Present Claims versus Future Judgment (7:13-23)

Present Claims versus Future Judgment (7:13-23)

Cf. Lk 6:43-46; 13:23-27. Most first-century Jewish people believed that they were saved by virtue of descent from Abraham (3:9). Yet Jesus regards the assumption of salvation as a deception; most of his contemporaries were unsaved (7:13-14). Those who led them showed by their lives that they were not God’s true representatives (7:15-20); indeed, professing servants of Christ would themselves be banished from God’s presence in the judgment (7:21-23), for only those who truly obeyed Jesus’ teaching would stand (7:24-27). Matthew intends this part of the discourse not only to challenge his community’s opponents but to prevent his community from becoming like that of those opponents.

The way of salvation is narrower than Jesus’ hearers think (7:13-14). Greek and Roman writers fairly often employed the image of the two paths in life (Sen. Ep. Lucil. 8.3; 27.4; Diogenes 30 to Hicetas; Aune 1987: 197; cf. the Pythagorean version of a narrower way in Athenaeus Deipn. 10.77; Porphyry Vit. Pyth. 42; Thom 1994: 106) or two ways after death (Virg. Aen. 6.540-43; Cic. Tusc. Disp. 1.30.72). Jewish pietists also stressed the two moral ways (Deut 30:15; Ps 1:1; m. ʾAbot 2:9; Test. Asher 1:3, 5);

To enter the narrow gate of the kingdom one must knock — that is, request that God make one a citizen of his kingdom (7:7-8).

Most Jewish people in Jesus’ day were religious; respecting God and keeping his commandments were important parts of their culture. These would be the “many” people of whom Jesus’ hearers would think when they heard him. Yet Jesus, like a few of his more scrupulous contemporaries (4 Ezra 7:45-61; 8:1-3; cf. b. Sukk. 45b), declared that most people were lost.

True prophets obey Jesus’ teachings (7:15-23). Jesus urges his followers here to “take heed” (7:15; cf. 6:1; 10:17; 16:6, 11; customary hortatory language, e.g., Marc. Aur. 10.8.1; Tob 4:12, 14; Test. Dan 1:2), and surrounds the basic warning with an inclusio (“know them,” 7:16, 20; cf. 7:23). Like the false prophets of old (Jer 5:31; 6:13-14; 8:11; 23:13-17; Ezek 13:1-16; Mic 3:5-8), those against whom Matthew warns in the context of 7:15 probably proclaim a gospel of false peace, setting forth an easy way that neglects God’s true demands (7:13-14; France 1985: 147; cf. Hill 1972: 151). Matthew elsewhere warns against false prophets (7:22; 24:5, 24) and apostate Christians and leaders in the church (24:12, 48-51). Jesus elsewhere applies the present denunciations of fruitless trees against the religious leaders of his day (12:33; cf. 3:8, 10; 21:19; 23:3; for earlier agricultural images see, e.g., Is 5:2; Hos 10:1, 12-13), but because his words in this context address prophets one suspects that Matthew wants his own generation to take notice (cf. Meier 1980: 73-74).

Prophets falsely promising swift messianic deliverance remained inside Jerusalem after the Christians left in A.D. 66 (Jos. War 6.285-88), and possibly reputedly Christian prophets claimed to portend Jesus’ return in the years surrounding A.D. 70, when it seemed that the second coming was about to be fulfilled (24:34). Jesus’ words are not only polemic against enemies of the faith from the outside; they are also warnings to those who claim to be his followers. The reader dare not restrict the title “hypocrites” to Jesus’ religious contemporaries (6:2, 5, 16; pace Did. 8.1-2); Matthew clearly warns that God’s subsequent servants may share the same fate (24:51).

One must evaluate prophets by their fruits, not by their spiritual gifts (7:15-23). Although the term for “do” is very common, the language of the passage may establish an implicit contrast between merely doing” miracles (7:22) and “doing” the Father’s will (7:21). More plainly, these false prophets (7:15) claim to have prophesied, exorcised, and effected miracles by Jesus’ name (7:22; cf. perhaps 24:5). Although one could find in this passage Jewish exorcists’ attempts to use God’s sacred name (12:27; Jos. Ant. 8.47; cf. m. Sanh. 10:1; Bietenhard 1967: 243; PGM 1.168) — as yet unaware of their judge’s identity as Jesus (cf. 25:31) — it almost certainly refers instead to false Christian charismatics whose disobedience Christ finally reveals (10:26; Aune 1983: 223). “In his name” means “as his representatives” (e.g., 10:41-42; 18:5; cf. 21:9) rather than implying the use of magical techniques by which ancient exorcists invoked names of higher spirits to expel lower ones (cf. Acts 19:13-16). Although some could prophesy and work signs by demonic power (in conjunction with Jewish beliefs on false prophets, cf., e.g., 24:24; Jer 2:8; 23:13; especially 2 Thess 2:9; Rev 13:13-16), biblical precedent warned that one could prophesy and yet be lost (1 Sam 19:24).

Matthew is not anticharismatic — that he must warn his community against the wrong kind of prophets, yet fails to attack prophetism in general, strongly suggests that he and his community both accept some prophets as genuine (5:12; 10:8, 40-42; 23:34; cf. Michaels 1976; Hill 1979: 156; Aune 1983: 215; Schweizer 1995: 151). The Didache similarly provides moral tests for prophets precisely because its community accepts the validity of prophets (e.g., Did. 11.3-12). NRSV’s “evildoers” in 7:23 is literally “workers of lawlessness,” those who violate God’s law articulated in 5:17-20 (lawbreakers rather than libertines; cf. 23:28; Ps. Sol. 1:8; 17:18; Meier 1980: 73-74; Gundry 1980: 132-33; Davison 1985). Jesus’ words about fruit thus refer to repentant works (7:21; 3:8, 10), recalling Jesus’ ethical teachings in 5:21–7:12.

Once inside the church, false prophets and their teaching will cost the spiritual lives of some disciples (7:15). Although people disguising themselves in sheepskins could sometimes pass as stray dogs or other animals temporarily (Jos. War 3.192), Jesus is employing graphic hyperbole here (wolves do not wear clothes, and changing one’s hide was a metaphor for the impossible — Jer 13:23; Jub. 37:20). By coming in sheep’s clothing, the false prophets pretended to be sheep (7:15; Acts 20:29-30; and perhaps Sib. Or. 7.134-35 echo this saying), though they were in fact hungry wolves who had come to prey upon sheep (cf. 10:16); ancients viewed wolves quite negatively (e.g., Epict. Disc. 1.3.7; 2.4.11), and the enmity of lambs and wolves was by now proverbial (e.g., Is 11:6; 65:25; 1 Enoch 89:15, 55; Jub. 37:21; Hor. Epode 4.1-2; cf. Hom. Il. 22.263; Virg. Aen. 9.566; Ovid Metam. 1.505; 5.626-27; 6.527-28; Phaedrus 1.1; Babrius 89; 102.8). Others naturally compared stealthy, nocturnal human predators to wolves (Ovid Metam. 14.778) or employed “hungry wolves” as a metaphor for warriors (Hom. Il. 16.156-57, 352). Further, the image of a human trying to sneak forward disguised in a wolfskin (Eurip. Rhesus 209-15; Longus 1.21) or sealskin (Hom. Od. 4.435-55) or hidden beneath sheep (Odysseus’s men slipping past Polyphemus in Hom. Od.) was widely known in the Greek world, and Aesop’s fable of the wolf in sheep’s clothing may have been this early and may have circulated in Palestine (some of his fables influenced some rabbinic texts; Davies and Allison 1988: 704, following Schwartzbaum).

God will expose the true state of people’s hearts on the day of judgment (7:19, 21-23). “On that day” (7:22) refers to the final “day of the Lord” (cf., e.g., 10:15; 24:36; Is 2:11, 17, 20; 11:10-11; Joel 1:15; 3:18; 2 Thess 1:10; Kingsbury 1975: 27).

Not those who claim to “know” or be “known by” Jesus, but only those who do the Father’s will (cf. 6:10; 18:14; 21:31; 26:42), have any in-group claim on Jesus (12:50). Jesus thus borrows biblical language for righteous enmity toward the wicked (Ps 6:8; 119:115; 139:19) to banish them from his presence (7:23; cf. 25:41). “I never knew you” is a formal repudiation of the person (25:12; cf. 10:33; 26:70, 72, 74; France 1985: 149); also used in mild rabbinic bans, it is far more serious here (b. ʿErub. 53a; Moʿed. Qaṭ. 16a; p. Moʿed. Qaṭ. 3:8; Carson 1984b: 193; Lachs 1987: 150).

Obeying Jesus’ Words (7:24-27)

Cf. Lk 6:47-49. Jesus’ sermon concluded with this final parable before Matthew edited it (see Lk 6:46-49); both in the source and in Matthew, Jesus’ sermon on ethics climaxes with Christology, which provides the authority for his ethics.

Jesus again employs typical wisdom language familiar to Jewish sages (e.g., Tuttle 1977), but Jesus is clearly more than a sage here. Although some Jewish teachers debated whether knowing or obeying the law was more important, since one could not obey it without knowing it (m. ʾAbot 1:17; 3:9, 17; 5:14; Sifra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.4; Sifre Deut. 41.2.5-6; b. Qidd. 40b; p. Ḥag. 1:7, §4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:10; Song Rab. 2:14, §5; Dalman 1929: 64),

One early second-century teacher, while illustrating this point with many examples, went so far as to say that one who studies Torah and has good works “may be likened to” one who lays a foundation of stones and then of bricks, so that rising water or rain cannot overturn it. But one who studies Torah and has no good works is like one who builds with bricks on the bottom, so that even a small amount of water overturns it (ARN 24A; a similar example is found in Bultmann 1968: 202). The language of this example is almost as similar to Matthew’s as Luke’s version of the parable is (cf. Gundry 1982: 135).

Jesus here refers to his own words as Jewish teachers generally referred to God’s law (Jeremias 1972: 194; Argyle 1963: 64; Luz 1989: 452). The label “sectarian” (a demand to follow Jesus rather than other teachers; Meeks 1986: 138) may therefore constitute an understatement! The language at least implies that Jesus is God’s prophetic spokesperson (Ezek 33:32-33) but is more authoritative than is typical even for prophets; in this context (7:21-23; cf. 18:20), the claim is far higher. Neither Matthew nor his tradition allows a reader to be content with calling Jesus a great teacher or prophet (16:13-16); one must either accept all his teachings, including those that demand submission to his Lordship, or reject him altogether. For the early Christians, Jesus was not one way among many; he was the standard of judgment.

The Hebrew Bible often employed the rock image for the security Israel had in God if they obeyed him (e.g., Deut 32:4, 18, 31; Ps 18:2, 31, 46; 19:14), as in a time of flood and disaster (Is 28:14-19); other biblical images may also be indirectly relevant (see on Mt 16:18): a house was built by wisdom (Prov 24:3; cf. Ps 127:1; Jer 22:13). The storm could represent any test,

Jesus’ clear assurance of deliverance in the final test contrasts with the fears of some of his contemporaries. Many Greeks had little certainty of the afterlife (Plato Apol. 29AB; Phaedo 64A; Lucian Demonax 43). According to later accounts, the great teacher Johanan ben Zakkai was unsure which of the two ways he would take when he died (Bonsirven 1964: 167-68; Sandmel 1978b: 202; cf. fear of death in Test. Abr. 1.10A). The tellers of these accounts probably intended to emphasize Johanan’s humility (Sanders 1977: 228; Sandmel 1978b: 244), and some later teachers proved considerably more self-assured, even possessed of holy chutzpah (Gen. Rab. 62:2; 92:2). After all, Judaism believed that Jews by virtue of their Jewishness would inherit God’s kingdom unless they broke covenant with God by casting off the law (cf. 3:9). Nevertheless, no disciple could long utter ben Zakkai’s words, for then they would be doubting Jesus’ promise (cf. 2 Clem. 18:1-2). The bold promise and warning that Jesus offers here, and especially what the text implies about his identity, exceeded the bounds of academic propriety observed by most ancient scholars, especially in the stream that became the rabbinic movement. Jesus spoke publicly with unparalleled authority (7:28-29; cf. 8:9; 9:6; 21:23).

Jesus’ Hearers Recognize His Claims to Authority (7:28-29)

Cf. Mk 1:21-22; Lk 7:1; Jn 7:46. Each of Jesus’ five major discourses in Matthew concludes with the formula, “And when Jesus had finished speaking these words” (or, in 13:53, “these parables”), which was a relatively natural way to conclude a section (Ex 34:33; Jub. 32:20; 50:13; Allison 1993b: 192-93 compares Deut 31:1, 24; 32:45). Four of the five discourses also close with a parable that invites continued reflection (Jones 1995: 173).

. See Guelich 1982: 14-22 for a fuller history of interpretation; more recently, Durston 1988; Cranford 1992; Allen 1992; Stanton 1993: 289-97.

. One might apply the same interim image to the ethics of the Qumran community (see Harris 1965), but even in Qumran and other Jewish eschatological texts the interim “ethic is, though provisional, nevertheless intended to be an infusion of the future light into the present darkness” (Meeks 1986: 102).

. Conversely, the Sermon on the Mount also invites Matthew’s audience to evaluate the characters in his narratives in its light (Anderson 1996).

. Stassen 1992 is right to find grace in the Is 61 allusions, but makes that passage too central in the full scheme of Jesus’ sermon.

. Betz 1979; Meeks 1986: 138; Malherbe 1986: 85, 105.

. Stanton 1993: 310-11 is right that the Sermon on the Mount is not an epitome in the exact sense of Epictetus’s Encheiridion or the unstructured Kyriai Doxai of Epicurus; the general analogy nevertheless remains helpful as an analogy for such a sayings collection.

. Kennedy 1984: 68 suggests that Jesus, who traveled from synagogue to synagogue, probably delivered the same basic speech “in slightly different versions” on different occasions, and in view of ancient rhetorical conventions few of his disciples should “have had difficulty in dictating a version at some later time for readers who had not personally heard Jesus. Matthew’s version might thus represent what was remembered from several occasions and not what Jesus said verbatim at any one delivery; but in the same sense it could represent a relatively full version of what he was remembered as saying at one period of his ministry.” Kennedy may be correct, but Matthew elsewhere rearranges elements of his tradition from Mark or Q where he needs to do so. See Stanton 1993: 310-25 for a refutation of Betz’s view that Matthew takes over the sermon intact from prior tradition (especially 318-25, emphasizing the typical Matthean redaction).

. Wright 1992a: 387 regards that placement as strategic: blessings open his first discourse (5:3-12) and woes his last (23:13-33), reflecting the covenantal blessings and curses of Deut 27–30.

. He admits that 6:19–7:20 do not fit the structure per se (59: “not anticipated quite as specifically … but still inherent in the injunction of 5:20”), but he is probably right that 5:17-20 dominate the discourse (see comment on 7:12).

. Montefiore 1968: 2:29; Davies 1966b: 17; Seitz 1969: 39; Fenton 1977: 77; F. F. Bruce 1972a: 67; Allison 1987b; idem 1993: 172-80; Davies and Allison 1988: 423-24; Hagner 1993: 86; cf. Meier 1980: 38; contrast Guelich 1982: 52; France 1985: 107.

. Cf. further Dalman 1929: 45-46; Safrai 1974/76a: 968; Davies 1964: 423; cf. b. Meg. 21a, bar. Some differences in practice may have existed among Pharisees of Jesus’ day (t. Ber. 1:3; Sifre Deut. 34.5.3; cf. Acts 2:14; 13:16).

. Disciples regularly sat at their teachers’ feet (m. ʾAbot 1:4; ARN 6; 38A; 11, §28B; b. Pesaḥ. 3b; p. Sanh. 10:1, §8), so much so that “sitting” can represent “schooling” (m. ʾAbot 2:7, attributed to Hillel). Lachs 1987: 67-68 emphasizes that rabbis sat in Matthew’s day (p. Sheqal. 2:5; b. Beṣa 15b; Pesaḥ. 26b; Sanh. 99b), but cites one tradition to argue that in Jesus’ day they learned Torah standing (b. Meg. 21a), hence challenging the verisimilitude of Matthew’s portrayal. This argument fails for three reasons: first, disciples might learn one way while rabbis taught another (as suggested above); second, the single tradition favoring the change is late, much later than Matthew’s evidence to the contrary; finally, had teaching sitting been a recent innovation in Matthew’s day, he surely would have preferred to ascribe to Jesus what he knew to be the older practice.

. Gundry 1982: 67; Guelich 1982: 54, cite, e.g., Job 3:1; Dan 10:16; especially Ps 78:2 in Mt 13:35.

. See Scott and Dean 1996: 322. As a further mark of careful arrangement, both the first and second groups of four beatitudes close with “righteousness.”

. Beatitudes appear in the OT (e.g., Ps 2:12; 32:1-2; 40:4; 41:1; 65:4; 84:4-5, 12; 94:12; 112:1; 119:1-2; 128:1; Prov 8:34; Is 56:2; Jer 17:7; Dan 12:12), Apocrypha (Bar 4:4; Sir 25:8-9), subsequent Jewish (e.g., Ps. Sol. 4:23; 5:16; 6:1; 10:1; Jos. and Asen. 16:14/7; 1 Enoch 99:10; 2 Enoch 42.6-14; 44:5; Sifra V. D. Deho. par. 5.44.1.1; b. Ber. 61b; Ḥag. 14b; Hor. 10b, bar.; cf. 4QBeat, 4Q525 in Brooke 1989; Viviano 1992; idem 1993ab), early Christian (e.g., Rom 14:22; Jas 1:12; for Jesus in Matthew, see Mt 11:6; 13:16; 16:17; 24:46), and occasionally Greco-Roman (Contest of Homer and Hesiod 322; Homeric Hymn 25.4-5; Babrius 103.20-21; Aune 1983: 61, 64; Guelich 1982: 63-66) literature; for fuller treatment, see Davies and Allison 1988: 431-34. Jesus may originally have given these blessings together with woes, as in Lk 6:20-26 (cf. Mt 23:13-29; on the conjunction of blessings with curses, cf. Gen 27:27-29, 39-40; Deut 28; a beatitude with woes, 1 Enoch 99:10-15), but the proposed detailed parallels of Fenton 1977: 368 are too ingenious, arbitrarily selecting specific aspects of imagery. Later Christians occasionally adopted the form from the Gospels (Acts of Paul 3:5-6; cf. Pol. Phil. 2). Blessings and curses wielded prophetic force (e.g., Gen 9:25-27; 24:60; 27:27-29, 37-40; 49:1). Hanson 1994 relates the concept to the honor/shame character of ancient Mediterranean society.

. Young 1989: 205, with Albright and Mann, prefers a partitive genitive (the kingdom consists of them) here to a possessive genitive (the kingdom belongs to them), but this is unlikely given 5:5 and its background in the Psalms. Matthew probably changed most of the second-person beatitudes to third-person beatitudes (as he adjusted Mk 1:11 in Mt 3:17) to fit LXX style (Gundry 1982: 67).

. Later Jewish teachers emphasized mercy as one of God’s primary attributes, e.g., in 3 Enoch 31:1; Sifra V. D. Deho. par. 12.65.2.4; Sifre Num. 8.8.2; Sifre Deut. 26.5.1; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; Ber. 7a; p. Taʿan. 2:1, §12; Gen. Rab. 12:15; 21:7; 26:6; 33:3; 73:3; 78:8; Ex. Rab. 3:7; 6:1, 3; 45:6; Lev. Rab. 29:4; 29:6, 9; Num. Rab. 9:18; 19:4; Qoh. Rab. 4:1, §1; 8:1, §1; Song Rab. 2:17, §1; Pesiq. R. 39:1; 40:2; cf. Dahl and Segal 1978. God’s mercy was only for the merciful (Test. Zeb. 5:3; 8:3; Sifre Deut. 96.2.2; p. B. Qam. 8:7, §1; Pesiq. R. 38; cf. 1 Enoch 92:4; Test. Abr. 10 B).

. Even in Philo: Mut. 2, §7 (see further Hagner 1971: 82-84; Isaacs 1976: 30; Lee 1962: 17; citing Cher. 101; Mut. 2, 9-10; Praem. 40, 44; Som. 1.67; Immut. 56; Leg. Alleg. 2.36); cf. also Aristobulus Fr. 4 in Euseb. P.E. 13.13.5; Orphic long version 11-12 in OTP 2:799; Ps-Euripides in OTP 2:828. Greek views seem to have varied (cf. Epict. Disc. 1.6.19; Plut. Isis 9, Mor. 354D; Isis 75, Mor. 381B; Char. Chaer. 1.14.1; Maximus of Tyre Oration 8.10 in Grant 1953: 168; Magical Papyrus 13.62 in Grant 1953: 47; cf. Plut. Isis 78, Mor. 383A).

. Jewish writers still affirmed Scripture’s teachings both that God spoke with Moses face to face (Ps-Philo 11:14; cf. Sifra V. D. Den. pq. 2.2.3.3) and that Moses could not see all God’s glory; for Philo, Moses saw because he went beyond mortal vision (Mut. 8) and because he sought a revelation of God (Spec. 1.41; cf. Jn 14:8). One could see God in some sense yet remain alive (Gen. 32:30; Asc. Isa. 3:8-10), or in some traditions be spared temporarily by God’s mercy (Gen. Rab. 65:10).

. Cf. also, e.g., Mek. Beshallah 7.139-40; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 35b; Ber. 4b; Gen. Rab. 11:7; Ex. Rab. 15:31. As the Israelites “inherited” the promised land, so they expected to “inherit” that land and the coming world in the future; cf., e.g., 21:38; 25:34; Ps 25:13; 37:9, 11; Is 57:13; 60:21; 61:7; Jub. 32:19; 1 Enoch 5:7; 2 Enoch 50:2; Rom 8:17; Eph 1:14; 4 Ezra 6:59; 7:96; 2 Bar. 51:3; Mek. Beshallah 7.139-40; b. Qidd. 40b; Ex. Rab. 2:6; 20:4. Cf. also 11QTemple 59.11-13; 4QpPs a 2.9-12; m. Qidd. 1:10, in Davies and Allison 1988: 450; eschatological or spiritual inheritance in Wis 3:14; 5:5; 2 Enoch 55:2. Losada 1979 connects the land to the land God promised Israel; Croatto 1979 emphasizes that this promise belonged to the oppressed ʿanāwim.

. In military and political contexts “mercy” was a praiseworthy characteristic of victors (cf., e.g., Jos. Life 353; Sifre Deut. 323.4.1; see comment on 9:27).

. With Ladd 1967: 95; Meier 1980: 39; Guelich 1982: 82; cf. Gundry 1982: 69. Diaspora Judaism sometimes used “spirit” for disposition (see Isaacs 1976: 71).

. Davies and Allison 1988: 449 cite Plato Crit. 120E; Rep. 2.375C; Lucian Somnium 10; Ep. Arist. 257, 263; Philo Vit. Mos. 2.279; Jos. Ant. 19.330.

. Cf. Marc. Aur. 9.40; Epict. Disc. 1.9.33; 3.24.75; Davids 1982: 150; Mounce 1985: 108; Blomberg 1992a: 99.

. See further Zeph 2:3; Zech 9:9; Sir 3:17; Jos. Ant. 3.212; Moore 1971: 2:275; Sifre Deut. 38.1.4; ARN 38A; 29§§60-62; 41, §114B; b. Soṭa 4b-5a, 32b, bar.; p. Sanh. 6:6, §2; Taʿan. 4:1, §14; 4:2, §8; Gen. Rab. 33:3; Maher 1983; Young 1989: 245-51.

. The Qumran scrolls provide striking parallels to Matthew’s phrase (1QM 14:7; 1QH 14:3; often noted, e.g., by Brown 1972: 3-4; Schnackenburg 1985: 47). Citing such parallels, Young 1989: 204 surmises that Matthew preserves Jesus’ Semitic idiom, which Luke adjusted to simplify the Greek construction, thereby limiting its sense; from the same parallels Vermes 1993: 143 draws the opposite conclusion. In any case, it is unlikely that Matthew intended, “poor by means of [God’s] Spirit” (pace Jörns 1987). On “the poor” (especially Isaiah’s usage), see Guelich 1982: 68-72; for Jesus’ special concern for the poor in the tradition, cf., e.g., Ambrozic 1990.

. See further Flusser 1960; Minear 1960: 63-64; Danker 1972: 81; also Ex. Rab. 31:13; Pesiq. R. 9:2; but cf. m. ʾAbot 3:17. Some also find it in early Christianity; see Fitzmyer 1966: 244; Hengel 1974b: 34; idem 1980: 118; contrast Keck 1966.

. Philosophers and moralists generally counseled peace (e.g., Sen. Dial. 3.14.1). Like some Greek rhetoricians (e.g., Isoc. On Peace, Or. 8), the rabbis — at least partly descended from those Pharisees who survived the wars with Rome — especially praised peace: e.g., m. ʾAbot 1:12; t. Sanh. 1:2; Sifra Behuq. pq. 1.261.1.14; Sifre Num. 42.2.3; Sifre Deut. 199.3.1; ARN 4A; 6, §19; 48, §134B; b. Ber. 64a; Ḥul. 141a; Qidd. 39b; Tamid 32b; Yebam. 65b, bar.; Yoma 71b; Gen. Rab. 38:6; 48:18; 100:8; Lev. Rab. 9:9; Num. Rab. 11:7; 12:4; 21:1; Deut. Rab. 5:1; cf. Genot-Bismuth 1981 (though this is too monolithic on Pharisaism). Still, clearly not all Pharisees opposed war with Rome (see Sanders 1990: 86, 324); nor did advocacy of peace amount to nonresistance (cf., e.g., Num. Rab. 21:4).

. In the Scrolls, one should not “comfort” the wicked till they “turn,” i.e., repent, a common reason for mourning (1QS 10.21). Noting Matthew’s redaction of the beatitudes in light of biblical language, especially Is 61, Guelich 1982: 37-38 thinks that Matthew’s focus is “christological and eschatological” rather than “ethicizing”; but if Matthew’s focus here is christological, it is far too subtle to appear such to most readers and cannot be separated from the ethics in the context (5:17-20). Many scholars note the allusion to Is 61:1-2 (e.g., Kertelge 1991; Stassen 1992).

. Gnilka 1988 finds the background of “pure in heart” especially in Ps 24:3-6; Cary and Haarhoff 1946: 335 compare Sen. Ep. Lucil. 87.21 on purity and vision of God. Jas 3:17 employs a different term in the context of peacemakers but may reflect the same Aramaic original.

. Suffering “on account of” one need not imply that one’s deity (e.g., Char. Chaer. 4.3.10), but suffering on account of one’s “name” in a Jewish context most readily points in that direction. Some scholars (e.g., Lachs 1987: 78) see here the rejection of Jewish Christians by the larger Jewish community, exemplified particularly in the birkat haminim. Although the Jesus tradition includes early warnings of persecution, Matthew’s audience may be suffering rejection of the sort that ultimately led to the birkat haminim; but see the Introduction. “Blessedness” (makarios) was appropriate to martyrs in general (4 Macc 17:18).

. See Michel 1932; Schoeps 1950; Hare 1967: 137-38; Jeremias 1971: 280; Amaru 1983; also Davies and Allison 1988: 465, citing, e.g., Lives of the Prophets passim (such as 2:1, Schermann 25 p. 81; 6:1, Schermann 17 p. 60; 7:1-2, Schermann 14 p. 51); Jub. 1:12; 4QpHos a 2.3-6; Jos. Ant. 10.38; Asc. Isa. 2.16; 5.1-14; Targ. Is. 28:1; also 4 Bar. 9:31; Pesiq. R. 26:½.

. Cf. Boring 1982: 43; Gundry 1982: 74; but cf. Theissen 1991: 52.

. The christological interpretation of the beatitudes appears at least as early as Origen (Luz 1989: 244).

. Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 50 also suggest “an outdoor, earthen oven” using salted dung for fuel; salt plates functioned as a catalyst to make dung burn (Lk 14:34-35), but exhausted salt plates no longer could fulfill this function.

. An Aramaic verb means both “to become foolish” and to “lose its saltiness,” as in the case of impure salt deposits described in the paragraph above (France 1985: 112; Hagner 1993: 99). Early bilingual Christians seem to have understood the Greek verb in both senses as well (Gundry 1982: 76), suggesting that his readers may have caught Jesus’ original wordplay (cf. also 5:22).

. Cf. Hellestam 1990: one could accidentally get magnesium salt with one’s cooking salt; the former tasted bitter and was used only on roads to hold down weeds and dust.

. Noted also by Dalman 1929: 229; Lachs 1987: 82; Vermes 1993: 83.

. Cf. Campbell 1978: 346; Jeremias 1958: 66; idem 1963: 33; idem 1972: 217. A lighthouse would have been an equally intelligible image (e.g., Herodian 4.28) but less relevant for most Palestinian Jews.

. On Hanukkah lamps, see, e.g., b. B. Qam. 30a; 62b; B. Mes. 118b; Shab. 21b; Sukk. 46a; p. Sukk. 3:4, §3; Pesiq. R. 2:1; 3:1; 6:1; 8:1; Goodenough 1953/68: 1:152; on Sabbath lamps, see, e.g., m. Shab. 2; b. Shab. 21a; Gen. Rab. 11:2; 12:6; Pesiq. R. 23:6. Vermes 1993: 83 contrasts with 5:15 the emphasis on the relative smallness of a lamp’s light in Mek. Amalek 4 on Ex 18:27 (in Lauterbach 2.185-86), but the two texts share no point of comparison except the metaphor of a lamp.

. Hand-held Herodian lamps generated barely enough light for the home (Safrai 1974/76b: 745-46; cf. Lk 15:8; Danker 1972: 104) and would easily be obscured (indeed, small lamps were easily extinguished — e.g., Babrius 114 — and a measuring container placed over one might extinguish it!).

. Lachs 1987: 85 notes that good works honor God’s name in other Jewish texts as well (citing, e.g., Sifra Lev. 19:1; Sifre Deut. 319); one might also cite, e.g., m. ʾAbot 1:11; 2:2, 12; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 22:1; p. B. Meṣ. 2:5, §2.

. Kennedy 1984: 54 sees these verses as “the proposition of the sermon” as a whole; I would apply it especially to 5:21-48. At least some of Jesus’ words here seem to have appeared together earlier in a teaching on the kingdom law being more radical than it had been under Moses (Lk 16:16-18; see Schürmann 1960).

. On a literary Matthean level, the Matthean Pharisees’ approach to Torah yields “hypocrisy,” whereas Jesus’ yields “righteousness” (Rhoads 1992).

. This is often acknowledged; see, e.g., Moore 1971: 2:9; Bultmann 1958: 61-62; Klausner 1979b: 77; Bornkamm 1963a: 24; Vermes 1993: 13.

. By the early third century, the rabbis accused the minim, or schismatics (in Amoraic texts possibly applied to Gentile Christians as well), of keeping Sunday as a holy day (b. Taʿan. 27b). Rabbis often portrayed the minim as having a low view of the law (Justin Dial. 10; b. Ber. 10a; Shab. 31a; Ex. Rab. 47:1; but cf. b. ʿAbod. Zar. 4a; Gen. Rab. 61:7); their Torah scrolls were invalid (b. Menaḥ. 42b); some accused them of holding only to the Ten Commandments (b. Ber. 12a). Torah-keeping Jewish Christians probably received bad press because of the polemics of Gentile Christians; cf. Pritz 1988: 58, 110. Although “suppose” (nomisēte, 5:17) does not always reflect a contrary-to-fact supposition (1 Cor 7:26, 36), it certainly does here (10:34; cf. 20:10; Lk 2:44; Test. Judah 19:4).

. Matthew need not respond to this directly or indirectly; 5:17 is non-Pauline, but not anti-Pauline (Stanton 1993: 312-14), though Paul probably takes the love command’s qualification of other laws farther than Matthew would (Mohrlang 1984: 45). Some think Jas 2:14-26 responds to Paul (Kee 1980: 150) or, more likely, to a perversion of Pauline teaching (F. F. Bruce 1972a: 90; Ladd 1974b: 592), but the allusion even there is not clear (with Reicke 1964: 5); they address different issues (e.g., Walker 1964).

. E.g., Longenecker 1976: 139; Charette 1992b: 166; Allison 1993b: 232; Hagner 1993: lxii; Young 1995: 262; cf. Nickelsburg 1981: 304; Honeyman 1954: 141; McConnell 1969: 6-58.

. Balch 1991: 68-84 suggests that Matthew here develops a Greek topos as early as Protagoras and Plato that Jewish writers had taken over (84: Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Josephus “claim not to be abolishing Romulus’s or Moses’ laws” and, like Matthew, share narrative contexts). Kennedy 1984: 43-44 depicts Matthew here as anticipating objections (a practice known among rhetoricians as prokatalepsis): to avoid appearing defensive, Jesus speaks authoritatively and positively, not “specifying how he may be thought to contravene” Torah.

. Some claim here that Jesus was reinterpreting the law “in a more spiritual direction” (Taylor 1935: 97; cf. Jeremias 1971: 207); this statement might be better nuanced if phrased to allow Jesus to draw out implications already present in the law (the usual understanding of “midrash,” Jewish interpretation of the time). At any rate, whether or not Matthew has followed a preexisting structure (Flusser 1988: 494), plainly none of the material in 5:17-20 originated in a hellenistic milieu (also Bultmann 1968: 138). For various interpretations, see, e.g., Senior 1983: 47-55.

. Wenham 1977: 21; Wenham 1979a argues that Jesus’ view of Scripture should be authoritative for Jesus’ followers. Certainly this was Matthew’s view, and at least 5:18 derives from Q material with the same thesis (Lk 16:16-18).

. I.e., the Scriptures: 7:12; 11:13 (also Q: Lk 16:16); 2 Macc 15:9; Jn 1:45; Rom 3:21; Davies and Allison 1988: 484 cite also 4 Macc 18:10; t. B. Meṣ. 11:23. Cf. also the threefold division in Lk 24:44 (more popular among the sages — Sirach prologue; ARN 14A; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 19b; B. Bat. 13b, bar.; B. Qam. 92b; Mak. 10b; Sanh. 90b, Gamaliel II; 106a; p. Meg. 1:5, §3; Ned. 3:9, §3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:13; Gen. Rab. 76:5; cf. Philo Vit. Con. 25). For weekly readings from both law and prophets in the second century, cf. m. Meg. 4:1-6. Snodgrass 1996: 107 suggests that “prophets” here qualifies law with a prophetic reading, as in 9:13; in this context it might also encourage persecuted disciples that the fruit of their labor would endure (5:12).

. See Daube 1973: 60; Dalman 1929: 57; Longenecker 1976: 140; Flusser 1988: 495; cf. Sandmel 1978b: 356; Rom 3:31; Test. Naph. 8:7; b. Sanh. 90a, bar.

. The Greek letter iota used here might be a rough equivalent; cf. the play on the Latin “i” in Mart. Epig. 2.93 (at the end of bk. II, he suggests Regulus may wish to make it bk. I by subtracting an iota). Cf. the yodh’s significance in b. Menaḥ. 29b because of what it can spell; cf. Pesiq. R. 11:7. No one dare alter a word (Jos. Apion 1.42; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:8). Rulers were known to prescribe a capital sentence against those found chiseling out a single letter of their inscriptions (Dio Chrys. 31st Disc., Rhodian Oration 86 in Boring 1995: 57); the 22 letters of the alphabet were prepared to testify against Israel’s transgressions of Torah (Lam. Rab. Proem 24).

. E.g., Meier 1980: 47; France 1985: 115; cf. Meier 1976: 168-69. Cf. likewise the proposal that Jesus refers to only one kind of law (Guelich 1982: 139-40, 148, 155).

. Davies and Allison 1988: 498 suggest that Matthew possibly places doing before teaching in agreement with the Shammaite emphasis on deeds over study, in contrast to the Hillelites (citing m. ʾAbot 1:15, 17; 3:10).

. E.g., m. ʾAbot 2:9; b. Ber. 13a; compare rabbinic discussions of kavanah (on which see Bonsirven 1964: 95; Montefiore and Loewe 1974: 272-94; Pawlikowski 1970); cf. Jos. Apion 2.183, 217 in Vermes 1993: 32. Rabbinic documents may appear more legalistic because they are legal documents, but this does not represent all of rabbinic, Pharisaic, or Jewish ethics (Davies 1967b: 127; Vermes 1993: 195); the covenantal perspective is better represented in early Jewish prayers (Segal 1985). Vermes (1993: 195) thinks that Jesus exaggerated the inward and causal aspects of behavior far more than the rabbis, but this may be partly because he excludes as inauthentic more law material regarding Jesus than is necessary.

. Onwu 1988 suggests that the standard of “righteousness” Jesus demands as a prerequisite for entering the kingdom is the eschatological righteousness to be lived out in the kingdom; cf. 4:17.

. For differing views of which of the “antitheses” are redactional, see Luz 1989: 274-76 (who himself accepts only the first and second as original).

. 5:21-48 seem to illustrate the principle of 5:17 (cf., e.g., Hort 1894: 18). Goulder 1974 compares the practice attributed to Hillel of following the principle with cases; so here, the principle (5:17) is illustrated with six examples (cf. also the thesis in 6:1, followed by three illustrations).

. See Keener 1991a: 113-20; Przybylski 1980: 83; Gundry 1982: 83; Harrington 1989; Broer 1993a; Stanton 1993: 301-2; Overman 1996: 81.

. E.g., Ladd 1974: 124-25; Robinson 1977: 104; Hill 1979: 68; cf. Berger and Wyschogrod 1978: 31.

. Dalman 1929: 30; Jeremias 1969: 112; Ladd 1967: 96 Daube 1973: 388; see the Introduction.

. “I say to you” may imply the speaker’s greater status, at least academically and momentarily (cf. Prov 4:10, 20; Hagner 1993: 111; Davies and Allison 1988: 490 cite, e.g., Jub. 36:11; 1 Enoch 92:18; 94:1; 99:13; Mt 3:9; Acts 5:38; Rom 11:13; though they may find in it more authority than it claims). “The ancients” (5:21, 33; probably assumed in the other “you heard it said” statements) probably refers to the wilderness generation (with Davies and Allison 1988: 511, though Jos. Ant. 13.292 does not support their position; cf. Sir 39:1; Test. Zeb. 9:5; pace Du Plessis 1967: 18), though “ancients were a regular object of appeal” (e.g., Cornutus 1.p.2.17-18 in Van der Horst 1981: 168; Epict. Disc. 1.18.17; Crates Ep. 35, to Aper; Babrius 47.1).

. For full documentation, see Schechter 1900: 427; Abrahams 1917: 16; Smith 1951: 28-30; Daube 1973: 55-58; Urbach 1979: 1:294; Boxel 1988; Sanders 1990: 93; Keener 1991a: 119, 209; cf., e.g., Mek. Pisḥa 1.58, 62; Sifre Num. 112.1.2; b. Ber. 63a.

. Lachs 1987: 92 indicates that Jewish courts could levy fines for offenses like slander and shaming another, but that name calling did not fit these categories (cf. m. B. Qam. 8:6; b. B. Qam. 86a-87a). Insulting a teacher could warrant both legal and postmortem punishment (see b. Ber. 19a).

. On the heavenly court in Jewish texts (rooted in the biblical court of Yahweh related to the Canaanite court of El — Bright 1981: 158-59), generally comprised of either scholars or angels, see, e.g., ARN 32A; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 36a; Ber. 18b; 64a; B. Meṣ. 75a; 85b; 86a; Giṭ. 68a; Mak. 13b; Pesaḥ. 53b; Shab. 129b; p. Sanh. 1:1, §4; 11:5, §1; Gen. Rab. 49:2; 64:4; Ex. Rab. 12:4; 30:18; Lev. Rab. 11:8; 24:2; 29:1, 4; Num. Rab. 3:4; 18:4; 19:3; Ruth Rab. 4:3, 5; Qoh. Rab. 1:11, §1; 2:12, §1; 5:11, §5; Song Rab. 3:11, §2; 8:9, §2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23:4; 24:11; Pesiq. R. 15:19; cf. 11QMelch in Kobelski 1978:123; Test. Abr. 12A; 10B; 3 Enoch 2:4; 5:10-12; 16:1; 18:16; 28:8; 29:1; 30:1-2; Couturier 1984; for the Greek image, e.g., Char. Chaer. 5.4.6. On the links between heavenly and earthly, cf., e.g., Lincoln 1990: 157; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:3; Qoh. Rab. 3:14, §1; heavenly tablets in Jub. 3:10, 31; 4:32; 5:13; 6:17, 29, 35; 15:25; 16:3, 9, 28-29; 18:19; 19:9; 23:32; 24:33; 28:6; 30:9, 18-23; 31:32; 32:10, 21, 28; 33:10; 49:8; 1 Enoch 81:1-2; 93:2-3; 103:2-3; 106:19; 107:1; 108:7; Noack 1957-58: 200; probably “les tables précieuses” in 4QTestuz in Testuz 1955; perhaps CD 3.3-4; Jub. 50:13 (cf. Roman eternal tables of the fates, e.g., in Ovid Metam. 15.809-15). Similarly, in the ancient Near East curses provided divine sanctions against lawlessness where courts could not enforce the laws (Assmann 1992).

. Matthew nowhere shrinks from strong language such as “Gehenna” (e.g., 5:30; 10:28; 23:15) or “fire” (e.g., 3:10; 18:8; 25:41).

. In ancient moral teaching, anger easily leads to murder (Demosth. Against Conon 19; Sir 8:16; Ps-Phocyl. 57-58; Did. 3.2; cf. Hor. Epodes 1.2.59-62; Boring 1995: 57 cites Plut. Uneduc. Ruler 6, Mor.). On the dangers of anger and the need to control it, see outside strictly Jewish texts Ahiqar 189, §91; Arist. N.E. 7.6.1, 1149a; Isoc. To Nic. 23, Or. 2; Demon. 31; Pub. Syr. 87, 88, 184, 214, 241, 311, 628, 643, 695; Cato Collection of Distichs 45; Hor. Sat. 1.3.76-77; Eph 4:26; Epict. Disc. 1.15.1-5; 2.19.26; Sen. Dial. 3–5; Ep. Lucil. 18.14; Plut. Educ. 14, Mor. 10B; Bride 38, Mor. 143D; Cato the Elder 16 in Plut. Sayings of Romans, Mor. 199A; Plut. On Control of Anger, Mor. 452F-464D; On Rage (fr. 148 in LCL 15:274-77); Solon 21.1; Brutus 29.2; Marc. Aur. Med. 6.26; Diog. Laert. Lives 1.70; 7.1.114; 8.1.23. In Jewish texts, see Sir 20:3; Jos. War 2.135; Test. Dan 2–4, especially 2:2; 3:6; m. ʾAbot 2:10; Sib. Or. 3.377; b. Qidd. 40b-41a; Pesaḥ. 113b; Shab. 31a; p. Taʿan. 3:11, §4; Gen. Rab. 49:8; Lachs 1987: 91 adds Sifre Deut. 186-87; b. B. Meṣ. 58b. “Brother” in 5:22 may mean “neighbor” or “fellow citizen” (5:23), though it can mean more specifically “fellow-disciple” (5:9; 18:15; 23:8; 28:10).

. Intention is important in nonlegal ethics as well; in philosophers, cf. Arist. N.E. 3.1.13-19, 1110b-1111a; Rhet. 2.19.21, 1392b; Sen. Benef. 5.14.1-2; Sent. Sext. 181; Phaedrus 5.3.11-13. In Judaism, see Ps-Phocyl. 51-52, 135-36; Jos. Apion 2.217; t. Peʾa 3:8; Sifre Deut. 252.1.2; 283.7.1; Maher 1981. Humanly enforced law could not push the issue of intention too far, however; cf., e.g., t. Peʾa 1:4; Urbach 1979: 1:382. Black 1988 contends that “without cause” belongs to the original text of 5:22; it may, however, represent a legitimate interpretation of Jesus’ more graphic statement, which may have circulated orally in both forms (on the possible conditional Aramaic original, see Wernberg-Møller 1956-57: 72; for a comparison with Aristotelian and Stoic ethics, see Wolbert 1988).

. Since raka is Aramaic for “empty[head]” (e.g., b. B. Bat. 75a; Ber. 22a; Lachs 1987: 92 cites Targ. Onq. Gen. 37:14; b. Ber. 32a; Ned. 65a; Sanh. 100a; Taʿan. 20b; for “empty craniums” and “empty minds” in Greek, cf., e.g., Soph. Electra 403; Sib. Or. 3.430, 590; Ep. Arist. 8), some scholars propose that mōre, “fool,” also bears nuances of a Semitic term for “rebel” (cf. ARN 32, §69 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:5; see Manson 1979: 156; Albright and Mann 1971: 61; cf. Smith 1951: 2). But moros is perfectly good Greek for “fool” (e.g., 7:26; 23:17; Sir 19:11; Lam. Rab. Proem 31), so this suggestion is questionable. Biblical tradition viewed concepts related to “folly” in a moral light (e.g., Deut 22:21; Judg 19:23-24; 1 Sam 25:25; Ps 14:1; 53:1; Prov 10:18, 23; 14:16, 29; 15:5; 20:3; 29:11; Is 32:6; Jer 17:11), and the Greek term “fool” was also quite harsh (Epict. Disc. 2.21.2; 2.22.4-5).

. Lachs 1987: 92, 94; Keener 1987; additional documentation in idem 1991a: 141n.14; see much more fully note 67. Overman 1996: 85-86 suggests the five Roman synedria or courts in Palestine in 55 B.C. (Jos. War 1.170; Ant. 14.91); did these remain in effect a century later?

. Thus the “twofold gloss” of Moule 1939 is unnecessary, as is his later attempt to view it as rhetorical heightening (Moule 1969: 11; cf. Gundry 1982: 85), what Meier 1979: 244-45; idem 1980: 51 sees as “mock … casuistry.” Krisis can refer to coming to trial (CPJ 1:239-40, §129.7), but no less easily to divine judgment (e.g., Jub. 4:31; Sib. Or. 1.274; 3.34, 56, 91; Gk. Ezra 1:24); what escaped human judgment would face God’s (Sib. Or. 3.258-60); for eschatological krisis against the “empty thinkers,” see Sib. Or. 3.670.

. That this text addresses not the kind of rhetorical condemnation Jesus elsewhere employed (23:17; see below) but perjury before the heavenly court or the broader society fits what we know of Jewish law (Matthews and Benjamin 1991b; Keener 1991a: 15-16); cf. slander as a sin against both humans and God in Qoh. Rab. 9:12.

. The title was standard rhetorical practice toward one’s opponents or imaginary interlocutors in public debate and diatribe, both Jewish (e.g., Sifre Deut. 309.1.1; 309.2.1; b. B. Bat. 115b, end; Ber. 10a; ʿErub. 101a; Yebam. 102b) and more broadly (e.g., 1 Cor 15:36; Philo Cher. 75; Epict. Disc. 2.16.13; 2.21.2; 2.22.4-5; 3.13.17; 3.22.85; Marc. Aur. Med. 5.36.1; Phaedrus 3.15.2; on Epicureans, Plut. Pleasant Life Impossible 2, Mor. 1086EF; Diog. Laert. Lives 10.1.7-8), as well as challenge and insults (e.g., Mart. Epig. 10.100.1; Epict. Disc. 1.18.10; cf. in the judgment: Lk 12:20; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3a; Ruth Rab. 3:3; Qoh. Rab. 1:15, §1).

. Cf. further p. B. Qam. 8:7, §1; Bonsirven 1964: 116-17; Hagner 1993: 117; Chilton 1994: 115; Boring 1995: 115-16; Sanders 1985: 249 cites Sifra Ahare Mot pq. 8.1; Sifre Zuta to Num 6:26; cf. Lev 6:5; Gen. Rab. 98:19. Some Greek communal ethics also stressed reconciliation with fellow citizens (e.g., Diod. Sic. 12.20.2), perhaps most popularly exemplified in the rhetoricians’ homonoia speeches (e.g., Demosth. Letter 1.5-6).

. Vermes 1993: 155n.2 doubts that this interest in the sanctuary would stem from Jesus and suspects that it is Matthew’s creation; against this, cf. the cultic requirement in 8:4, which derives from Mk 1:44 (and is certainly not a creation of Mark or his community; cf. Mk 7:15, 19). Jesus’ requirement here fits his Jewish context and biblical tradition (Davies and Allison 1988: 518 recall the biblical refrain that moral piety precedes ritual) and contrasts starkly with the Pythagorean view (Thom 1994: 106). The single judge of the parable may accurately depict pre-70 conditions (Vermes 1993: 111).

. Technically it may have been the smallest Roman coin (Hor. Sat. 2.3.93; Juv. Sat. 7.8), but in Palestine the lepton was smaller (Mk 12:42; Lk 12:59; Wheaton 1982: 792).

. For diverse views on self-stimulation, see Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. 3.206. Cf. Luz 1989: 295 for Stoic influence on hellenistic Judaism, citing Philo Op. Mund. 152; Omn. Prob. Lib. 159; Spec. Leg. 4.84; Decal. 142; Life of Adam 19; Rom 7:7; Jas 1:15; he also parallels the rabbinic use of the yeṣer haraʿ. Greek philosophers often felt that thoughts and intentions, not merely deeds, could be evil (Boring 1995: 58 cites Aelian Variae historiae 14.28, 42; Epict. Fr. 100; Diog. Laert. Lives 1.36; Plut. On Being a Busybody 13; Cic. Goods and Evils 3.9.32; Arist. Magna Moralia).

. See further 1 Enoch 67:8; Sib. Or. 4.33-34; Ps. Sol. 4:4; Test. Iss. 3:5; 4:4; Reub. 4:1; 6:1-3; Jud. 17:1; m. Nid. 2:1; ARN 2A; 2, §9B; b. Ber. 20a; Yebam. 63b; p. Ḥag. 2:2, §4; Gen. Rab. 32:7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2; cf. Bonsirven 1964: 113; Schechter 1961: 225; Vermes 1993: 32-33; Ilan 1996: 127-28. Some Greek philosophers also acknowledged that the gods knew one’s thoughts (e.g., Thales in Diog. Laert. Lives 1.36); even those who otherwise thought lust acceptable disapproved if the woman were betrothed or married (cf. Ach. Tat. 4.3.1-2 in context; Char. Chaer. 2.2.8), though it was not legally punishable (Char. Chaer. 5.7.5-6; 8.8.8). Seneca condemned as impious a woman whose virtue stemmed merely from fear (Benef. 4.14.1). Jewish writers also condemned contemplating evil (e.g., Ep. Arist. 132-33; though contrast b. Ḥul. 142a; and avoiding sin in one’s thoughts was a high standard, Test. Zeb. 1:4); later rabbis went so far as to praise a predecessor who had never looked at his own private parts (p. Sanh. 10:5, §2). On lust, see also C. S. Keener, “Marriage, Divorce and Adultery,” 712-17 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 714-16.

. See Keener 1992: 27-31; cf., e.g., Diod. Sic. 17.35.5; Charillus 2 in Plut. Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 232C; Petron. Sat. 14, 16; Dio Cassius 42.11.2-3; Apul. Metam. 2.8-9; Sus 32; 3 Macc 4:6; m. B. Qam. 8:6; Ketub. 7:6; Sifre Num. 11.2.1-3; ARN 3A; 14, §35B. In addition to ancient sources, one may compare the analogous use of headcoverings in Islamic Middle Eastern societies (e.g., Delaney 1987: 42; Eickelman 1989: 165), of which I was unaware when I wrote Keener 1992.

. Greeks also suspected women’s special weakness and consequent propensity for infidelity and other moral vice (cf., e.g., Eurip. Androm. 218-21; Diod. Sic. 1.59.3-4; Pub. Syr. 20, 365, 376; Juv. Sat. 6.242-43; Plut. Bride 48, Mor. 145DE; Char. Chaer. 1.4.1-2; among Jews, Sir 42:12-14; Test. Abr. 9B; Philo Prob. 117; m. ʾAbot 2:7; b. Ber. 53a; Pesaḥ. 111a; Shab. 33b; Gen. Rab. 17:6; 45:5; 80:5; cf. Delaney 1987: 41; Eickelman 1989: 205-6).

. For willingness to experience amputations to secure a greater good, see Plato Symp. 204CE (Boring 1995: 113-14); contrast Epict. Disc. 1.2.25. Corporal punishment was already known in the Middle East (Deut 25:11-12; Jos. War 2.642-44; Life 147, 177-78; Albright and Mann 1971: 63-64) and a favorable alternative to execution (Jos. Life 173), and Jesus’ use of irony and hyperbole rule out the need to attribute the saying to Neopythagorean sources (as Schattenmann 1979 does). This passage indicates Jesus’ belief in the bodily resurrection of the damned for torment; see Gundry 1976: 24 (the imprisonment parable need not; cf. Plato Cratylus 400C; Sen. Dial. 11.9.3; 12.9.7; and other Greek and Roman examples of sōma-sēma). Basser 1985b: 149-50 believes that he finds allusions to this amputation image in Gen. Rab. 11 and b. Shab. 116b (though less graphic language of “cutting off” evils appears elsewhere, e.g., Sib. Or. 1.154); citing 19:12, Lachs 1987: 97 thinks the “hand” here represents a Jewish euphemism for the male organ.

. Adultery was punishable by death under Israelite law (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22; Jos. Apion 2.215); and hell by God (b. Soṭa 4b); some rabbis claimed that lust would lead to hell (b. Ber. 16a, bar.). On punishments for adultery in Mediterranean antiquity, see, e.g., Demosth. Against Neaera 86, Or. 59; Richlin 1981; on the permissible range of vengeance for aggrieved husbands, including permissible killings, see, e.g., Demosth. Against Neaera 66; Quint. 7.1.7. See more fully our comment on 1:19.

. Thus Tertullian warns that Christians need not blind themselves as Democritus did, but simply guard their minds, and contends that “The Christian is born masculine for his wife and for no other woman” (Apol. 46.11). Lachs 1989: 97 cites Jewish texts figuratively blaming the eye for leading men into sin, especially sexually (e.g., Num 15:39; Prov 21:4; Ezek 6:9; 18:6; 20:7-8; 23:27; Qoh. 11:9; Sifre Num. 115; b. Ber. 12b; Soṭa 8a; 45a; p. Ber. 9:2; cf. also Prov 6:13, 17; 16:30; Eccl 4:8; Ezek 33:25; 1 Jn 2:16).

. Noting other occasions on which Matthew applies pros with the infinitive to intention rather than result, Luz 1989: 294 narrows the exact sense still further: the verse addresses “intentional looking with the aim of breaking the marriage of another man.”

. Mark, addressing a broader Greco-Roman context, rightly adds, “her spouse,” bringing out the implications of Jesus’ teaching in a different cultural setting (Mk 10:12). In broader Greco-Roman culture (which Paul addresses in 1 Cor 7:10-16) either the husband or the wife could unilater-ally divorce the other without the other’s consent (Cary and Haarhoff 1946: 144; O’Rourke 1971: 181). In terms of Palestinian Jewish law, even if a man remained married to his first wife his subsequent unions would not be adulterous because Jewish law permitted polygyny; Jesus here eliminates the double standard, perhaps rejecting polygyny as (at least hyperbolically) adulterous in the same way Jewish law would have viewed polyandry (Sigal 1986: 93-94, 157).

. So also Stein 1978: 8-12; idem 1979: 119; idem 1992: 198; Efird 1985: 57; Keener 1991a: 12-25; cf. Malina 1981: 120. Rhetorical overstatement and hyperbole were common Jewish teaching techniques (e.g., m. ʾAbot 2:8; ARN 36A) and appear elsewhere in the ancient Mediterranean as well (e.g., Arist. Rhet. 3.11.15, 1413a; Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.33.44; Quint. 8.6.73-76); in Jesus’ teaching, see especially Tannehill 1975.

. See Keener 1991a: 22-24; cf., e.g., Davies 1993: 54; Mounce 1985: 44; Llewelyn 1992: 16. The image (which on my view assumes the hyperbole that marriage is indissoluble) presumably addresses the woman because Jewish law in Matthew’s milieu permitted men to marry more than one wife anyway, but the sharing of a woman involved adultery (Keener 1991a: 35, 47-48; Easton 1940: 82; Guelich 1982: 200-201; but cf. somewhat differently, Luck 1987: 103-7; even near Palestine, many Jewish practices resembled those of Gentile neighbors — Wasserstein 1989). Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 53 suggest that a husband “makes her an adulteress” because one offers her “for sexual union with other males,” and thus acts as “a pimp” (which is how ancient law viewed a man who retained, hence tolerated, an adulterous wife; see Gardner 1986: 131-32; Richlin 1981: 227). The text undoubtedly does not mean “cause adultery” literally (as in the case of Messalina in Dio Cassius R.H. 60.18.1-2).

. Paul did not take this saying literally (1 Cor 7:15; nor, it appears, did John — Jn 4:18). As common as divorce and remarriage were in antiquity (Carcopino 1940: 95-100; cf. Jos. Life 415, 426), Paul’s letters would surely have reflected it had he been spending time breaking up new converts’ second and third marriages. The Roman authorities, already concerned about subversive religious groups disrupting families (Keener 1992: 139-42), would also have noticed and acted swiftly!

. Maxims and proverbs, general statements of principle requiring qualification (cf., e.g., Prov 18:22 with 11:22; 12:4; 21:9; others in Keener 1993: 235), were common throughout the ancient Mediterranean (Isoc. Demon. 12, Or. 1; Arist. Rhet. 2.21.1-2, 12-15, 1394a-95b; Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.17.24-25; Petron. Sat. 4; Plut. Poetry 14, Mor. 35EF; cf. Diog. Laert. 2.18-47; 8.1.17-18; 9.1.7; Pythagorean Sentences passim; Select Papyri 3:440-43; Appian R.H. 4.11; cf. also Sinclair 1993) and in other societies (Mbiti 1970: 2). Legal principles also had to be qualified (Quint. 7.6.1, 5; cf. Arist. Rhet. 1.17.1354a; frequently in rabbinic texts), which is how Tannehill 1975: 72-73 takes this saying (and with whom we would agree in its Matthean form). Even the brief quips concluding many controversy-chreiai, as in Mt 19:9, functioned in this manner (cf., e.g., Plut. Agesilaus 21.4-5; Statecraft 7, Mor. 803CD; Sayings of Spartan Women, passim; Diog. Laert. 1.35; 2.72; 6.2.51).

. Thus similarly tears of entreaty might generally fail (Pub. Syr. 128, 200), but those of a wife would succeed (Pub. Syr. 19, 153, 384); deliberation is both good and bad, depending on the situation (Pub. Syr. 162-63, 178); honor rarely returns to one who loses it, and one who truly has honor never loses it (Pub. Syr. 211-12). The genre naturally accommodates considerable paradox.

. Cf. likewise Down 1984; Molldrem 1991; Parker 1993; Hagner 1995: 551.

. Some works too recent for citation in Keener 1991a also view Paul’s exception as implying that Jesus’ prohibition is “not comprehensive” (Blomberg 1992a: 111-12; Vermes 1993: 34n.34).

. In 1 Cor 7:27-28, the NIV mistranslates: rightly noting that one who is married should not “seek a divorce” (7:27a), they translate the same Greek word for divorce as “unmarried” in the next line, where remarriage is permitted (7:27b-28).

. As Blomberg 1992a: 293 reasons, other exceptions probably exist, but they must be governed by the principle that unites the two biblical exceptions: (1) both infidelity and abandonment destroy one of the basic components of marriage; (2) “Both leave one party without any other options if attempts at reconciliation are spurned”; and (3) both use divorce “as a last resort.” That some will abuse this freedom (as he also warns) cannot make us insensitive to the innocent party who genuinely needs that freedom.

. By the time of Tannaitic writings, many used neder (vow) and shevuʿah (oath) interchangeably, or (as in m. Ned. 2:2) with differences only in technical, theoretical discussions (Lachs 1987: 100-101).

. The ancient world in general regarded keeping vows as pious (e.g., Isoc. Demon. 13, Or. 1) and oath violation as wicked (Hesiod W.D. 190, 194); oaths were considered sacred (e.g., Aul. Gel. 6.18; though pagan deities might break them — Hom. Il. 15.36-44); some were considered morally helpful (Num. Rab. 15:16; Ruth Rab. 6:4). One normally swore an oath by a deity (e.g., Apul. Metam. 2.5), and a false oath profaned God’s name (e.g., Ex 20:7; Sifra Qed. par. 2.199.1.6). A very early Jewish teacher allegedly made people accountable to God for vows merely offered in one’s heart (p. Sanh. 6:6, §2); God would also punish breaking one’s word (b. B. Meṣ. 49a, bar.).

. See further Sanders 1990: 51; Ferguson 1987: 117, 184; Mbiti 1970: 277.

. This “You heard it said” statement may actually be a Targumic sort of conflation of Lev 19:12 with Deut 23:24, hence not a verbatim quotation of the Torah itself (Vermes 1993: 34).

. The parallel in Jas 5:12 supports pre-Matthean tradition (cf., e.g., Blank 1989); for a response to arguments against authenticity, see Ito 1991.

. The Scrolls themselves indicate that some Essenes continued to take some kinds of oaths (Sanders 1990: 53; McNamara 1983: 197). Other groups were also joined by oaths (e.g., Jos. Ant. 15.282; Angus 1925: 78-79; in other societies, e.g., Mbiti 1970: 276); Martin relates Jas 5:12 to Zealot initiatory oaths (1988: lxix; cf. Acts 23:12, 14). Emperors (Jos. Ant. 18.124; 19.247; Epict. Disc. 1.14.15; Judge 1960: 34), rulers like Herod (Jos. Ant. 15.370), and the military (Livy 6.38.8; 10.4.3) also demanded oaths of loyalty.

. Vermes 1993: 35 cites a rabbinic tradition (Mek. Baḥodesh 5 on Ex 20:2 in Lauterbach 2:229-30) in which the Israelites accepted Torah with a “yes” or a “yes yes” (the double “yes” presumably being a stronger formula); with many, Vermes takes this as a formula meant to function with an oath’s force. I am more skeptical of the relevance of the parallel; “Let your yes prove a yes and your no a no” may be more appropriate (Lachs 1987: 102 cites b. B. Meṣ. 49a; Sheb. 36a; Ruth Rab. 3:18; Der. Er. Rab. 5.1). Cf. Gen. Rab. 73:9; 74:3, 11; Lachs 1987: 101; Boring 1995: 59 cite 2 Enoch 49:1 as a parallel, but it sounds dependent on Matthew.

. The language of the passage probably reflects Jesus’ own idiom; aspects of Matthew’s version of the saying are more Semitic than the form in Jas 5:12 (Laws 1980: 222-23; Davids 1982: 190), though some elements in James’s wording may be more original (Ropes 1916: 301). The expression “Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’” as an exhortation to be sure of one’s words would have made sense to Jesus’ first hearers (cf. m. Giṭ. 7:1; Jeremias 1971: 220). Some contend that it may even have functioned as an oath-formula itself (Manson 1979: 159; Dibelius 1976: 250), but probably it is just a Semitic expression meaning something like one should let one’s response be emphatic (Meier 1980: 53; Gundry 1982: 93; Guelich 1982: 218; Davids 1982: 190).

. For the history of the practice of this passage, including its use in the Acts of Martyrs, see Broer 1993c.

. By contrast, Rathey 1991 suggests that this passage in fact radicalizes the OT by having the oppressed renounce revenge and allowing the enemy to take revenge instead. The passage renounces the right to restitution as well as revenge (cf. Schwienhorst-Schönberger 1990).

. The penalty may remain literal in Jubilees (Grintz 1972: 325 if he is correct; the retribution there is divine, and appropriateness of divine retribution coexisted with monetary penalties in the rabbis); Falk 1985: 118 suggests that the Shammaites also held the literal view (based solely on R. Eliezer in b. B. Qam. 84A). But some ancient Near Eastern societies had already preferred monetary payments (e.g., Eshnunna 42-43).

. On Plato Crito 47c-49d; Rep. 1.331e-336a, see Gill 1991; for Sen. On Anger 2.34.1 and Diog. Laert. 2.21, see Boring 1995: 59-60. The same principle carried over into persuasive rhetoric (Dion. Hal. 6.80.4). For not defending oneself in court, see Epict. Disc. 2.2.20.

. Others allowed but qualified resistance: Josephus tells Gentiles that Jews cannot plunder their enemies (Jos. Life 128). Some read Matthew’s nonresistance teaching as an inaccurate critique of contemporary Judaism (Broer 1994), but it is quite unlikely that Matthew, immersed in Jewish thought, would be unaware that many of his contemporaries did teach nonresistance on some level.

. God is the avenger in Jdt 9:2; 1 Enoch 54:6; Jub. 48:14; 1QS 1.11; 2.6, 9; 4.12; 9.23; CIJ 1:385, §526; p. Qidd. 4:1, §2; an angel in 1 Enoch 20:4; some Greek deities in Barthell 1971: 25-26; Diogenes Ep. 45.

. Some also misread this text as if it forbids one to oppose injustice; what it really says, however, is that one should be so unselfish and trust God so much that one leaves one’s vindication with him. (The Greek phrase in 5:39 probably warns against resisting “an evil person,” not against resisting evil itself — Tasker 1961: 70.)

. Jeremias 1963: 28; idem 1971: 239; Moore 1971: 2:151n.3; Daube 1973: 260-61; Malina 1981: 35; Lachs 1987: 106 cites Sifra Lev. 24:19; t. B. Qam. 9:29; b. B. Meṣ. 59b; Sanh. 58b. Resistance to unjust arrest, by contrast, might involve physically harsher blows in the face with one’s fists (Dion. Hal. 9.39.3); severer beatings also involved shame (e.g., Hom. Il. 2.265-70; 1 Thess 2:2).

. On this and other ancient Near Eastern laws missing in the OT but preserved in the rabbis, cf. Greengus 1991. One might be levied a fine for humiliating an honorable person not only with a blow (e.g., m. B. Qam. 8:6) but also without one (the heavy fine for humiliating a sage in p. B. Qam. 8:6, §1); in third-century-B.C. Egypt the fine for one blow was over one-third of a year’s average wages (P. Hal. 1.203-5). Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 55 suggest that in Mediterranean cultures friends will break up a public fight; by deferring to one’s friends’ intervention rather than avenging one’s own honor, one allows the door of reconciliation with the offender to remain open. The situation depicted in the text, however, is an act of insult, not a physical brawl, though the same might apply.

. Luke’s form of the saying, in which the outer garment is seized first, pictures robbery (various commentators, e.g., Stein 1978: 151n.8; Gundry 1982: 95; Davies and Allison 1988: 545; the latter may well be correct that Matthew’s form is more original, though Gundry argues the opposite), which was a common feature of village life in Egypt, where our records are most complete (Lewis 1983: 77).

. Cf. also 1 Cor 6:1-8, perhaps dependent on Jesus’ teaching. When Paul wrote that passage, believers were a persecuted minority in the Empire, and bad press about internal dissension was the last thing they needed. The Romans allowed synagogues to function as courts for local Jewish communities, arbitrating cases within their own communities, and churches could function analogously (cf. Hare 1967: 102; Grant 1977: 38).

. Not all Greek philosophers responded as graciously as Epictetus. Diogenes the Cynic, who had but one cloak, reportedly refused to give his up, claiming that it was in use (Diog. Laert. 6.2.62).

. Rom 12:21; Ep. Arist. 227; Ps-Phocyl. 142; Test. Benj. 4:3; Diog. Laert. 8.1.23; Hierocles Duties. Fraternal Love 4.27.20; Ariston 1 in Plut. Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 218A; Pub. Syr. 142; b. Ber. 17a.

. On the Roman administration’s use of local transport services, see, e.g., the kanōn in Horsley 1981: 36-45; most fully, Llewelyn 1994: 58-92.

. Cf. Deissmann 1923: 86-87; Manson 1979: 160; Hill 1972: 128; Fenton 1977: 93; France 1985: 127.

. In a society dominated by honor and shame, some considered it better to die than to beg (Sir 40:28-30; cf. Diog. Ep. 34); few would resort to that lifestyle unnecessarily. Work generally generated more income than begging anyway; especially among Gentiles, begging usually met refusal (Diog. Ep. 11; Diog. Laert. 6.2.49). Jewish sages might limit recipients to the godly (Sir 12:1-2, 4, 7), to needy Israelites (Sifra Qed. pq. 3.198.1.5).

. Interest rates were high among Israel’s neighbors (e.g., Eshnunna 18A; Albright 1968: 181; De Vaux 1961: 171). Reportedly Greek and Roman law had originally opposed usury but gradually acquiesced to it (Appian C.W. 1.6.54; cf. Hladik 1992); thus although a few ancient Greek sages regarded usury as unnatural (Arist. Pol. 1.3.23, 1258b), interest rates continued to run high (P. Cairo Zen. 59001.34), in the Roman world averaging around 12% and known to rise as high as nearly 50% (Grant 1977: 80; Oakman 1991: 157). Egyptian villagers had to borrow money to pay taxes, the debts to be repaid at harvest at 50% interest; debts were inherited if the father died (Lewis 1983: 71, 218n.9; cf. Grant 1992: 90). Warnings about the danger of borrowing money at high interest rates or that would otherwise be difficult to repay constituted a commonplace (e.g., Demosth. On the Embassy 99; Pub. Syr. 11; Petron. Sat. 57; Plut. Love of Wealth 2, Mor. 523F-24A; That We Ought Not to Borrow, Mor. 827D-32A; Ahiqar 111, saying 29; 130-31, saying 43; Sir 18:33; m. ʾAbot 2:9; b. Sanh. 22a). Judaism regarded as pious forgiving those who could not repay (Test. Job 11:11/10).

. The preceding paragraph already began to imply this (e.g., 5:41); in Luke both teachings belong to the same paragraph (Lk 6:27-36). Wink 1991 defends the authenticity of this teaching on the basis of dissimilarity: who else taught defying one’s oppressors by exceeding their demands? One sets the terms for the oppressor rather than the reverse, forcing them to make the next choice, thus actively rather than passively confronting them (Wink 1992; cf. idem 1993). Buddhism and Taoism teach loving one’s enemies (Gnilka 1997: 226-27), but geographically represent an unlikely source for Jesus’ teaching.

. Lachs 1987: 107 suggests that later rabbinic haggadah recognized the universal application, whereas halakic texts restricted the principle to fellow Israelites (citing Mek. Nezikin 4, Laut. 3:37, on Ex. 21:14; Sifre Deut. 112; 266).

. On holy war in the OT and the Qumran Scrolls, see Nielsen 1961. Cf. Sutcliffe 1960; Seitz 1969: 51; F. F. Bruce 1969: 74; Yamauchi 1972: 144; Sanders 1993: 211; on hating the minim, schismatics, cf. Sifre Deut. 331.1.2; ARN 16A. Given the lack of significant parallels from Qumran and rabbinic sources, some here claim that the criterion of dissimilarity supports the authenticity of Jesus’ teaching to love one’s enemies (Q material; see Lk 6:27, 35); see Merkel 1984: 144; Stanton 1995a: 176.

. Others have suggested that Jesus by “hate” means “love less” (cf. Mt 10:37 with Lk 14:26) and that he insists on favoring one’s enemy over one’s neighbor (cf. Linton 1964); this suggestion is unlikely, though it would be quite appropriate to Jesus’ practice of rhetorical overstatement in the context, because it would have been more characteristic of Jesus to make such overstatement explicit. Hatred of enemies appears frequently outside Judaism (Davies and Allison 1988: 549 cite Polyb. 18.37.7; Hesiod Op. 342-43; Solon Fr. 1.3-5; Plato Tim. 17d-18a; Rep. 375C; Meno 71E; Tac. Hist. 5.5.-6); on Hesiod Works and Days 342-43, 352-56 see Bouttier 1978. Perhaps speaking more generally, some contended that true goodness must be shown without prejudice to all (Pub. Syr. 99).

. Jewish sages saw God’s gift of rain as one of his ultimate acts of power and beneficence (b. Ber. 33a; Taʿan. 2ab, 7a; p. Taʿan. 1:1, §2; Lev. Rab. 35:8; Flusser 1988: 482; cf. 1 Enoch 2:3; 6:7; Mbiti 1970: 47, 53, 234-37), and recognized it as for all people, worthy or unworthy (p. B. Meṣ. 2:5, §2; 9:5, §1; Gen. Rab. 13:6, 15; Pesiq. R. 48:4; Flusser 1988: 490-91). This generally remained true even when they said it came only on Israel’s account (Gen. Rab. 66:2; cf. b. Taʿan. 19b, bar.) or through the intercessions of the righteous (Jas 5:17-18; Jos. Ant. 8.343-46; 14.22; m. Taʿan. 3:8; ARN 6A; b. Taʿan. 8a, 23a-26a; p. Taʿan. 1:4, §1; 3:9, §§6-8; 3:11, §4; cf. Diog. Laert. 8.2.59-60) or that it rained more in righteous generations (Sifra Behuq. pq. 1.261.1.4; cf. Deut 28:12; 1 Enoch 101:2; Ps. Sol. 17:18; Sifre Deut. 37.3.2; 41.6.4). That all share the same blessing (or fate — Sir 8:7) was an appropriate basis for calling one not to despise others.

. Cf. also the summons to pray for persecutors (Lk 6:28), which, while in Q, is emphasized more by Luke-Acts (Lk 23:34; Acts 7:60; cf. Did. 1.3; Pol. Phil. 12; Acts of Peter 28; Acts of John 81; Test. Jos. 18:2). Some second-century Jewish sources prefer prayer for one’s enemies’ repentance to prayer for their judgment (R. Meir in b. Ber. 10a in Lachs 1987: 108; Test. Abr. 10:12-15 A).

. Many also see 5:48 as the conclusion of the sixth “antithesis” (Lachs 1987; cf. 5:45); while this is true, it also functions as the conclusion to this section of the sermon.

. Many Greco-Roman (Cic. Tusc. Disp. 5.25.70; Heraclitus Ep. 5; Plut. Borrowing 7, Mor. 830B; Sen. Dial. 1.1.5; Epict. Disc. 2.14.12-13; cf. Rutenbar 1946: chs. 2–3), Greco-Jewish and -Christian (Ep. Arist. 188, 190, 192, 208-10, 254, 281; Philo Creation 139; Eph 5:1; Test. Asher 4:3; Sent. Sext. 44-45), and later Jewish (Mek. Shir. 3.43-44; Sifra Qed. par. 1.195.1.3; on the rabbinic doctrine of imitating God in Tannaitic and Amoraic texts, see further Vermes 1993: 201-4; cf. idem 1984: 52; Veghazi 1979; in a broad Mediterranean context, Crouzel 1978) teachers also acknowledged the principle of imitating God. (For another general parallel, see Musonius Rufus 17 in Van der Horst 1974: 307, though it is not extremely close.)

. Other Jewish teachers also sometimes started with a principle then illustrated with examples; cf. Goulder 1974: 24-25, citing Hillel’s ʾabh wetholedot. On the strong symmetry of this section (6:1-18), see, e.g., Minear 1972: 47-48.

. As often emphasized: Beare 1981: 165; Patte 1987: 86; Batey 1984; Stock 1986; on the masks, cf. Frontisi-Ducroux and Vernant 1983.

. In Matthew, a “hypocrite” may be one who praises the opposite of God’s will as if it were God’s will, himself too ignorant of God’s will in Torah to know the difference (Van Tilborg 1972b: 8-26).

. Some later rabbis did emphasize that obedience even with the wrong motives could eventually lead to purer motives (b. Sanh. 105b), an insight modern psychological studies may confirm (cf. 1 Cor 4:3-5).

. Christians who likewise believe in reward (e.g., Rev 11:18; 22:12) should not consider ancient Judaism a legalistic religion for emphasizing reward (see Odeberg 1964: 32-33; Sanders 1977: passim); reward was never to be one’s primary motivation (m. ʾAbot 1:3). For a full survey of Tannaitic teaching on reward, including 117 concrete examples, see Smith 1951: 163-84.

. God’s “repayment” also employs language used elsewhere in Matthew for the repayment of debts (cf. Weber 1992); if Matthew employs this image here, he may borrow it from the OT (cf. Prov 19:17; cf. Tob 4:14). Cic. Rep. 6.23 contends that one should prefer one’s heavenly home to earthly fame, but the idea there is that virtue causes the soul to ascend — quite different from here (Boring 1995: 61).

. While Davies and Allison 1988: 579 concur, they note the trumpets blown on fast days (Joel 2:15; m. Taʿan. 2:5) when alms came to be requested (cf. b. Ber. 6b; Sanh. 35a), allowing for a custom possibly unknown to us. Trumpets were probably used more widely than our scattered sources indicate; e.g., Babylonian Judaism included horn-blowing to announce funeral processions (b. Moʿed Qaṭ. 27b; Safrai 1974/76b: 778).

. Argyle 1963: 55 appeals to the Arab use of the right hand’s relation to the left as an image of intimate fellowship, hence “do not let even your closest friend know about your generosity!” While he may be correct (few Arabic sources exist for the early Christian period), the nature of hyperbole invites the “impossible” reading I have suggested above. Cf. perhaps Jonah 4:11.

. Jewish teachers sometimes went so far as to say that acts of charity brought Israel’s salvation nearer or brought a person life (Tob 4:7-11; 12:8; b. B. Bat. 10ab); they felt that charity atones for sins (Sir 3:30; cf. b. B. Bat. 10a) and invites God’s protection from harm (Sir 29:12-13; cf. ARN 3A; b. B. Bat. 10a; Ex. Rab. 30:24). They regarded withholding charity from the needy as a sin (Bonsirven 1964: 152; cf. Num. Rab. 5:2; Ruth Rab. 5:9), one that characterized wicked pagans (t. Peʾa 4:20) like those of Sodom (Gen. Rab. 49:6; cf. Ezek 16:49). Treasure “in heaven” here means “with God” (Jeremias 1971: 9); see below.

. For social justice issues in general in Matthew, see especially Powell 1995: 113-48.

. For exceptions, see, e.g., Pub. Syr. 274; Corn. Nep. 5 (Cimon), 4.1-2; cf. Hesiod W.D. 354 (give to the generous; cf. perhaps Prov 11:25; 22:16); Romans also praised those who used their resources to serve the needy rather than profiting from their office (Dion. Hal. 12.1.7).

. Both earlier (e.g., Prov 29:7; Ezek 16:49; Tob 1:3; 2:14; Sir 4:1-8; 17:22) and later (Test. Job chs. 9–12; 15:1; Test. Iss. 3:8; Ps-Phocyl. 29; Jos. and Asen. 10:11/12; cf. Did. 1) Jewish writers emphasized charity, and the rabbis continued to elaborate the issue (e.g., m. Dem.; t. B. Qam. 11:3; Dem. 3:16; ARN 3, 7A; 14, §33B; b. Taʿan. 21a; Montefiore and Loewe 1974: 412-39). Judaism in the Diaspora articulated it as plainly as in Palestine (CIJ 1:142, §203). A Jewish-Christian writer claimed that charity was more meritorious than fasting or prayer (2 Clem. 16), fitting a Jewish teaching that it outweighed all other commandments (t. Peʾa 4:19; b. B. Bat. 9a); on Christian charity in the patristic period, see Grant 1977: 124-45.

. See further Abrahams 1924: 125; Odeberg 1964: 84-85; Bonsirven 1964: 153; Beare 1981: 166; Lachs 1987: 113; Vermes 1993: 196.

. Digressions were common in ancient writings (Aune 1987: 30), e.g., Josephus’s defense against the charges of Justus (Life 336-67).

. “Standing” was, as here, the customary Jewish posture in prayer; Lachs 1987: 115 cites, e.g., Lk 18:11, 13; m. Ber. 4:5; b. Ber. 10b; 26b; 30a; p. Ber. 4:1; Midr. Ps. 4:9; Targ. Esth. 4:1; cf. also 1 Chron 23:30; 35:5; Ps 24:3; 135:2. “In the street” can mean “before the public notary” (e.g., P. Oxy. 261.8-9; 266.7; 270.7), but prayer “in the streets” probably suggests persons stopping to pray wherever they were at the regular times of prayer (Lachs 1987: 115 cites b. Ber. 3a; Meg. 26a).

. Jeremias 1971 contends that it is an ordinary room and that Jesus may allude to Is 26:20 in view of the impending catastrophe (cf. also 1 Kings 22:25). But Jesus more probably alludes to a common feature of architecture relevant to daily life. Any “room” could be in view (cf. Tob 7:16), but privacy and the door suggest a storeroom within the home or on the roof. In 24:26 the chamber is very private, opposed to the wilderness; in Luke 12:3, private as opposed to a housetop.

. See data in Wilkinson 1978: 28; Meyers and Strange 1981: 58-59; Goodman 1983: 31; Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 83; MacMullen 1974: 13-14.

. See data in Wilkinson 1978: 29; Goodman 1983: 30-31; Freyne 1988: 153; Lewis 1983: 65, 67; for cities of the Empire in general, see MacMullen 1974: 63, 68.

. See Goodman 1983: 29; Horsley 1995: 190.

. Crowding was standard throughout urban centers in the Empire (Meeks 1983: 28-29; cf. Friedländer 1965: 1:211).

. Vermes 1993: 14-15, 195 takes Jesus too literally here, urging that one never finds Jesus engaged in public prayer, in contrast to his followers (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 22:17); but he argues this thesis from silence. Jesus seems to have known and approved prayers that had corporate implications (the Kaddish — Mt 6:9-10; Vermes himself accepts the Lord’s Prayer as corporate — 1993: 165), and together with his disciples he recited the Passover Hallel (26:30); further, the Acts texts he cites reflect particularly Lukan emphasis on prayer and the early Christians’ identification with the temple and Israel.

. Suggested by Dalman 1929: 18-21; Jeremias 1971: 188-89; idem 1964: 92-94; cf. Vermes 1993: 164 on 6:9-13.

. See further Sandmel 1978b: 152; Moore 1971: 2:220-21; Abrahams 1924: 84; Johnson 1948: 61.

. The precise sense of “babble” is unclear (Carson 1984b: 166); but if it refers to useless verbosity, perhaps Sir 7:14 may also warn against thinking it efficacious to add words to one’s prayer. Pagan texts sometimes make fun of prayer traditions, as when one prays for rain while another prays for dry weather (Aesop Fables 299 in Boring 1995: 90); a few questioned the value of petitionary prayer (van der Horst 1995), but it was widespread. Greeks and Romans frequently mistrusted the motives behind silent prayers (van der Horst 1994; cf. 1 Sam 1:12-16).

. Admittedly Jesus offers it as a structural model rather than a verbatim liturgy to be recited (Albright and Mann 1971: 75). Jewish flexibility in the use of model prayers at this time may be one reason why the Lord’s Prayer appears in different versions in Matthew and Luke.

. Davies and Allison 1988: 589 also cite Sepher Ha-Razim 5.37; Lachs 1987: 116-17 adds, e.g., m. Yoma 5:1; Sifre Num. 105; Mek. Vay. 1 (Laut. 2.91) on Ex 15:25; b. Ber. 5b; 34a; 61a; Shab. 10a; Soṭa 37a; Yoma 53b. Luz 1989: 365n.11 helpfully compares ancient warnings against tiring the deities (citing Sen. Ep. Lucil. 31.5; Horatius Flaccus Carm. 1.2.26) and other exhortations to pray concisely (Plautus Poenulus 1.2.203; Marc. Aur. Med. 5.7). Tannaim apparently valued and expected God to reveal secret prayer openly (Mek. Baḥodesh 1, Laut. 2:196 on Ex 19:2 in Lachs 1987: 114, though this is weak).

. Garland 1993: 79 notes that after Catullus piles up titles of Diana, he concludes, “whatever name you prefer” (Poems 34). “Not like others” was acceptable comparative language (Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.7.14).

. Cf. also threats that one would view gods as impotent if they fail to deliver (Eurip. Cyclops 606-7). One may note that whereas ancient Israel shared with its neighbors thank offerings, atonement offerings, and so forth, Israel had no sacrifices to secure rain or any favors from God; God gave these only in response to Israel’s obedience to his covenant (Deut 27–28). This is not to deny that people eventually created traditions to that end, e.g., the water ritual at Sukkoth meant to secure rain (cf. m. Taʿan. 1:1; t. Sukk. 3:18; Sifre Deut. 40.4.2; b. B. Meṣ. 28a; Taʿan. 25b; p. Rosh Hash. 1:3, §§43-46; Taʿan. 1:1, §§1-10; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 7:2; Qoh. Rab. 7:14, §3; Song Rab. 7:2, §2; cf. Moore 1971: 2:44-45; Harrelson 1969: 69).

. Vermes 1993: 155n.3 compares miracle-workers who foreknow petitioners’ needs (cf. also Jos. and Asen. 6:6; 23:8; 26:6; 2 Enoch 40:1-2; 3 Enoch 11:1-3; Lives of the Prophets 17, Nathan.2/Scherman §28; p. Ḥag. 2:2, §5; Rosh Hash. 1:3, §§39-42; Sanh. 6:6, §2; Diog. Laert. 9.7.42; PGM 3.479-94; the Messiah in Ps. Sol. 17:25; demons in Test. Sol. 20), but the best parallels are the much more common texts about God’s omniscience (Jn 2:24-25; Rom 8:27; 1 Jn 3:20; Acts of Paul 3.24; 2 Macc 7:35; Sir 39:19; Bar 3:32; Sus 42; Jub. 15:30; 16:26; 1 Enoch 9:5; 39:11; 84:3; CD 2.9-10; Ep. Arist. 132-33, 210; Ps. Sol. 9:3; 14:8; 2 Bar. 21:8; Sib. Or. 1.151; 3:12; fr. 1.4; Test. Jud. 20:3-4; Zeb. 5:2; Naph. 2:4-5; m. ʾAbot 2:1; t. B. Qam. 7:2; Sanh. 8:3; b. Ber. 58a; Ex. Rab. 21:3; 43:3; 46:3; PGM 4.3046-48; cf. Plut. Isis 1, Mor. 351E; Isis 51, Mor. 371E; Epict. Disc. 1.30.1; 2.14.11; Diog. Laert. 9.2.19); on God as “overseer,” see Wis 1:6; 7:23; Ep. Arist. 16; 4 Bar. 7:35; Sib. Or. 1.152; 2.177; fr. 1.3; Test. Benj. 4:3; 6:6 (the language is hellenistic; cf., e.g., Theon Progymn. 11.194; Epict. Disc. 1.14.1, 9). This contrasts with pagan prayers that required the suppliant to describe the request precisely “lest the deity grant the wrong favor” (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 59).

. Luke’s version of the prayer’s setting may address Gentile Christians learning how to pray to Israel’s God; Matthew’s version of the setting addresses Jewish Christians learning how not to pray (Jeremias 1963: 21).

. Arguments that Matthew simply created the Lord’s Prayer and Luke followed him (Goulder 1963: 45; Van Tilborg 1972a: 104-5) can array little specific support (see C. Brown 1976: 869-73). Some allow that Jesus prayed component parts but wisdom followers assembled them (e.g., Taussig 1988; O’Neill 1993), but this view fails to account for the coherence of the prayer as a whole against the background of Jewish liturgy; its appearance as a whole in Matthew, Luke, and the Didache; the possibility that Jesus would have taught his followers a specific prayer; and the lack of most of its constituent parts to appear as prayers elsewhere in the tradition. Walker (1982) suggests that Jn 17 draws on the Lord’s Prayer or on a source that used it, but given the recurrence of these motifs in early Jewish prayers his parallels are not impressive (Carson 1980: 174 argues that the parallels suggest the same author).

. Bonsirven 1964: 133; Jeremias 1964b: 98; idem 1971: 21; Moore 1971: 2:213; Smith 1951: 136; Hill 1972: 136-37; Perrin 1976b: 28-29; Vermes 1984: 43; Davies and Allison 1988: 595; Luz 1989: 371; pace Meier 1994: 361-62n.36; Lachs 1987: 118.

. Although the overall links between the Lord’s Prayer and the Kaddish are too close for coincidence, they do contain many individual features that were standard among Jewish prayers in general, such as in the Eighteen Benedictions. (Bivin 1992 suggests that it is a shortened substitute for the Benedictions, which could be abbreviated in emergencies — m. Ber. 4:4.) Prayers often link God’s Fatherhood and reign (Vermes 1993: 152), the latter also being common in prayers (see b. Ber. 40b; Davies and Allison 1988: 603). For further comparisons, cf. Petuchowski and Brocke 1978.

. Many scholars see all the petitions as addressing the time of the kingdom (e.g., Meier 1980: 62; tentatively, Davies and Allison 1988: 594); while there is evidence to support this, I see the “Thou-petitions” as primarily eschatological and the “we-petitions” (which incidentally do not belong to the Kaddish parallel) as primarily directed toward present needs (cf. also Gerhardsson 1978).

. Bultmann, too, notes the brevity, which he distinguishes from piling up predicates of God (in addition to Father) in extant synagogue prayers (1956: 77; but contrast b. Ber. 33b; cf. Sanders 1990: 76). Bultmann’s insight may have merit, but we should keep in mind that extant synagogue prayers performed a different function than originally private prayers (cf. the Qumran hymns).

. The deity is in a number of cases “father” as “creator” or progenitor (e.g., Soph. Ajax 387); most of the Latin references above are to pater, but Jupiter is also called genitor (see, e.g., Virg. Aen. 12.843). Sometimes “father Zeus” is also listed alongside Athene and Apollo, as in Hom. Od. 4.340; 7.311; 17.132; 18.235; 24.376.

. The Greeks may not have employed the title as pervasively as Judaism and in contrast to Judaism applied the image to the deity’s power rather than his intimacy with Israel (cf. Johnson 1948:61). Jewish literature regularly calls God Israel’s (occasionally in Diaspora Judaism humanity’s) “father” (Jub. 1:25, 28; Wis 11:10; Tob 13:4; Jos. and Asen. 12:14 MSS; Apoc. Mos. 35:2; Test. Job 33:3 MSS, 9; Test. Abr. 16, 20A; cf. Prayer of Joseph 1). In Jesus’ teaching, “Father” applies to the disciples, not to all humanity (pace Montefiore 1956; Acts 17:28 represents a different and far rarer NT usage, accommodating that of Greco-Roman paganism and Jewish apologetic).

. Outside as well as within rabbinic texts, Judaism frequently associates God with “heaven” (e.g. 1 Esdr 4:58; Tob 10:13; Jdt 6:19; 1 Macc 3:18, 50, 60; 4:24; 3 Macc 7:6; 1 Enoch 83:9; 91:7; Test. Abr. 2A; Philo Creation 82; Sib. Or. 1.158, 165; 3.247, 286; “the heavenly deity” in Sib. Or. 4.51). Greeks also attempted to define their deity’s location in prayer (Burkert 1985: 74), sometimes in heaven (Zeus in Ach. Tat. 5.2.2; cf. Sen. Dial. 12.8.5); many religions associate God with the sky (cf. Mbiti 1970: 42, 67-68). “Heaven” was also a Jewish periphrasis for God (e.g., Dan 4:26; Lk 15:18, 21; Rom 1:18; 1 Enoch 6:2; 13:8; 1QM 12.5; 3 Macc 4:21; m. ʾAbot 1:3, 11; 2:2, 12; t. B. Qam. 7:5; Sifra Behuq. pq. 6.267.2.1; Sifre Deut. 79.1.1; 96.2.2; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 18a, bar.; B. Qam. 76a; Moʿed Qaṭ. 17a; Nid. 45a, bar.; Pesaḥ. 66b; Taʿan. 14b; Num. Rab. 7:5; 8:4; Ruth Rab. 7:1; Qoh. Rab. 7:8, §1; 7:27, §1; 9:12, §1; this circumlocution probably also stands behind the misunderstanding in Diod. Sic. 40.3.4). For the polarization between heavenly and earthly realities in Matthew, cf. Syreeni 1990.

. The title is even more common in later sources (e.g., b. Ber. 30a, bar.; p. Sanh. 10:2, §8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Lev. Rab. 1:3; 7:1; 35:10; Song Rab. 7:11, §1). Jeremias contends that “Father” is rarely attributed to rabbis before the decades immediately preceding Matthew’s Gospel, most of the many references being later (1964: 16-17); but this observation omits some evidence (Vermes 1984: 40) and fails to take into account the sparseness of rabbinic attributions in general in the earlier period. Chilton 1994: 59 cites “Father” as a prayer invocation in Test. Job and (probably later) in the Targumim; cf. 42. Evidence for the use of an “our Father” as far away as Pompeii by A.D. 79 is, however, unlikely (Baines 1987; pace Botha 1967).

. “Father in heaven” appears frequently in Matthew (e.g., 5:16, 45; 6:1, 14, 26, 32; 7:11; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 19, 35; 23:9), as does “my Father” (7:21; 10:32; 11:27; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 19, 35; 20:23; 25:34; 26:29, 39, 53) and “your Father” (e.g., 6:8; 10:20, 29; 18:14; cf. “their Father,” 13:43).

. Cf. Jos. Apion 2.196: Jews pray for others’ welfare before their own.

. Jewish texts especially emphasized God’s “will” in ethical terms (e.g., t. Ber. 3:7), but present ethics and future eschatology are hardly incompatible (Davies and Allison 1988: 605). Scholars propose various primary backgrounds, e.g., Dan 4:32 (Philonenko 1992); others note that various Jewish texts affirm the submission of heavenly bodies to God (Davies and Allison 1988: 606 cite Sir 43:6-10; Ps. Sol. 18:10-12; 1 Enoch 41:5, though some of their other texts speak of God’s sovereignty over the earth, too: Sir 16:18-29; 1 Enoch 2:1-2). God’s will was known to be done in heaven. Ancients viewed the heavenly bodies as angels (1QM 10.11-12; 2 Enoch 4:1; 29:3A; 3 Enoch 46:1; 2 Bar. 51:10; Ps-Phocyl. 71; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:3; Ex. Rab. 15:6; Philo Plant. 12, 14) or deities (1 Enoch 80:7; Lev. Rab. 31:9; Cic. De Re Publ. 6.15.15; De Nat. Deor. 2.15.39-40; Sen. Ben. 4.23.4; Apul. Metam. 11.22; cf. souls in Plato Timaeus 41E-42A; 4 Macc 17:5; Philo Giants 7-8; demons in Test. Sol. 2:2; 4:6; 5:4; 6:7; 7:6; 8:4; ch. 18). The highest heavens were pure, the proper realm of virtuous souls, in Greek thought (e.g., Plato Phaedrus 248AB, 248E-249A; Pythagoras in Diog. Laert. 8.1.27, 31; Plotinus Ennead 2.1; 3.4.6; cf. Cic. De Re Publ. 6.14.14-15; 6.17.17; 6.18.18-19; 6.26.29; Tusc. Disp. 1.19.43-44; 1.31.75; Sen. Dial. 5.6.1; 12.11.6; Lucian Dance in LCL 5:220) and Jewish circles influenced by it (cf., e.g., Test. Job 36:3; 48–50). Spirits lived in the heavens (e.g., Test. Sol. 2:3), and angels ruled each of the heavens (PGM 35.1-7), which might be seven in number (2 Enoch 20:1-3; 27:31J; 3 Enoch 1:2; 17:1, 3; Jos. and Asen. 22:9, MSS; Asc. Isa. 7; Apoc. Mos. 35:2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; 23:10; b. Ḥag. 12b; 13a; Pesiq. R. 20:4; Iren. Haer. 1.30.12; Greek Anth. 1.19; Qurʾan Sûra 2.29), but sometimes three (Test. Levi 2–3; cf. 2 Cor 12:2; Apoc. Mos. 37:5) or other numbers.

. If the kingdom were wholly future, one might despair of accomplishing any justice now; if one supposed that it were wholly present, the realities of this age would quickly terminate disciples’ illusive utopianism. But because the Gospels affirm that in Jesus the kingdom is present in a hidden way, believers in him can begin to make a difference in their world now, contending for the reality to be consummated at Christ’s return (see Grenz 1992; cf. Lk 18:5-8).

. For “tomorrow’s bread,” Leaney 1958: 185; Hemer 1984 point to Greek lexical evidence, and Jeremias 1964b: 100-101 to evidence for the original Aramaic word mahar. Although Matthew spiritualized the beatitudes in some sense (5:3, 6), it remains unlikely in this context that Jesus includes spiritual bread (cf. 15:26) or emphasizes the Eucharist (pace Bourgoin 1979; Dewailley 1980ab; Jeremias 1964b: 102), except in the sense that both foreshadow the eschatological manna. One scholar combines the manna allusion with “bread for tomorrow,” finding an allusion to the double portion of manna preceding the Sabbath (Eisler in Hoskyns 1947: 294; Ex 16:22); some view earthly bread in anticipation of the future banquet (Aleixandre 1987). Ramaroson 1991 reads “bread that comes” as bread “falling to one’s lot,” exhorting trust that God will supply.

. E.g., Manson 1979: 169; Filson 1960: 96; Botha 1967; Gundry 1982: 107; Luz 1989: 382-83; Blomberg 1992a: 119.

. On ancient Mediterranean breads (some barley but wheat preferred), see Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 62. Papyri reveal the deprivation in Egypt, and the available intake per person suggested by m. Ketub. 5:8-9 may indicate that even in Palestine most people had less available food than basics assumed by modern Western societies (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 95, 133, probably taking into account that these are the wife’s rations; but did they account for first-century Palestinian Jews being smaller than most Westerners today? But even in Rome, cf. Dupont 1992: 272; for physically active legionaries, ibid., 125).

. The suggestion that Matthew’s version (“tomorrow’s bread”) reflects the situation of itinerant charismatics but Luke’s (“each day”) a more economically stable community (Bindemann 1991) is plausible but too speculative.

. Cf. Ex 16:4, devar-yom beyomo, “the [bread] of that day in its [proper] day”; cf. LXX: to tēshēmeras eis hēmeran. Some Gentile readers, especially in Rome, may have heard in it the broader practice of daily grain distribution (cf. Heinen 1990).

. Jewish people also anticipated the promised messianic banquet in the time to come (Is 25:6-8; cf. the discussions on a Qumran text in Priest 1963; Smith 1958-59: 224), a doctrine rabbinic literature emphasizes (m. ʾAbot 3:16; 4:16; b. Ber. 34b; Sanh. 98b; Gen. Rab. 51:8; 62:2; Ruth Rab. 5:6; Marmorstein 1968a: 46, 59, 120, 135). On eschatological manna or bread, see as above Mek. Vay. 3.42-45; 5.63-65; cf. Kuzenzama 1980; Christian material in Sib. Or. 7.149; on the hidden manna in the ark to be restored, see 2 Macc 2:4-7; 2 Bar. 29:8; 4 Bar. 3:10, 19; Lives of the Prophets 2.15/Schermann 25; t. Kip. 2:15; cf. Gangemi 1977; among Samaritans, McDonald 1964: 365; M. F. Collins 1972.

. Because the OT taught forgiving debts (Jos. Ant. 3.281-83 may suggest that the Jubilee continued in his day) and some lenders were tempted to quit lending, Jewish teachers by Jesus’ day found ways to get around biblical laws about forgiving debts in the seventh year (Sanders 1992: 427-28). Contrary to its intention, the prosbul, which perhaps originally reflects a hellenistic legal context (Llewelyn 1994: 225-32), probably perpetuated indebtedness (Horsley and Hanson 1985: 60). Debt enslavement (e.g., Amos 2:6; 8:6) provided a vivid metaphor for the danger of debt (Prov 22:7; Pub. Syr. 11). Although people often hated creditors (Herodian 7.7.3; Jer 15:10), aristocrats despised “demagogues” who proposed abolishing debts (Dion. Hal. 7.8.1; Appian R.H. 2.9; but cf. the popular move in Arrian Alex. 7.5.1-3); they felt that the poor might by necessity receive “grace” (chariti), but should not seek to get free forcibly (Dion. Hal. 6.81.3).

. The underlying Aramaic perfect tense could function as a present, “herewith we forgive our debtors,” i.e., one releases one’s debts during the prayer, hence the present tense of Lk 11:4 (Jeremias 1971: 201). This would have been less clear to most readers approaching Matthew in Greek, but Matthew’s sequence appears in 18:27-35. At any rate, the passage teaches that continuance in God’s grace demands mercy toward others (also 5:7).

. Cf. 13:19 with Mk 4:15; Lk 8:12; Jub. 50:5; Grelot 1989. Cf. also 5:37; 13:38; probably 1 Jn 5:18. I prefer this interpretation to the generic sense “evil” (certainly an “evil person” in general, the sense in 5:39, is not in view, despite prayers in the Psalms for deliverance from one’s enemies; cf. also 1QM 14.10), though some prayed for God to protect his people from sin (Jub. 1:19) and, in later texts, for eschatological deliverance from the evil impulse (Ex. Rab. 46:4).

. E.g., Schweitzer 1968: 364; Jeremias 1964b: 105-6; Tasker 1961: 74; George 1966; Brown 1972: 4; Meier 1980: 62.

. The antiquity of the specific phrase “birth pangs of the Messiah” has been questioned, but a Qumran hymn suggests that it may already have been in use (1QH 3.1-18; for various interpretations, see Baumgarten and Mansoor 1955; Brown 1957; S. Brown 1968; Gordis 1957; Silberman 1956; Brownlee 1956-57b; cf. Allegro 1956a: 95); certainly it was a general enough image of judgment in the OT (e.g., Is 26:17-19; Jer 4:31; 6:24; 13:21; Hos 13:13; Keener 1993: 594) and appears in early Christianity from the start (24:8; 1 Thess 5:3). Pace Sanders 1985: 23, the view that such testing was coming is widespread, however (e.g., Jub. 23.13; 1QM 15.1; Sib. Or. 3.213-15, 635-56; 4 Ezra 6:24; 7:29; 8:63–9:8; 2 Bar. chs. 26–30; Test. Mos. 7-8; often in later rabbinic texts, e.g., m. Soṭa 9:15; b. Sanh. 97a), regardless of the frequency of that phrase.

. Cf. Carson 1984a: 83; pace Schweizer 1975: 156; Moule 1974: 66-67; Marshall 1978: 461; idem 1974: 68.

. Cf. Cameron 1990, who suggests that the test here is a judicial test in God’s court (cf. Ps 26:2): “Do not judge us as we deserve”; but this suggestion would not fit Matthew’s parallelism with deliverance from the evil one nor the sense of the most common Jewish prayer language relevant here; cf. also the critique of Moore 1991.

. Houk 1966 and Lewis 1974 may be correct in finding an allusion to the exodus narrative, but find more than Matthew’s language warrants in reading, “lest we test God” (Ex 17:1-7; Houk 1966: 223; more tentatively Lewis 1974: 43; cf. Walker 1962; Grayston 1993).

. Sanders 1990: 73-76; idem 1992: 205-7 may overemphasize their rareness; but cf. the note in the Introduction in the section addressing the Birkath ha-Minim.

. Sanders 1985: 263 doubts that 6:16-18 fit the historical Jesus, whose disciples did not fast (Mk 2:18-22) and who was accused of being lax in asceticism (Mt 11:19). But while Jesus’ disciples fasted less than the Pharisees, Mark cannot mean that they never fasted (omission of the biblical fast, Yom Kippur, would have yielded serious charges of which the Gospels provide no hint); further, Judaism repudiated purely ascetic fasting (see above) and the charge in Mt 11 addresses eating with sinners, not failing to fast (see loc. cit.). The particular construction, of course, probably remains Matthean (Gundry 1982: 110).

. Davies and Allison 1988: 618 also cite 1 Sam 7:5-6; Tob 12:8; Philo Spec. Leg. 2.203; Pol. Phil. 7; Apoc. Zeph. 7:6; Test. Jacob 7:17 as coupling prayer with fasting; the last text is exorcistic and probably depends on Mk 9:29 MSS; on fasting for revelations, see, e.g., 2 Bar. 20:5; 43:3; Herm. 1.2.2; 1.3.1; 1.3.10; Lincoln 1981: 111. Later Jewish teachers viewed penitential fasting as a form of sacrifice (Abrahams 1917: 123; Urbach 1979: 1:434-35). Although later Jewish teachers generally scorned fasting for merely ascetic purposes (see b. Taʿan. 11a; p. Taʿan. 3:11, §3; 4:3, §2; Bonsirven 1964: 142), some appear to have practiced it (Safrai 1974/76c: 816; cf. p. Ned. 8:1, §1). Rabbis likewise warned against fasts that would endanger a weakened person’s (b. Taʿan. 14a, bar.) or (in view of high infant mortality) pregnant or nursing mother’s (t. Taʿan. 2:14) or child’s (t. Kip. 4:1-2) health, or one’s safety (t. Taʿan. 2:12).

. The Essenes’ reported aversion to oil is noted as exceptional (Jos. War 2.123). Oil was a basic staple (Sib. Or. 3.243), especially for such reasons. But it was also essential for lamps (25:3-4, 8; Ex 27:20; b. Shab. 26a), and could be used to anoint the sick (Life of Adam 40:1; Apoc. Moses 13:1; Mk 6:13; Jas 5:14), especially their wounds (m. Shab. 14:4; t. Shab. 12:12; Lk 10:34); or to anoint kings (1 Sam 10:1; Jos. Ant. 9.106) or priests (Ex 29:7; b. Ker. 5ab, bar.). In some sources, the ultimate healing oil would come only eschatologically (Life of Adam 41-42; Apoc. Mos. 13:2).

. Pilch 1992: 130 considers this activity deception; Guelich 1982: 299-300 denies it. The difference may be semantic; by suppressing activities normally associated with fasting, the passage expects disciples to lead others to believe that they are not fasting, though not explicitly denying that they are fasting.

. Matthew probably rearranges disparate Q material freely to emphasize his point, as rabbis would pull together various biblical citations; cf. Matthew’s double use of Mk 9:42-48 in Mt 5:29-30 and 18:8-9.

. Those who wish to grapple with how Jesus’ teaching might apply today might consult Sider 1990, a book Gordon Fee once declared “every American Christian should read,” or, on a broader economic level, Economic Justice 1986. Far more radical in some respects are many works by Wesley, Finney, and others; cf., e.g., Jennings 1990.

. Also Musonius Rufus On Clothing and Shelter 19 in Boring 1995: 81-82; Pythagoras in Malherbe 1986: 110.

. On Philo, cf. Schmidt 1983; Downing 1985; Mealand 1978b; idem 1985.

. Various commentators, following literally the Greek wording here, note that thieves would easily “dig” through mud-brick walls (e.g., Hagner 1993: 157, citing Job 24:16; cf. Test. Abr. 10A). Because such an invasion at night would be loud and slow, hence dangerous (especially given Ex 22:2-3), I regard Jesus’ language as graphic but probably not literal. By this period the term also meant “breaking and entering” (Luz 1989: 395).

. Cf. further Tob 4:8-10; 12:8; Test. Levi 13:5; Gen. Rab. 9:9; 53:5; Ex. Rab. 31:2; 45:6; Lev. Rab. 34:16; Qoh. Rab. 1:3, §1; Song Rab. 7:14, §1; Marmorstein 1968a: 20; Sandmel 1978b: 190-91; Guelich 1982: 327; cf. Col 1:5; 1 Pet 1:4; Gk. Ezra 1:14. For “treasuries” in heaven in a more cosmic sense, cf., e.g., 2 Enoch 5:1-2; 6; 3 Enoch 10:6; 2 Bar. 10:11.

. Scholars propose various reasons why Jesus’ rhetoric in Luke is stronger than the church’s behavior in Acts (Arai 1983; Kraybill and Sweetland 1983), but given Jesus’ own home base in Capernaum (Mt 4:13) and earlier in Nazareth (2:23), Jesus’ rhetoric may be radical not so that all believers immediately sell all possessions on conversion, but that they relinquish all valuing and ownership of them, hence stop acquiring possessions of merely personal value.

. Davies and Allison 1988: 641 contend for the authenticity of 6:22-23 because it (1) retranslates into Aramaic or Hebrew; (2) contains nothing distinctively Christian; (3) coheres with Jesus’ correlation of inner and outer; (4) fits Jesus’ appreciation for riddles and parables; and (5) exhibits the same formal structure as 6:24, which is likely authentic.

. Ancients differed as to whether external objects impressed the eyes or the eyes emitted light (cf. Arist. On Sense and Sensible Objects 2, 438ab; Aul. Gel. 5:16; Diog. Laert. 9.7.44; Plut. Table-Talk 1.8.4, Mor. 626C; Jos. and Asen. 6:6/3; Allison 1987a), and many scholars find reference to the latter view in Matthew or the Lukan parallel (e.g., Davies and Allison 1988: 635-36), although the body being enlightened may indicate that the eyes here admit light. In the figurative language of the day, light in the eye could symbolize the proportion of good or evil (Vermes 1993: 82); Philo uses the eye as an analogy for the mind (Creation 53, 66).

. Some spoke of the “evil eye” as not only jealous or stingy but opening up the way for magical dangers (baskainein) against its victims (cf. Deut 28:54, 56; Prov 23:6; 28:22 LXX; Test. Sol. 18:39; b. B. Meṣ. 85a; Gen. Rab. 84:10; Deut. Rab. 6:8; P. Oxy. 292.11-12; Select Papyri 1.318-19; Aul. Gel. 9.4.8; Plut. Table-Talk 5.7.1, Mor. 680C; Pleasant Life Impossible 5, Mor. 1090C; Aelian Animals 11.18; different references in Guelich 1982: 331; Elliott 1988; Kern-Ulmer 1991; Dickie 1991); cf. the principle in other cultures in Prince 1964: 92; Madson 1964: 426-27; Mbiti 1970: 269. The magical sense is generally absent in biblical occurrence (see Fensham 1967).

. Some scholars miss the wordplay in 6:22, arguing for either “single” eye or “generous” eye (Manson 1979: 93; cf. Schweizer 1975: 163) rather than both (France 1985: 139); but wordplays were common for advancing an argument (see on 2:23). 6:24 may have followed 6:22-23 directly in the tradition, since Pauline Christians applied “singleness” (6:22) to devotion to God as Christian slaves’ true Lord (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22). Matthew reports sayings about slaves of God (18:23; 21:34; cf. 20:27, of one another) and of Jesus (10:24; 24:45; 25:14). Others also condemned the hypocrisy of those with “two hearts” or “faces” or “mouths” (1 Enoch 91:4; Test. Asher 3:1-2; 4:1-2; Benj. 6:5-7), who have divided interests (Epict. Disc. 3.15.13; 4.10.25; cf. 2.1.28).

. The parallel to 6:24 that Safrai and Flusser cite — humans are slaves to both God and the evil impulse until they die (Safrai and Flusser 1976; Flusser 1988: 169-70) — misses Jesus’ point that one should not and ultimately cannot have two masters.

. “Hate” could mean “love less,” i.e., hate by comparison to one’s love for something else (10:37//Lk 14:26; Gundry 1982: 115 cites Gen 29:30, 33).

. See Black 1967: 139-40; Hengel 1974b: 24; Jeremias 1971: 6 n.2; Flusser 1988: 153; Davies and Allison 1988: 643.

. Jeremias (1963: 25; idem 1972: 215; 1971: 236) suggests that Jesus addressed these words to the departing missionaries (cf. 10:9-10); Theissen 1978: 13 associates these words specifically with wandering charismatics; others see the lifestyle depicted as appropriate only for peasants who have few material possessions to begin with (cf. Pilch 1991: 188). Given contemporary models in Jewish Palestine, however, he probably addresses all would-be disciples to a radical lifestyle relinquishing dependence on possessions, while not necessarily relinquishing all possessions (see comment on Mt 4:20; cf. Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35). At least ideally, Matthew’s whole community remains a missionary community (24:14; 28:19).

. Matthew 6:25-33 employs both arguments a maiori ad minus and a minori ad maius (see Dillon 1991).

. Cf. also Aesop’s Fables and the subsequent genre, e.g., Avianus Fables intro. 8-9. On God’s fatherly care for creation, see, e.g., Philo Creation 10, 172.

. Vermes 1993: 85-86 elaborates the contrast between Jesus and Simeon ben Eleazar here; but Jewish teaching certain presupposed God’s provision for his people (see, e.g., Davies and Allison 1988: 645, 650). Vermes 1993: 156n.4 thinks Matthew’s Semitic “birds of the air” more original than Luke’s “ravens” (Mt 6:31-32//Lk 12:24); he may be correct, but cf. 1 Kings 17:6, on which either Jesus or Luke may have drawn (often recalled, e.g., in Lev. Rab. 19:1; that pagans associated ravens with prophecy — Phaedrus 3.18.12 — is not likely relevant). Healey 1989 points here to a non-Masoretic variant on Proverbs 6:7 that does not seem to praise animals’ (ants’) industry; but such a model is too distant for the background of Jesus’ saying in 6:26 (praise of ants’ industry was also more widespread than Proverbs; cf. Virg. Aen. 4.402-7; Ovid Metam. 7.624-26, 655-57; Babrius 140; Phaedrus 4.25; cf. bees in Virg. Aen. 1.430-36; Georg. 4.156-57).

. The implied subject of the passive “shall be added” is God, as frequently in Jewish texts (Guelich 1982: 348).

. Frequently noted; see, e.g., Bultmann 1968: 106-7; Davies 1980: 221; Abrahams 1924: 208-9; Jeremias 1971: 18; Vermes 1993: 167n.21.

. Some other later Jewish and Christian sages chided those of “little faith” (e.g., Mek. Vay. 5.11-14, 84; b. Pesaḥ. 24b; 118b; Soṭa 48b; Sent. Sext. 6; cf. Abrahams 1924: 191; Held 1963: 293; Lachs 1987: 133). “Of little faith” is acceptable Greek, but the term appears only in Semitic literature before the Gospels (Jeremias 1971: 161; Black 1967: 132), suggesting either that even the term was early in the Jesus tradition (see Lk 12:28) and/or that it reflects Matthew’s Semitic world of thought (Mt 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20); it reduces the harshness of “no faith” (Mk 4:40).

. Patte 1987: 95 connects this section with the preceding context thus: as “disciples should not have a negative attitude (anxiety) toward their own situation” in 6:25-34, “so they should not have a negative attitude toward others” in 7:1.

. Cf. admonitions to proper judgment in m. ʾAbot 1:6, 8. The principle, “Judge not alone” (m. ʾAbot 4:8; cf. Deut. Rab. 1:10), reflects mistrust for human fairness (cf. Vermes 1993: 159; he does not regard single judges as the Galilean practice in Jesus’ day, however — 111-12; for Jewish priests as judges, cf. Diod. Sic. 40.3.5). Cf. the admonition in Cato Collection of Distichs 53. For God’s mercy to the merciful, see also texts in Davies and Allison 1988: 669; Lachs 1987: 136.

. Cf. similarly Isoc. Demon. 17, 48, Or. 1; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 20.1-2; Diog. Laert. Lives 6.2.28; probably Catonian lines in Columbanus 27 in Minor Latin Poets 1:630-31; Manson 1979: 58 cites Democritus.

. See at least four different early sources, plus later ones, in Smith 1951: 135; Dalman 1929: 225; Davies and Allison 1988: 670; Bivin 1991.

. Cf. possible parallels in Renehan 1973: 19; Hagner 1993: 169. The Talmud complains of those who resent “the mildest criticism. If someone is told, ‘Take the chip out of your eye!’ he retorts, ‘Take the beam out of yours!’ (b. ʿArak. 16b; b. B. Bat. 15b)” (Vermes 1993: 80; other texts in Lachs 1987: 137); if this is not a polemical distortion of Jesus’ saying, it probably reflects a common figure of speech, in which case Jesus is graphically saying that those who resent our criticism have a point until we get our lives in order.

. This would especially be the case if the surgeon’s eyes had been removed for ruining someone else’s in an earlier surgery (5:38; cf. similar penalties in some cultures, e.g., Hammurabi 218-20). Eye surgery sometimes involved lancing the eye (Epict. Disc. 1.25.32), a delicate operation. Crocker 1991 notes the use of bone rather than metal spatulas in removing articles from one’s eye.

. Lachs 1987: 138-40 notes rabbinic warnings against teaching Torah to Gentiles (e.g., b. Ḥag. 13a), the figurative use of pearls for clever teaching (t. Soṭa 7; Mek. on Ex 13:2; ARN 18; b. Ḥag. 3a), and dogs and pigs as Gentiles (b. Shab. 188a; Yoma 29a); yet curiously he concludes that here dogs represent Samaritans (Gen. Rab. 81:3) and pigs, Rome.

. Many think the text contains an allusion to dogs disdaining holy things like sacrificial food (Smith 1951: 146; Kahane 1957; Gundry 1982: 123; France 1985: 143); one writer less reasonably suggests that a scribe altered the text to read thus (Maxwell-Stuart 1979; but cf. Llewelyn 1989, who suggests an intentional reapplication). People threw dogs meat (Gen. Rab. 57:4; meat torn by animals was always to be left for the dogs — Ex 22:31; Ps-Phocyl. 147-48; contrast von Lips 1988), but Aseneth felt it better to throw sacrificial meat to street dogs (scavengers) than to her pets (Jos. and Asen. 10:13).

. Jewish texts considered dogs evil (e.g., Sifre Deut. 81.4.2) and regarded them as unclean and scavengers (cf., e.g., b. Sanh. 108b, bar.; Shab. 121b, 128a) alongside pigs (for pigs’ uncleanness, cf., e.g., Jos. War 1.34; b. Ber. 25a; Qidd. 49b; Gen. Rab. 63:8; probably Mt 8:31; Aelian Animals 7.19); one early Christian text links apostate Christians in this capacity with both dogs and swine (2 Pet 2:22); probably because they both liked unclean surroundings, some other texts also link them (e.g., Aristoph. Peace 24; Hor. Epodes 1.2.25-26; Davies and Allison 1988: 677 cite also 1 Enoch 89:42; P. Oxy. 5.840.33; b. Shab. 155b; Hor. Epodes 2.2.75, of varying value). For pigs’ uncleanness in ancient Egypt, cf. ANET 10; Herod. Hist. 2.47; Plut. Isis , Mor. 353CF; Jos. Apion 2.141; for chthonic deities, ANET 209, 351; Moyer 1969: 29, 96 (citing, e.g., KUB 17.28.4-5; 36.83.3, 7); Aristophanes Peace 1.372; Ferguson 1987: 202.

. By contrast, Luz 1989: 419 altogether abandons reading it in its Matthean context, suggesting (probably rightly) that its original, proverbial sense in Q allowed multivalent usage.

. Cf. the Pythagorean akousma, “Do not throw bread into a chamber pot,” which was understood as, “Do not try to teach those who are unfit to receive your teachings” (Thom 1994: 109).

. Jeremias wrongly construes the asking of 7:7 more narrowly than I have as the image of the asking of beggars (1971: 191). Although he is correct that beggars learned the lesson of persistence, Jesus contextually refers only to children asking from fathers (7:11), a relationship that undoubtedly yielded more answered requests!

. Compare Luke’s parallel section, in which the Lord’s Prayer and this connected exhortation address prayer for Spirit-empowerment (Lk 11:13; this is probably Lukan redaction, with Menzies 1991: 181; Witherington 1994: 243; pace Gundry 1982: 124; cf. Jas 1:17). (Compare Wis 6:14: whoever seeks Wisdom will find her.)

. For exceptions, cf., e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 28:2; Pesiq. R. 23:9 (God answers the prayers of those who delight in the Sabbath); third-century Test. Adam 1:10 (if one prays at the right time of night); Ep. Arist. 18 (not a promise, but a hope that God hears prayers motivated by righteousness; cf. Ep. Arist. 192). Cf. also Herm. 2.9. Though Goodenough 1953/68: 2:160 wrongly relates the promise in Jn 14:13 to magical name invocation (cf. Keener 1993: 299-300), he observes that it exceeds anything “claimed for most charms.”

. This may stem from the commonplace that in some cases humanity has corrupted everything good (e.g., Diod. Sic. 12.1.1). Cf. Diog. Laert. Lives 6.2.42: Diogenes “would rebuke men in general with regard to their prayers, declaring that they asked for those things which seemed to them to be good, not for such as are truly good” (LCL 2:44-45); or Diog. Laert. Lives 2.136: when Menedemus heard one claim “that the greatest good was to get all you want, he rejoined, ‘To want the right things is a far greater good’” (LCL 1:266-67; cf. also Sent. Sext. 88). In Jos. Apion 2.197, God has given what is good, so prayer is securing it.

. Neusner 1984: 23; cf. Pliny N.H. 22.68.138; Sib. Or. 3.243; in more detail Lewis 1983: 68. Ancients typically regarded wheat as the most important kind of food besides wine (e.g., Diod. Sic. 4.3.5).

. Giving bread as an act of kindness might be contrasted with casting stones (Phaedrus 3.2.17-18). That a loaf of peasant bread could appear as a stone and one variety of local catfish looked like a snake (Jeremias 1972: 226; Meier 1980: 70; France 1985: 144) is probably irrelevant since that kind of fish was unclean and fathers would not serve it anyway (cf. Jeremias 1972: 226). That women often cooked bread on hot, flat stones and that small pieces of stone sometimes invaded the flour (Hepper 1992: 92) is probably also irrelevant, except for possible associations of image.

. Although Jesus commonly uses the divine passive, Blomberg 1992a: 130 thinks that this without a subject allows the notion here that God will decide what is best when “(it) is given” to you. God was known for his beneficence of good gifts for his people (Tob 4:19; Philo Creation 77-78; Gen. Rab. 13:15; 1 Tim 4:4; Jas 1:17; in paganism, Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus in Stobaeus Eclogae 1.1.12).

. Qal waḥomer is extremely frequent in rabbinic texts, e.g., m. ʾAbot 1:15 (on an extrabiblical saying!); t. Ber. 4:16, 17; 6:19; Peʾa 3:8; Ter. 6:4; Kil. 5:6; Maʿaś. 2:2; Shab. 15:16; B. Qam. 7:6; ʿEd. 3:4; Mek. Pisha 1.38; 2.36-37; 7.48, 61; 9.45; 13.105; 16.119, 126; Beshallah 1.54; 2.73; 7.128; Bahodesh 5.90; 11.64, 109; Nez. 1.101; 2.17; 3.43, 69, 128; 10.47, 67; 12.5; 16.92; 18.79, 80, 83, 97; Kaspa 2.26; 5.51, 80, 103; Shabbata 1.14; 2.41; Sifra V. D. Den. par. 2.3.4.3; par. 3.5.3.2; par. 5.10.1.1; V. D. Deho. pq. 12.53.1.3; Sifra Sav pq. 8.80.1.2; par. 9.90.1.3, 8; pq. 17.96.1.1; Sav Mekilta DeMiluim par. 98.8.5, 7; 98.9.5; Shemini Mekilta deMiluim 99.3.9; Sifra Shir. par. 1.100.3.1; pq. 3.104.1.3; pq. 4.105.2.2; 3.2; pq. 6.99.3.7, 8; pq. 9.115.7, 8; Neg. pq. 1.127.2.1; 127.3.11; par. 3.131.1.1; pq. 8.139.1.1; Mes. par. 2.150.1.2, 5, 10; Zab. par. 1.160.2.1; pq. 1.161.4; par. 2.163.1.1; pq. 3.164.2.2; par. 3.166.2.1; Qed. pq. 11.209.1.7; Emor par. 1.211.1.8; par. 12.236.1.2; Behuq. par. 1.260.1.1; pq. 2.262.1.9; pq. 12.276.3.13; Sifre Num. 1.4.1; 1.6.3; 8.1.1; 15.1.1; 15.2.2; 16.3.1; 18.1.1; 23.1.1; 25.7.1; 26.6.1; 28.2.2; 29.1.1; 30.1.1; 30.2.1; 31.3.2; 31.4.1; 35.1.2; 42.1.1; 42.2.3; 78.1.1; 78.4.1; 92.4.1; 99.2.2; 103.1.1; 104.1.1; 105.1.1; 107.3.2, 3; 111.5.3; 112.2.3; 115.3.2; Sifre Deut. 1.8.2-3; 18.2.2; 26.1.1; 27.2.1; 32.5.1, 4; 34.2.1; 35.1.2; 37.1.2, 5; 37.2.1; 38.1.4; 38.2.3; 47.3.1-2; b. Ber. 62b; B. Meṣ. 2b; 3ab; Ḥag. 27a; Shab. 143b; Ter. 16a; Gen. Rab. 60:7; 73:5; 81:4; 82:14; 92:7; 100:6, bar.; Lev. Rab. 25:6; 31:2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:16. For Hillel’s seven rules, cf., e.g., t. Sanh. 7:11; ARN 37A; Beraita DeRabbi Ishmael Pereq 1.8; for Ishmael’s thirteen, e.g., Beraita DeRabbi Ishmael Parashah 1.1; b. Ḥul. 115b.

. This is hardly the only example in Jesus’ teaching (pace Bultmann 1968: 185; cf., e.g., 6:30; 10:25), though it is often implicit (e.g., Lk 18:6-7). This traditional Jewish feature could represent a mark of authenticity, though the matter is not so readily decided (the same form appears outside Jewish Palestine; cf. Aristotle in Kennedy 1980: 71). Some take the rare “Who among you?” formulation as a sign that the saying is authentic; see Aune 1983: 165.

. At least since a sermon of John Wesley in 1750, this has been called the “Golden Rule” (Guy 1959); over a millennium earlier, a Christian Roman emperor allegedly engraved the saying on his wall in gold (France 1985: 145).

. Ancient wisdom also included the more familiar political strategy of today: Do to others what they would do to you if they could before they can (Demosth. 1st Olynthiac Oration 24).

. One may compare Isoc. Demon. 21, Or. 1; To Nic. 38, Or. 2; Nic./Cypr. 49, 3.37; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 47.11; Diog. Laert. 1.36, 59 (Thales, Solon); Syr. Men. Sent. 245-51; Pub. Syr. 2; cf. Arist. Rhet. 1.5.16, 1361b. For Stoic parallels to the Golden Rule, cf. Epict. Disc. 1.11.25; Hierocles Duties. Fraternal Love 4.27.20; see van der Horst 1975: 157; early Christian philosophers carried on the thought (Sent. Sext. 179-80); cf. also Gos. Thom. 6.3 (a derivative form; see Chilton 1994: 123-49). Although the idea in the positive form existed in Judaism (Sir 31/34:15; ARN 26A; 29, §60B; Targ. Ps-J. on Lev 19:18), the lack of the form suggests to Vermes the authenticity of Jesus’ saying by the criterion of dissimilarity (1993: 41). One could as easily argue that hellenistic Christians adapted its form, but the presence of the idea in Judaism makes the small change in form relatively simple and the common property of sages.

. Because the evidence for Hillel’s saying is so late (Sanders 1992: 258), one could argue that Matthew’s use of the phrase as a legal epitome may have influenced his contemporaries; but it was clearly in vogue by the early second century (ARN 25, §53B). Jewish teachers also produced other epitomes of the law, however (ARN 27A; 24, §49B; Philo Decal. 154; 4 Macc 2:7-9; cf. Epict. Disc. 1.20.14-15; Diog. Laert. 6.1.11); a general summary of principles was an important practice of Jewish law (Goulder 1974: 25; Vermes 1993: 44).

↑ Back to top