public humiliation of Jesus’ crucifixion (27:35), although the impossibility of “clothing” Jesus at that point weighs against the allusion.

The king thus judges the nations based on how they have responded to the gospel of the kingdom already preached to them before the time of his kingdom (24:14; 28:19-20). True messengers of the gospel will successfully evangelize the world only if they can also embrace poverty and suffering for Christ’s name (cf. Matthey 1980). That the “siblings” are here “disciples” is the majority view in church history and among contemporary New Testament scholars, although those who hold “siblings” to be disciples divide sharply over whether they are specifically missionaries or poor fellow disciples in general.

This interpretation fits the function of analogous eschatological discourses (e.g., 1 Enoch 62; 103–4; 4 Ezra passim; 2 Bar. 72), which often encourage repressed minorities that God will judge the world on the basis of how it treated them (Stanton 1993: 223-28).

Blessing (Gen 12:3), inheritance (Mt 5:5; 19:29; 21:38), and kingdom relate to the promised land concept of the exodus, and had become components of Israel’s eschatological hope by the time of Jesus (see on 5:3-12; in Paul, cf. 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 3:14; 5:21; Eph 1:3, 14). The paragraph in 25:41-46 repeats the literary pattern of 25:34-40, but because it follows it functions climactically (contrast the reverse sequence in judgment in Sib. Or. 4:183-92). The horrifying conclusion is the damnation of people who did not actively embrace the messengers of the gospel but nevertheless were oblivious to how they had offended God. The goats thus depart (7:23) into eternal fire (the worst possible conception of hell; see comment on 3:8, 10, 12), but God had not originally created them for the fire or the fire for them (cf. 4 Ezra 8:59-60; contrast b. ʿErub. 19a; perhaps Rom 9:22; Prov 16:4). Rather, it had been “prepared” (cf. 25:34), that is, by God for the devil and his angels (cf. 2 Pet 2:4; 1QM 13.11-12; 15.13-14).

But in the context of the surrounding parables, “receiving” Christ’s messengers probably involves more than only initially embracing the message of the kingdom: it means treating one’s fellow servants properly (24:45-49). Unless disciples “receive” one another in God’s household, they reject Christ whose representatives their fellow disciples are (18:5-6, 28-29). Paul likewise reminds the Corinthians that to be reconciled to him is to be reconciled to God himself (2 Cor 5:11–7:1).

↑ Back to top