Part 84
(excommunication). The community's decision then has the authority of heaven itself (w. 18—20), for its prayer is in effect Jesus' prayer, and his prayer cannot but be answered (v. 20 (This verse may revise the rabbinic notion that the shekinah or divine effulgence is present when two or more gather to study Torah; cf. m. 'Abot 3.2, 3, 6. As in the Mishnah, so in Matthew: holy space is determined not by geography but activity. The difference is that in the gospel space is made holy by the presence of Christ and entered into by gathering in his name.)
The instructions to correct another have a long history in Jewish literature. The key text is Lev 19:15—18, which enjoins not hating others but reproving them (cf. Sir 19:13-20:2). In the Dead Sea scrolls Lev 19:15—18 is behind a formal procedure: one first takes a complaint to the individual against whom it is directed; if this does not have the intended effect, one then goes before the community. Also close to Matthew is T. Gad 6:3—5, where, on the basis of Lev 19:15—18, one is to speak in love to an offender, forgive if repentance is made, and do all this in secret.
Following the hard instructions on excommunication is teaching on forgiveness which functions as a hedge against rigidity and absolutism (w. 21—2). To Peter's question whether he should forgive seven times, Jesus says that he should forgive seventy-seven or (the Greek is ambiguous) seventy times seven times. This makes explicit the attitude required if one is to correct another. Forgiveness, like love, must be limitless. Without such forgiveness the community cannot correct the wayward, pray as a united front, and have Christ in its midst.
(v. 3), greatness in the kingdom (v. 4), service in the world (^ 5)-
With v. 6 the tone is no longer one of promise but warning. To cause a believer to be misled or perverted morally brings a fate worse than being thrown into the dark, eternal grave of the sea with a donkey millstone around one's neck (cf. Rev 18:21). God sees to it that one cannot harm others without harming oneself. It is indeed true that skandala, 'stumbling blocks', are necessary, for evil must flourish in the latter days
Although many have felt tension between w. 21—2 and 15— 20, Lev 19:17 joins reproof and love, and so in Judaism the two belong together. Further, membership in the Matthean community disallows certain acts; the church would cease to be itself if it did not insist that its members acknowledge Christ's standard of behaviour. The spirit of forgiveness is not indifference to sin. So we may suppose that when the offended goes to the offender, there has already been forgiveness; the reproof is for the sake of the other.
(24:6); but this does not entail that any one individual must commit them (v. 7). The self is in fact called to rid itself of whatever in it leads to sin (w. 8-9; the references to hand and eye do not, in Pauline fashion, represent members of the church; they are rather hyperbolic illustrations, as in 5:29—30). The underlying logic seems to be that in order to avoid offending others (v. 7) one must also take care of oneself (w. 8-9). The self must suffer a 'life-giving mortification' (Symeon the New Theologian).
The chapter ends with the parable of the unforgiving servant (18:23-35). It does not merely illustrate w. 21-2, which are a call for repeated forgiveness. Rather w. 23-35 make the additional points that failure to forgive (i) is failure to act as
MATTHEW 868
ally be answered. Does 'except for unchastity' qualify only the first verb ('divorces') or both verbs (also 'marries') ? Patristic opinion, burdened by a less than enthusiastic view of marriage, disallowed remarriage and so understood our text accordingly. The link with w. 10—12, which have to do with sexual abstinence, has been taken to uphold this view: the eunuchs for the kingdom are those who separate from their spouses because of 'adultery' and do not remarry. Yet the saying about eunuchs is not a command but a qualified recommendation: not all are given the gift. So if w. 10—12 are closely associated with v. 9, it might appear that some can remarry. One also wonders whether something like the later distinction between separation and divorce would have made sense in Matthew's environment. The Jewish divorce bill contained the clause, 'You are free to marry again.' To obtain a divorce was to obtain permission to remarry (5:32 simply assumes that divorce leads to remarriage: to divorce a wife is to make her commit adultery—because she will take another spouse).
God—represented by the king who remits the incredible sum of 10,000 talents—and (2) will merit eschatological punishment (cf. 6:15).
Commencement of the Passion (19:1-25:46)
(19:1—12) Ch. 18 has to do with ecclesiastical issues, ch. 19 with everyday existence: marriage and divorce (w. 1—9), celibacy (w. 10-12), children (w. 13-15), and money (19:1620:16)—all key social concerns. There is in all this a certain parallelism (reflective of a catechetical order?) with 6:1—7:12, where Jesus first discusses cultic issues (6:1—18) and next speaks to social issues (6:19-7:12).
The extended dialogue in 19:1-12, in which Jesus three times responds to a challenge or question, covers a topic already considered in the SM (5:31—2); but the declaration there made, without explanation, is now elucidated. The subject of celibacy, on the other hand, has not previously appeared (although in 1:24—5 Joseph refrains from 'knowing' Mary for a time).
The disciples' response to Jesus' teaching is unexpected. Just as they wrongly rebuke people for bringing a child to Jesus in the next paragraph, and just as they will wonder, 'Then who can be saved?' in the paragraph after that, so here too: they misunderstand. The correct inference from Jesus' exaltation of lifelong marriage is not the promulgation of celibacy. But the disciples, holding a view of marriage and divorce akin to that in Sir 25:16—26, and reasoning that a lifetime of commitment to one woman is more burdensome than no involvement at all, conclude that it is better not to marry.
The Pharisees, who want Jesus to contradict Moses, challenge their opponent to interpret the crwat dabar of Deut 24:1, a phrase given different interpretations by the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Matthew's 'for any cause' reflects knowledge of the more liberal and presumably dominant Hillelite position, according to which many things constitute grounds for divorce. The question then is whether Jesus agrees or, on the contrary, holds a less liberal position. Jesus directs his opponents to Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:24 and so responds by raising the issue of the permanence of marriage. 'Have you not read?' invites reconsideration of the implications of Genesis: has God not established lifelong partnership? CD 4:19-21 shows that before Jesus' time Gen 1:27 was brought into connection with the subject of marriage and used to endorse its permanence. (Cf. perhaps Mai 2:15; in Gal 3:28 the allusion to Gen 1:27 LXX upholds the theme of reunification.)
The crux of v. n is 'this teaching'. Does it refer to w. 3—9 or to v. 9 (Jesus' teaching on divorce) or to v. 10 (the disciples' inference from Jesus' teaching) or does it anticipate or introduce v. 12 (the saying about eunuchs)? Or can no sense be made of the passage because disparate traditions have been merged? A reference to w. 3-9 or 9 is unlikely. It would make v. 12 address those who have separated from their wives and enjoin them to remain single. But v. 9 does not clearly exclude the prospect of remarriage if there has been divorce for adultery. Further, the gift of celibacy is something exceptional, something that cannot be accepted by everyone, whereas surely Jesus' teaching on divorce is for all. Finally, one could not in any case speak of a command not to remarry: w. 11—12 contain only a recommendation.
Jesus' position requires him to elucidate Deut 24:1, where God permits divorce. The main point is not that the teaching of Genesis is from God, that in Deuteronomy from Moses. Rather, the instructions in Deut 24:1 are a concession to the moral petrification of the post-fallen state. Jesus does not undo Deut 24:1 but rather distinguishes the perfect will of God from the commandments which reflect human sinfulness (cf. the legislation for kingship, an institution due to divine concession). With this distinction in mind Jesus can demand conformity to the will of God as it was expressed in the beginning. Probably in the background is the equation of beginning and end: the coming of the kingdom is the restoration of paradise and so the realization of what God intended from the beginning. In any case the only command in Deut 24:1—4 is that 'her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife'. This matters because whereas in v. 7 the Pharisees ask why Moses 'commanded' a certificate of divorce to be given, ill v. 8 Jesus speaks of Moses giving permission. Here then there is a correction: Moses did not command divorce; he only allowed it—seemingly as the lesser of two evils in some circumstances.
Does 'this teaching' then point forward to v. 12? This is possible. But a connection with v. 10 is more likely. The disciples' remark in v. 10 is a transitional sentence. They have drawn an inference about celibacy from Jesus' teaching on marriage. Jesus does not go back to the subject of marriage but takes up the question of celibacy ('this teaching'). His main thrust may be seen in the contrast between the disciples' unqualified generalization and his own denial of universal applicability. Note how the qualifications are piled up: 'not everyone', 'those to whom it is given', 'let anyone accept this who can'. Bengel rightly wrote: 'Jesus opposes these words [w. 11-12] to the universal proposition of his disciples.' Matthew does use the saying on eunuchs to confirm celibacy as a calling; but his emphasis—in contradiction to the disciples— is upon its special character. Perhaps the evangelist felt a need to combat a perceived excess in his own community. There
The problem of whether v. 9 allows remarriage for the innocent party (so traditionally most Protestants) cannot fin-
869 MATTHEW
eschatological reversal (5:3—12), and perfection (5:48) also resurface here.
was certainly a growing fondness for asceticism and so for celibacy in the Hellenistic world.
This passage also reinforces and illustrates the SM's teaching on Torah. Jesus' words to the rich man and the disciples do not abolish the law. On the contrary, they enjoin the commandments. Indeed, because the two texts cited—the Decalogue and Lev 19.18—were understood as summaries of, or headings for, the law (see below), their endorsement perhaps even implies the validity of 'the least of these commandments'. In any event two of the OT verses cited in 5:21—48 (Ex 20:13, Z4 II Deut 5:17, 18) are here quoted by Jesus, and without any qualification. The Decalogue is plainly still in force. Both the SM and w. 16—30 affirm the Torah and at the same time demand more.
According to the rabbis there were two sorts of eunuchs, those of human device and those of nature's making (cf. m. Zab. 2:1). The first, the 'eunuch of man', was a male who had either been literally castrated or who had, sometime after birth, lost the power to reproduce. The second was the 'eunuch of the sun', that is, from the first seeing of the sun—one born with defective male organs (cf. b. Yebam. 7gb). While the rabbinic sources are late, 19:12 shows that in this regard they preserve an old way of speaking. Jesus takes up the traditional categories and to them adds a third—men who are unmarried not because they cannot take a wife but rather because they will not, because the duty placed upon them is such that it is best discharged outside marriage. For these people, the good and valuable thing that marriage undoubtedly is must be sacrificed in view of the demand made upon them by something greater.
w. 16-22 recount a call to discipleship. To the question about eternal life, Jesus responds with a question, a theological assertion, and an imperative. This last changes the metaphor from market to road: Jesus demands not a purchase but a pilgrimage. He also rejects the implication that in some way the OT is inadequate. Pilgrimage means keeping the second table of the Decalogue (the table on social relations: Ex 20:12—16; Deut 5:16—20) and, in accord with Leviticus, loving one's neighbour as oneself. The omission of the first table is perhaps surprising; but the issue at hand will prove to be social, and certainly Calvin was correct to observe that right action (as depicted by the second table) is proof of right religion (as outlined by the first table; Inst. 2.8.52—3).
(19:13-15) This stark narrative consists of narrative introduction (v. 13) + dominical word (v. 14) + narrative conclusion (v. 15). The introduction sets the scene: some (unspecified) want Jesus to bless children (infants?); the disciples, for reasons unknown, protest. Once the opposition is generated, Jesus reveals with whom he sides—first by word, then by deed. Both acts of communication implicitly rebuke the disciples while an indusio (the laying on of hands appears in both w. 13 and 15) confirms the instincts of those who bring the children for blessing. Thus the pericope reinforces the sympathy one feels for children elsewhere in this gospel (14:13—21; 15:21-8, 29-39; I^:3; 21:15). After the discussion of marriage and celibacy, children are now the subject. The order is natural and occurs elsewhere, as in Philo, DC fug. 1.3; Eph 5:21—6:4; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2. 199— 204; Ps.-Phoc. 175-217. Children should be received 'for it is to such as these [those in the situation of children] that the kingdom of heaven belongs' (cf. 5:3, 10; Ps 8:1—2; b. Sank. nob). Interpreted in the light of 18:3, this teaches humility, by which is meant lack of concern for worldly status. To be childlike is to be without power or position. So there are two lessons: be kind to children, embody humility.
The question, 'Which ones?' (v. 18), might imply the unimportance of parts of the Torah: only some commandments are required for salvation. Jesus' response dispels that notion. He quotes the Decalogue and Lev 19:18. The former was thought of as a summary of, or heading for, the whole law (cf. Philo, Spec. leg. i.i) whereas the latter (or the chapter to which it belonged) was sometimes said to contain the Torah in nuce
(Sipra Lev. on 19:1—4). So v. 19 directs attention not to isolated texts but to parts that stand for the whole.
In v. 21 Jesus demands not merely alms but everything. This is not an imperative of the Decalogue or the OT but something new, a novel charge engendered by the nature of discipleship and the greater righteousness announced by 5:20. But what is meant by being 'perfect'? There has always been a tendency to sort Christians into two grades, one more advanced than the other, e.g. in monasticism. But v. 21 does not mean that Christians who sell all will be 'perfect' while others will be stuck with 'a second degree of virtue' (Jerome). Calvin was right: 'Our Lord is not proclaiming a general statement that is applicable to everyone, but only to the person with whom He is speaking.' This passage is a call story, like those in 4:18-20; 8:18-22; and 9:9. The rich man is being invited to follow Jesus in a specific situation. This circumstance determines what is asked of him. One can no more generalize v. 21 than turn 8:22 ('leave the dead to bury their own dead') into a general order to neglect the deceased. Moreover, the continuation in 19:22—6 shows that the rich man loses not perfection but salvation.
If in 19:10 the disciples assert that it is better not to marry, in v. 13 they belittle children. Both judgements are consistent with a negative view of family life—and in both cases Jesus offers correction. In 19:11—12 he makes it plain that celibacy is not for everyone, and in w. 13—15 he affirms that children are to be welcomed. So w. 13-15, in their present context, reinforce 19:11-12 and so confirm the high view of marriage put forward in 19:1—9.
This passage has been used to justify infant baptism; but there is hardly evidence for thinking that this was an issue for the synoptic evangelists. On the other hand, perhaps the practice of blessing children in church was already a matter for discussion in the first century.
(19:16—30) The subject of domestic affairs continues with a section on wealth and the kingdom. The topic has already been extensively treated in the SM. Indeed, the saying about the impossibility of serving both God and mammon (6:24) is here concretely demonstrated. The subjects of treasure in heaven (6:19-21), generosity (6:22-3),
What then is meant by 'perfect' ? It can hardly be a reference to sinlessness, although such an idea would not have been foreign to ancient Jews. In 5:48 the connotation of completeness is foremost, but whereas there it is the completeness of love, here it is the completeness of obedience: perfection is
MATTHEW 870
Beyond this the parable teaches that God rewards human beings according to an unexpected goodness—although this teaching functions not as encouragement but as warning (cf. 19:30). God's kindness, in this regard analogous to Jesus' moral imperatives, satisfies justice and then goes further. So the less deserving may receive as much as the more deserving. Like the Spirit, the divine grace blows where it wills. That destroys all human reckoning and therefore all presumption. It is a truth that must be absorbed after the heady promises of 19:28—9: hope should never become selfsatisfaction.
perfect obedience. The rich man would be perfect if he exhibited wholehearted obedience to Jesus Christ.
In w. 23—6 Jesus turns from the rich man to his disciples and gives commentary on what has just happened. His point is that God's kingdom is hard to reach if one is rich, for the rich inevitably trust in the security of wealth rather than in God alone. Indeed, in the absurd juxtaposition of the largest native beast in Palestine with a well-known example of a very small opening in v. 24, Jesus speaks about the impossible: 'one impossibility is compared with another'
(Jerome).
One might suppose that in 19:16-30 salvation is according to works: one must obey the Torah and Jesus Christ. But w. 1—15 disallow this simplistic interpretation, for they clearly teach, albeit in a picture, that there is no necessary proportion between human work and divine reward; or, as Isaac the
The disciples' subsequent question, which uncritically presupposes (against the rest of Matthew) that wealth is a sign of divine favour, implies that if not even the rich man, blessed as he is by God, can enter the kingdom, who can? The answer lies in God's omnipotence, which is antithetical to human impotence: regarding salvation only God has strength—just as, with regard to goodness, God and human beings belong to different categories (cf. v. 17). But note that v. 26 speaks only of the possible, not the probable. God's omnipotence does not guarantee anyone's salvation, v. 26 is not comfort for the rich; it does not cancel w. 23—4.
Syrian provocatively put it, 'How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers?' (Ascetical Homilies, 51). Many have even found a Pauline doctrine of grace here. (20:17-19) This detailed passion prediction summarizes the major events subsequent to Gethsemane. Their order is that of the passion narrative, except in the latter the scourging comes before the mocking, w. 17-19 move the story forward by taking Jesus closer to Jerusalem and by forecasting for a third time and so emphasizing upcoming events. As compared with the earlier passion predictions (16:21; 17:22—3), the condemnation to death, deliverance to Gentiles, mocking, scourging, and crucifixion are new. As Jesus nears his end, its shape becomes plainer. Also plainer is Jesus' foreknowledge, which is not vague but exact.
In w. 27—30 Peter asks how things stand with itinerants such as himself who have, in contrast with the rich man, forsaken all. Jesus responds first by offering congratulations and promising future reward. But the happy words are soon balanced with the caution of 20:1—16: if the twelve are examples of the last becoming first, they need beware, lest they likewise become examples of the first becoming last.
The crucial v. 28, which alludes to Dan 7:9—27, refers not to a one-time judgement but to lordship. The text is not about Israel's condemnation atthe consummation but the disciples' exercise of authority in the future (cf. 20:20—1). As the twelve phylarchs once directed the twelve tribes under Moses, and as Israel was once ruled by judges, so shall it be at the end. Compare the Jewish prayer in the Shemoneh 'Esreh: 'Restore our judges as in former times.'
This passage is surrounded by two sizeable paragraphs having to do with eschatological rewards. But w. 17—19 are not a disruptive foreign body; they illustrate 19:30—20:16 in that Jesus is the last (in his sufferings and death) who will be the first (when God exalts him). As for the link with 20:20-3, the passion prediction illumines exactly what 'the cup' there spoken of is. Further, the tragic solemnity of w. 17—19 is a perfect foil for v. 20: following Jesus' announcement of suffering we do not next read that his disciples showed concern for him—only that some people were preoccupied with their selfcentred hopes. The loneliness of the passion narrative is already felt here. (20:20-8) The two scenes—w. 20-3 (on false ambition) and w. 24-8 (on true service)—exhibit parallelism (cf. v. 21 with 23, v. 22 with 23, v. 25/7 with c, v. 26 with 27) and continue the theme of the third passion prediction, namely, Jesus' death
(20:1-16) The parable, which recounts the events of a single day, falls into two parts, w. 1—7 (which open with sunrise) describe the hiring of labourers, and w. 8—16 (which are set in the evening) then recount the story of payment. The point is not to contrast Jews and Gentiles (or Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians); nor is the passage an allegory of human life (childhood, adolescence, etc.) or of world history, or salvation history, or spiritual progress; neither is it a pictorial representation of 21:31—the toll-collectors and prostitutes (i.e. the last) go into the kingdom of God before the Pharisees (i.e. the first). It is also not a supplement to 19:16—30, illustrating how the last (cf. the disciples and those who come at the eleventh hour) become first and how the first (cf. the rich man and those hired at the first hour) become last. The text is rather a parable of the last judgement which functions as a warning against boasting or presuming oneself to be among the first, w. 1-15 are framed by 19:20 and 20:16, which teach eschatological reversal. So w. 1—15 mean above all that the promise of reward (cf. the previous paragraph) should not become ground upon which to stand. The last can become first.
(w. 17-19). It is not the sons themselves who make the request but their mother. Perhaps the reader should recall i Kings 1:15-21, where Bathsheba appears before King David. The king enquires, 'What do you wish?' She in turn asks the throne for Solomon. The LXX uses prosekunesen of the mother
(v. 16; cf. v. 31) and kathesetai of the son (w. 17, 20; cf. v. 30). One can also think of the one other place in the gospel where a mother appeals to Jesus on behalf of a child: 15:21—8, the story of the Canaanite woman. Of that woman too prosekunei is used (v. 25). Is the similarity of the two texts designed to stimulate reflection on the differences between the two supplicants and
871 MATTHEW
(20:29—34) Carter (1994: 203) has observed that if chs. 19—20 outline a difficult way of life at odds with 'dominant hierarchical household patterns', a way of 'life that is opposed and misunderstood', our story appropriately follows: 'after the uncompromising demand of chs. 19—20 ... this pericope underlines that God's compassionate mercy and power are available for all disciples who, in the midst of difficult circumstances, recognize their inadequacy and call for God's help'.
so instruct one in what sorts of petitions are proper and which not?
The mother's question, which is about eschatological rule and places of honour, recognizes Jesus' destiny and correctly assumes his great authority. But the request is misdirected and takes no account of what has just been predicted. Although crowds will soon hail Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, Jerusalem will see him mount not a throne but a cross—and those at his right and left will be not glorified apostles but crucified criminals (27:38). That Matthew indeed intended an ironic allusion to this last scene seems probable: in both places the Greek wording is the same.
This passage is remarkably reminiscent of 9:27—30. In both Jesus is being followed, two blind men appear, the blind men cry out and say, 'Have mercy on us, Son of David', Jesus touches their eyes, and they see again. There are also striking verbal links (cf. e.g. 20:29, 3°> with 9:27). These parallels form a sort of indusio. The first restoration of sight occurs towards the beginning of the ministry, the second near the end. This gives an artistic unity to the whole gospel. Furthermore, the first takes place before corporate Israel has rejected Jesus, the second after that rejection has become manifest. So despite being rejected, Jesus' charity remains the same throughout. His difficulties do not cancel his compassion.
Neither for Jesus nor for Matthew should the 'cup' be equated with 'temptations' or (with reference to 26:27) given
a sacramental interpretation; nor can there be any real connection with the drink given to Jesus on the cross (27:34,48). It is also improbable that 'cup' refers simply to death (although the targums do know the expression, 'taste the cup of death') or martyrdom (as in later Christian texts). In the OT and intertestamental literature 'cup' is often used figuratively in texts about suffering, especially suffering God's wrath or judgement; and that illumines the usage here. The cup that Jesus will drink (cf 26:39) is the cup of eschatological sorrow, which will be first poured out upon the people of God (cf. Jer 25:15-29). Jesus will face God's judgement.
Is there a lesson in the juxtaposition of 20:20—8 andw. 29— 34? In the former, two privileged insiders (James and John) make a request through a third party (their mother). The request is prefaced by no title of respect or majesty, it concerns the eschatological future, and it involves personal exaltation
(to sit at the right and left of the Messiah). In the latter, two outsiders (the blind men) make a request that a third party (the crowd) tries to stifle. That request is prefaced by titles of respect and majesty, concerns the present, and is for something necessary that is taken for granted by most (sight). One might infer that petitions are more likely to be heard when addressed directly, with respect, and for things truly needful.
v. 28, which probably alludes to both Dan 7:13—14 and Isa 53:10-12, is the climax to w. 20-8. It is the last word Jesus speaks before going up to Jerusalem and shows him to be the Son of Man in whom word and deed are one, the true king whose one aim is to benefit his subjects. The word traditionally translated 'ransom' means deliverance by payment. In the LXX it invariably means 'ransom-price' and appears in various contexts—of the half-shekel poll tax, of payment to save one's life after one has killed another, of buying back mortgaged property, of buying an enslaved relation, and of the redemption of the firstborn. In the present instance the principle of 'life for life' (Ex 21:23) is operative. Like the death of the martyrs in 4 Mace 1:11; 6:28—9; an(^ 17:20—2, Jesus' death has a beneficial effect upon others—here 'the many', by which is meant 'all' (cf. Rom 5:15,19; i Tim 2:6).
(21:1-11) This story, which reminds one of i Sam 10:1-9 (the finding of donkeys for Saul), pulls forward several threads from the previous chapters—the theme of prophetic fulfilment (cf. 1:22-3, etc-)> Jesus> trek to Jerusalem (cf. 16:21; 20:17), his 'meekness' (cf. 11:29), his status as 'king' (cf. 2:112), 'Son of David' (cf. 1:1—18), 'the coming one' (cf. 3:11; 11:3), and 'prophet' (cf. 13:57). But w. i—n also offer two firsts—(i) Jesus' public claim (albeit indirect) to messianic kingship, and (2) recognition by 'the crowds' of that kingship (contrast 16:13—14). Together these two firsts challenge Jerusalem to make a decision: who is this Jesus (cf. v. 10)? What follows depends upon the city's answer to that question.
If v. 28, as appears, combines Dan 7 and Isa 53, there is an interesting parallel in Mt 8:20. In both the Son of Man is subject, in both he is humbled, and in both Scripture is seemingly alluded to ironically: the Son of Man, against Dan 7, has come not to be served but to serve; and the Son of Man, against Ps 8, does not have dominion, glory, and honour but rather no place to lay his head.
Other texts recount the triumphal arrival (parousia) of a ruler or military hero and contain a standard cluster of motifs: approach of the king, public acclamation/celebration (sometimes with song), entrance into city, cultic activity (including the cleansing of cultic pollution); see e.g. i Kings 1:32-40; Zechg:9; i Mace 5:45-54; 2 Macc4:2i-2; Jos. Ant. 11.325-39. i Mace 13:49—53, like v. 8, even refers to palm branches. But Jesus' entry is not a military triumph. On the contrary, the Son of David is 'meek' and has not conquered anything. Further, Jesus does not sacrifice in the temple but rebukes the cult. It does not legitimate him; he stands above it (12:6).
v. 28 is a particularly apt conclusion to 20:20-7. When the mother of the sons of Zebedee envisages James and John sitting on the right and left of Jesus in the kingdom, the reader is reminded of 19:28, where the twelve are promised thrones beside the Son of Man. It is hence fitting that the paragraph culminates in a declaration about the Son of Man. But here, as opposed to 19:28, the subject is not the Son of Man's glory but his service unto death. As in w. 20-3, visions of grandeur (cf. Dan 7:13-14) give way to forecasts of suffering and death (cf. Isa 53; Dan 7:21-5), for the king cannot sit on his throne until he has, through self-sacrifice, rescued his people.
(21:12—17) Having entered the capital as king, Jesus next enters the temple, the symbol of national identity, and there, through prophetic deed and scriptural word, declares
MATTHEW 872
heard the law, became obedient in Christ. This interpretation in terms of salvation history has dominated exegetical history. Recent exegetes, however, have rightly begun to question it. Nothing so far in 19:1 ff. has directly addressed JewishGentile relations. Indeed, the section has encouraged us rather to think in terms of believing and unbelieving Israel. In addition, the parable is explicitly about different responses to John the Baptist, not Jesus or the Christian kerygma. The most natural interpretation, then, is that which finds in this pericope (i) depiction of a divided Israel; (2) characterization of Jesus' opponents as hypocrites; and (3) illustration of the first (the chief priests and elders) becoming last and the last (toll collectors and prostitutes) becoming first. In 21:23-5 Jesus asks his opponents several questions. Their answers are: 'we do not know' (21:27), <me first' (v. 31), 'he will put those wretches to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time' (21:41), 'Caesar's' (22:21), 'the Son of David' (22:42), and,finally, silence (22:45). These answers,briefand colourless, are always dictated by the question and empty of insight. Further, two answers confess ignorance (21:27; 22:45) and two are self-incriminating (21:27, 41)- Jesus> opponents are adept at laying traps, but they are also good at falling into them. Jesus' answers, on the other hand, are uniformly creative, clever, and memorable; and they avoid entanglement either by turning a question back on others or moving the discussion to another level. Jesus' spiritual authority gives him a rhetorical sovereignty. (21:33-46) This parable is an allegory about faithlessness and judgement. Its character as an allegory does not mean that it is not true to life—it largely seems to be—or that every element has a symbolic meaning, only that equations for the main elements can be given: the vineyard stands for Israel; the householder stands for God; the tenant farmers stand for leaders of Israel; the fruit stands for what is owed to God; the rejection of servants stands for rejection of prophets; the sending and rejection of the son stand for the sending and rejection of Jesus; the punishment of tenants stands for Jerusalem's destruction; the new tenants stand for the church.
divine disfavour. The disfavour is not directed against the temple as such but against those who have corrupted it. In the temple the meek king heals those without status (the blind and the lame) and is praised by those without power (children). Opposed to him are men of authority, prestige, and influence. But in truth those who appear to be in charge are not, and judgement will soon overtake them.
(21:18-22) For the third time in three paragraphs Jesus performs a symbolic act. Here that act and its effect are prophetic. The visual parable inaugurates judgement against that for which it stands. That the fig tree 'near the road'—we should envisage a wild fig tree: Jesus does not curse another's property—withers is a symbol of judgement (cf. Isa 34:4; Jer 8:13; Hos 2:12). The judgement is not against Israel as a whole but Jerusalem and/or those in charge of the temple, w. 18—22 are located between two paragraphs having to do with the temple, in the first of which Jesus protests, in the second of which the priests protest against Jesus. So in context this passage shows that the divine wrath has begun to manifest itself against the temple establishment. Beyond this, if 21:13 refgrs to the temple as 'a house of prayer', it is not coincidence that our pericope concerns petition. In Matthew the old temple has been replaced by the church. So the sequence in 21:12—22— judgement of the old place of prayer, promise of prayer's efficacy within the church—reflects the course of salvation history as well as the deterritorialization of Matthean religion: portable community (cf. 18:20) substitutes for fixed holy space.
(21:23^7) These verses both add to the dramatic tension between Jesus and his opponents and demonstrate the character of the latter. And trailing upon the protest in the temple and the cursing of the fig tree they illustrate why the temple is doomed: the leaders have become deaf to God's messengers.
This section is less about Jesus—it is certainly not about his debating skills—or the Baptist than it is about the chief priests and elders. Here they enquire of Jesus 'without reason or respect, a thing that was plain to all' (Calvin). Further, out of cowardly expediency, they respond to his questions with a lie ('we do not know'). As if that were not enough, they show themselves to be spiritually less perceptive than those over whom they preside, for the multitudes recognize John's prophetic status. The effect of all this is to set the passion of Jesus within a moral context. Jesus' death is not the upshot of an unfortunate misunderstanding by uninformed authorities; instead is it brought about by the plotting of self-serving men of ill will. The passion narrative depicts a struggle between good and evil.
Our parable and its interpretation combine the traditional motif of the rejection and even murder of the prophets with the traditional metaphor of Israel as God's vineyard (cf. Isa 5:2). What is new is the joining of the two themes in the service of Christology: the rejection of Jesus is the climax in the story of rebellion against Israel's God.
This passage is not about God's rejection of the Jews and the Gentiles' acceptance of Jesus. The parable identifies the tenants not with the Jews in general but with the Jewish leaders in particular. Further, the context is conflict between Jesus and Israel's leaders, not Jesus and Judaism; and it is not the vineyard (i.e. Israel) that suffers judgement but those in charge. So the kingdom is taken from the Jewish leaders and given to the church of Jew and Gentile.
(21:28-32) The polemical parable is allegorically interpreted in w. 31-2: the father represents God; the first son represents toll collectors and prostitutes, those who were lax in the law but came to obey God through John's ministry; the second son represents the chief priests and the elders, those who, despite their religious profession, disobeyed God by not believing in John. The main function is to characterize Jesus' opponents. Chrysostom urged that the two children represent Jews and Gentiles: the former, having heard the law and promised obedience, were disobedient, while the latter, not having
(22:1—14) Th£ passage consists of introduction (v. i), parable (w. 2—13/7), commentary (w. 13 c-14). The parable (perhaps based upon a traditional story; cf. y. Sank. 6:23c) contains two parallel sequences. Each recounts three actions of the king.
873 MATTHEW
tion of the Jerusalem leaders. The first question for Jesus is whether God would have one contribute to the Roman census, a tax upon agricultural yield and personal property, collected through census or registration (Lk 2:1-5; Acts 5:37) and probably amounting to one denarius a year. Although Jewish authorities (including the Sanhedrin) helped farm the tax, many resented it and objected on religious grounds. Indeed, although Roman taxation had been a reality since 63 BCE, the census of 6 or 7 CE, when Judea came under direct Roman control, encouraged a revolt; and resentment of taxation also contributed to the unrest that culminated in the revolt of 70 CE. Although the story would be coherent without w. 19-210, the use of a visual aid adds drama, while the coin being in the possession of Jesus' opponents highlights their insincerity: they have no qualms about using pagan money—and even bring a coin with the emperor's image and blasphemous inscription into the holy precincts of the temple.
2~3» action of king (invitation)
3/7 response (rejection) 4 reaction of king (invitation) 5-6 response (rejection and violence) 7 reaction of king (punishment: death and destruction) 8—9 action of king (invitation) 10 response (acceptance) n-i2fo reaction of king (entrance and question) I2c response (silence) 13/7 reaction of king (punishment: binding and casting out)
The whole sequence is dominated by the speech of the king: no one else says anything. Everything revolves around his words.
w. i—10 are an allegory much influenced by 21:33—41. The king stands for God; his son represents Jesus (cf 21:37—8); the royal wedding feast symbolizes the eschatological banquet. The dual sending of the servants is, as in the preceding parable, the sending of God's messengers; the murder of the servants represents the murder of the prophets and Jesus (cf. 21:35-9). v7 alludes to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The third sending of servants is the mission of the church, in which good and evil stand side by side until the end. The man without a garment, who stands for a whole class atthe last judgement, lacks either good works (cf. Rev 19:8) or a glorious resurrected body (cf. 13:43). His punishment may reflect a tradition about Azazel. According to i Enoch 10:4—5, God instructed the angel Raphael to bind Azazel 'hand and foot and throw him into the darkness'. And according to Apoc. Abr. 13:14, the fallen Azazel lost his heavenly garment, which will be given to Abraham. All this is strikingly close to our text. Perhaps we should think of the man's fate as akin to that of Azazel. Just as the righteous will wear garments of glory and so be like the heavenly angels, so will the wicked be unclothed and suffer like the fallen angels.
Instead of trapping Jesus, the Pharisees and Herodians are trapped by him. Jesus' words distance him from those who oppose supporting Rome. At the same time, the inclusion of giving to God what is his relativizes the political obligation. There is here no firm principle of loyal submission to the state. Implied rather is a reservation regarding the state, a lack of reservation regarding God. While obedience to God can, as in the current instance, coexist with doing what the state requires, obligation to the former overshadows obligation to the latter. So there is no simple or straightforward rule, but the imperative to weigh the demands of two (very unequal) authorities. When those demands are not at odds (as here), obligations to both can be met (cf Rom 13:1—7; i Pet 2:17). In cases of conflict, however, itis manifest which authority requires allegiance. Our text has rightly been cited to curb the powers of the state (e.g. John of Damascus, De Imaginibus 2.12). God, who after all determines what is Caesar's and what is not, is sovereign over the state, albeit in a non-theocratic fashion. In the end, no one can serve two masters (6:24), and all that truly matters is obedience to God. (Beginning with Tertullian, many have identified 'the things that are God's' with human beings. If coins with Caesar's image and inscription belong to Caesar, then human beings created in God's image (Gen 1:26) belong to God.)
w. 11—14 turn attention from outsiders to insiders, from opponents to the church. The evangelist as pastor was all too aware that criticism of others as well as the doctrine of election
(cf. v. 14) are both fraught with moral peril; for the former tends to nourish complacency—censure of our enemies always makes us feel better about ourselves—while the latter can beget feelings of superiority. Matthew, however, understood that while censure has its place in moral instruction, and while election is of the essence of Judaism, the two things can foster illusions; and they are no substitute for selfexamination and personal effort. So it is that Christian readers of w. 11—14, wh° necessarily identify with those at the king's banquet, cannot read the text and feel self-satisfaction. They must instead ask whether they are like the man improperly clothed, whether they are among 'the many' despite profession to be among 'the few'. God's judgement comes upon all, including those within the ecclesia.
(22:23-33) If the Pharisees raise a political issue, the Sadducees (who presumably believe only in the OT's shadowy Sheol) now pose a theological riddle which combines the teaching of the levirate law in Deut 25:5 with the concrete example in Gen 38:8. Although the two parties disagree regarding resurrection, they are one in opposing Jesus.
In 22:15—22 no one cites Scripture. Here, however, Scripture is at the centre, as also in 22:34-40,41-6. The effect is to uphold Jesus' harmony with the Torah and to display his skill in its interpretation.
The Sadducees' question, which assumes that polyandry is unacceptable and implies that the resurrection is foreign to the Pentateuch, is rejected by Jesus as the product of culpable ignorance and bad theology. The Sadducees deny the resurrection because they imagine the eschatological future others profess to be mundane and terrestrial. But their materialistic view is not the view of Jesus, according to whom Israel's God is
(22:15—22) Here begins a series of discussions that runs through the rest of ch. 22. The first pits Jesus against Pharisees and Herodians (w. 15-22), the second against the Sadducees (22:23—33), the third against a Pharisaic lawyer (22:34— 40), and the fourth against the Pharisees (22:41—6). Taken together the four passages add to the negative characteriza-
MATTHEW 874
to love one's neighbour'. As the agraphon has it: 'You have seen your brother; you have seen God.'
the omnipotent who can transform the saints. 'Neither marry nor are given in marriage' means 'Neither do (men) marry nor are (women) given in marriage.' 'In the resurrection' means not 'at the resurrection' but 'in the resurrected condition (of the just)'. The argument moves from the general to the particular. If in general people will be like angels (then a common belief), then the marital bond in particular will be transcended, for angels (who are immortal) live without marriage (not because they are sexless or androgynous— they were typically thought of as male—but because they refrain; cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. 56:14).
Often cited as a parallel to our verse is b. Sabb. 313, where Hillel, in response to a request to teach the Torah while standing on one foot, answered with this: 'What you hate for yourself, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole law. The rest is commentary.' This is even closer to Matthew than the commentaries indicate; for in Jewish tradition, as in Christian, the Golden Rule (or its negative form) was thought synonymous with Lev 19:18, cited here (cf. Tg. Yer. Ion 19.18; Sipre Lev. on 19:18).
In passing, in v. 31, from the manner of the resurrection to its fact, Jesus does not cite Dan 12:1-3 (or other possible biblical proof-texts for the resurrection) but a Pentateuchal text. He accordingly meets the Sadducees (who recognized only the authority of Moses) on their own ground. He cites Ex 3:6. The point seems to be this: God does not say, T was the God of Abraham, etc.' but T am the God of Abraham, etc.'— even though Abraham and the others are dead at the time of the pronouncement. They therefore cannot have ceased to be.
Lev 19:18 is quoted three times in this gospel, more than any other OT text: at 5:43; 19:19; 22:39. The first citation expands the meaning of neighbour to make it universal: even the enemy is to be loved. The second citation reveals Lev I9:i8's status as a fundamental summary of the moral demands of the Decalogue. The third brings the love of neighbour into intimate connection with the commandment to love God and thus, in typically Matthean fashion, fuses religion and ethics.
(22:41-6) Following the narrative introduction (v. 41), Jesus abandons his defensive posture and takes the offensive. He asks the Pharisees two questions (v. 420). After they return their expected, two-word answer (v. 42/7), Jesus asks two more questions, this time quoting Scripture (w. 43-5). In the narrative conclusion (v. 46) the opponents are unable to respond. This effectively closes off 21:23—22:46, throughout which Jesus has been asked question after question.
(22:34-40) A representative of the Pharisees continues the series of hostile challenges begun in 21:23. Again the issue regards Torah, and again Jesus speaks truth without becoming ensnared. His summary of the law and the prophets, which recapitulates the unifying theme of his own words and deeds, simply joins, against all possible complaint, two traditional Jewish summaries, the commandment to love God
Jesus' questions, unlike those of his opponents, go to the heart of things, for they concern Christology. The first question, 'What do you think of the Messiah?' is completed by the second, so that the meaning is: 'Whose son is the Messiah?' The answer of the Pharisees, 'David's', is only half the truth. The other half, unpronounced by Jesus but clear from the rest of the narrative, is: 'God's'. Jesus' argument makes two assumptions: (i) in accordance with Jewish tradition, David composed Ps no (cf. the superscription) and (2) Ps no is messianic (cf. 23:39). It follows that David wrote about 'the Lord' (i.e. God) speaking to 'my Lord', and that the latter must be the messianic Son of David (cf. v. 42). We have here an apparent contradiction. For how can one standing at the right hand of God and addressed as 'Lord' be David's 'son'? A son may address his father as 'Lord' (cf. 21:29), but a father does not so speak to his son. The Pharisees' silence shows that they have no solution to the riddle, even though it is superficial for the Christian reader, who knows that although the Messiah is of the lineage of David, he is also exalted to God's right hand and reigns as 'Lord'. The 'Son of David'—neither the title nor its content is rejected or denigrated—is a descendant of King David, and his destiny surpasses that of his forebear. (23:1-39) Ch. 23 does not criticize isolated beliefs or activities; rather its charges amount to a rejection of Pharisaism itself. Surprisingly, however, Mt 23 does not censor the scribes and Pharisees for failure to believe in Messiah Jesus. Instead it convicts them by their own standards. No scribe or Pharisee would have defended hypocrisy, or commended the slaying of God's prophets, or affirmed that preoccupation with the lesser matters of the law should be at the expense of the greater. So the text presupposes that the scribes and Pharisees actually
(part of the Shema, Judaism's closest thing to a creed) and the commandment to love neighbour (which Akiba reportedly called 'the greatest principle in the law', Sipre Lev. 19:18; cf. Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8—10). Together they summarize the Decalogue (cf. Philo, Dec. 19—20, 50—1, 106—10, 121, 154). Jesus, although asked for the greatest commandment, answers with two which are inextricable. ('A second is like it' is purely numerical; the second commandment equals in importance the first.) But Matthew does not clarify how the two commandments to love relate to one another. Evagrius Ponticus argued that love of neighbour is love of God because it is love of the image of God. Theodoret of Cyrrhus urged that, as contemplation is to action, so love of God is to love of neighbour: the one is the foundation of and inspiration for the other. We imitate what we love; so to love God is to imitate the One whose love is catholic (5:43—8). Ailred of Rievaux contended that 'love of neighbour precedes love of God': the latter grows out of the former. Luther argued that while our neighbour is needy, God needs nothing, so true service of God must always be for the sake of the neighbour. Harnack thought that the gospel places love of neighbour beside love of God because 'the love of one's neighbour is the only practical proof on earth of that love of God which is strong in humanity'. While there may be an element of truth in the other proposals, Evagrius' claim resonates most with the rest of Matthew. For there is some sense in which, according to Matthew, God is in others. Especially striking is 25:31-46. In this, Jesus, the functional presence of God (cf. 1:23; 18:20; 28:20), is the direct recipient of acts of love done to others: 'as you did it to one of the least of these...' Service of neighbour is service of Christ, which means service of God. Chrysostom was right: 'to love God is
875 MATTHEW
sibility is that 'whatever they teach you' refers to their reading of Scripture, 'they do' to Pharisaic doctrine and practice.
know better: they are hypocrites in the full sense of the word. The presupposition is possible because the scribes and Pharisees, like those in Matthew's community, were heirs to the Jewish tradition. Matthew's Jesus accordingly argues as a Jew with Jews: the leaders have been unfaithful to their own tradition.
'Phylacteries' (v. 5) are the two black leather boxes containing parchment Scriptures that, since at least the second century BCE, have been commonly worn on the upper left arm and forehead following the literal understanding of Ex 13:9, 16; Deut 6:8; 11:18. Their ostentatious and superstitious use can be documented (cf. Christian use of medallions and crosses). 'Fringes' (which Jesus himself wears: 9:20; 14:36) consist of blue and/or white threads worn on the four corners of the rectangular outer garment (cf. Num 15:38-9; Deut 22:12). The presumption is that the scribes and Pharisees who make their tassels long (cf. Sipre Num. 15:37—41) do so to gain attention. The attack is not against a scriptural ordinance but its observance for self-glorification.
Matthew's Jesus here passes from woe to woe; his polemic depicts the scribes and Pharisees as more than hard-hearted: they are already suffering spiritual rigor mortis. Yet surely the best of them were admirable men who faithfully practised their religion and honestly doubted that the Messiah had come. Without either excusing the harsh language or minimizing its historical misuses, one may emphasize the conventional nature of the chapter's polemical rhetoric. Josephus depicted the Zealots or Sicarii as murderers, transgressors of the laws of God and nature, impostors, madmen, hardhearted wretches, 'bastards' and 'scum' more wicked than
Unlike the scribes and Pharisees (v. 7) Christian authorities are to shun titles. Such titles are inconsistent with the demand for humility and mutuality and the need to restrict certain appellations to God and Christ. It is implied that the scribes and Pharisees enjoy wrongful flattery and think in hierarchical terms.
Sodom, as men guilty of'barbarity.. .avarice... impudent undertakings ... wicked practices, impiety.. .tyranny over others... the greatest madness ... wild and brutish disposition' (J.W. 4.377-8; 5.401-19, 442-5; 7.252-74). Those who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls laid every sort of pejorative adjective upon 'the sons of darkness', whom they cursed in their rituals. The thoroughly traditional nature of Matthew's polemic is demonstrated by the many Jewish sources in which opponents are hypocrites (iQS 4:14), blind (cf Wis 2:21), guilty of economic sins (cf. As. Mas. 5.5), unclean (cf. Jos. J.W. 4.382), persecutors of the righteous (cf. Philo, Leg. ad
(23:13—33) The seven woes, in which the judge of the last day humbles the exalted in illustration of v. 12, draws a firm line between two groups by criticizing one. The scribes and Pharisees, here representatives of emergent rabbinic Judaism, are depicted as hopelessly corrupt. The upshot is edification and self-definition, for the debasement of the church's antagonists both indirectly vindicates the faithful and exhibits, through counter-examples, what the church should not be.
Gaium, 18.120 ff), like sinful generations of the past (cf. T. Levi, 14:6), like snakes (cf. 4(^525 5:1—4), destined for eschatological destruction (cf. m. Sank. 10:1), and the cause of God forsaking his temple (cf. Jos. J.W. 2.539). In Matthew's world one's opponents were, as a rule, these things and much else besides. The language of vilification was as stereotyped as the language of praise. Accordingly we have here no more a fair account of Pharisaic Judaism than we have such an account of Christianity in later pagan polemic. Moreover, the ferocity of rhetoric in Jewish texts shows Matthew's polemic need not signal a break with Judaism. It is no more 'anti-Semitic' than the Dead Sea scrolls. (23:1-12) These verses condemn hypocrisy (v. 3), religious show (w. 4-6), and self-exaltation (v. 7). They commend obedience to the truth (v. 3), equality (v. 8), and humility (w. 11—12). The same vices and virtues have been assailed and praised before, especially in the SM and ch. 18.
The woes, which commence with halakic disagreements and culminate in the murder of God's messengers, mirror the plot of the whole gospel, in which religious disputes lead to Jesus' death. Further, although ch. 23 strikes the reader as distinctive, this is not because its content is new: the woes constitute a climax, not a novum. All of the major accusations and assertions have already been made (cf. e.g. w. 13,15, with 11:21 and 18:7, w. 13,15, 25—8 with 15:7 and 22:18, and v. 13 with 5:20). Even the polemical harshness of 23:13—33 is not unique (cf. 22:1 ff). New is its concentrated repetition alone.
The first woe (v. 13) appropriately prefaces the series as a sort of summary: the scribes and Pharisees, despite their religious efforts, neither enter the kingdom nor allow others to. The second woe (v. 14) indicts the scribes and Pharisees not because they are missionaries, but because their missionary activity, which makes others like themselves, has tragic effects. The problem is not conversion to Judaism but conversion to Judaism without the Messiah.
'Moses' seat' (v. 2) is ambiguous. It may either refer to a literal chair for synagogue authorities or be a metaphor for teaching authority (cf. the professor's 'chair'). In any case only here are the Jewish leaders presented in a positive light: they should be obeyed. Some have suggested we have here a preMatthean tradition out of harmony with the rest of the gospel, others that the command belongs only to the pre-Easter period, still others that it is ironic. It is also possible to regard the 'all' as hyperbole. The sentence indicts the scribes and the Pharisees by parading their inconsistencies. 'Do whatever they teach' is then less practical imperative than proof of a bad character which cannot be excused by ignorance. The focus is not upon Christian obedience but upon the opponents' knowledge, which condemns them. Yet another pos-
The third woe (w. 16-22), which turns to specific halakah, argues first against the distinction between binding and nonbinding oaths (w. 16—19) and secondly asserts that all oaths are binding because all oaths relate themselves to God (w. 2022). In 5:33-7 oaths are attacked. Here their use is assumed. Common to both passages, however, is the idea that to swear by one thing is to swear by another. Indeed, both assert that to swear by heaven is to swear by God's throne. Evidently w. 16— 22 presuppose Jesus' criticism of oaths (understood as hyperbole, not halakah?) and present additional criticism of nonbinding oaths.
MATTHEW 876
Ch. 23 concludes by referring to two events that are closely related in the next chapter, the destruction of Jerusalem (v. 38) and the Parousia of the Son of Man (v. 39). 'Until you say' probably signals a conditional sentence. The meaning is that when his people bless him the Messiah will come. While Israel's redemption may be, on the basis of the OT and 19:28, a firm hope, its date is contingent upon Israel's acceptance of Jesus.
The fourth woe (w. 23-4) condemns not tithing but a lack of justice, mercy, and faith. The lesser things, however useful or needful, must never eclipse the greater. 'Strain out a gnat' refers to straining wine, as in Am 6:6. According to Lev 11:41, 'all creatures that swarm upon the earth are detestable; they shall not be eaten'. This verse was understood to require the straining of wine so as to keep out small insects. When it is added that the camel, like the gnat, was reckoned unclean (Lev 11:4), the point of v. 24 becomes plain: while the scribes and Pharisees strain their wine and so do not swallow the tiniest bugs that defile—a practice not here obviously rejected—they overlook the large things that defile, that is, they swallow the camel (a proverbially large beast: 19:24).
w. 37—9 temper what has gone before. Without these verses the Jesus of ch. 23 issues nothing but judgements, with no tinge of regret. But the the conclusion discloses that the woes are uttered in sadness, that the indignation is righteous. When the threats give way to the image of Jesus as a mother hen lamenting her loss, the reader is reminded of the compassionate Son of 11:28-30. In this way the prophetic judgements are mingled with affection and Jesus becomes, like Jeremiah, a reluctant prophet.
The fifth woe (w. 25—6) adds to the charge that the scribes and Pharisees do the less important thing to the neglect of the more important. They cleanse the outside of the cup and plate but neglect the inside. They appear to be righteous (cf 23:2-7, 230) but inside are full of extortion and intemperance, (w. 25— 6 are about neither the purity of vessels nor legal matters, nor is v. 25 to be understood literally, v. 26 figuratively. Both verses rather speak metaphorically: the leaders are dirty cups and dishes. That is, they are clean on the outside (they have a righteous appearance) but impure on the inside (cf. w. 27—8).)
(24:1-35) The introductory scene in which Jesus predicts the temple's destruction (w. 1—2) provokes a query concerning the timing of things to come, to which Jesus first responds with warnings and predictions about eschatological tribulation: the beginning of the woes in the world at large (w. 3-8), the intensification of the woes in the church (w. 9—14), the climax of the woes in Judea (w. 15—28).
The sixth woe (w. 27-8) likens the scribes and Pharisees to tombs, which they regarded as unclean. The phrase translated 'whitewashed tombs' may refer to monuments or tombstones that were plastered. Porous limestone structures were often plastered with lime to smooth surfaces and add a sheen. One may picture beautiful monuments and their finished splendour.
Much of the traditional end-time scenario is untouched. There is, for example, no account of either the resurrection or the eternal state. Mt 24 is not a detailed blueprint (cf. the chronological imprecision). Interest is elsewhere—(i) in supplying the true ending of the Messiah's story so that the whole can be rightly grasped; (2) in foretelling and therefore making bearable Christian suffering; (3) in nurturing hope by showing how a good future can issue from an evil present; and (4) in encouraging battle against moral languor. Concerning this last, imperatives appear in w. 4, 6,16-18, 20, 23, 26, and 32.
The seventh woe (w. 29—33) is me most serious and so climactic. Because v. 33 recalls the Baptist's words to the Pharisees and Sadducees in 3:7 (cf. also 12:34), Jesus again speaks like John, and his message is that of his forerunner: the Pharisees cannot escape eschatological wrath (cf. Rev 6:15—17). It follows that the character of the Pharisees has not changed, that the ministries of John and Jesus have been in one important way without effect.
So eschatology does not simply console: it also demands discernment and adherence to Jesus' commands. The eschatological imagination does not displace practical moral concern.
Beyond these generalities the reference of the whole is disputed (a situation largely due to the lack of any direct answer to the question in v. 3). One approach holds that much or most of Mt 24 is fulfilled prophecy—that w. 3-32 or 35 have to do with the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE within Jesus' 'generation', w. 36-44 with the parousia, whose date is unknown. A second opinion, which holds that ch. 24 is purely eschatological, is favoured by the 'immediately' ofv. 29; for if Matthew wrote much after 70 CE, he could not have thought the parousia would follow immediately upon the destruction of the temple, which in turn makes it unlikely that w. 15-2 2 depict that destruction. A third option urges that our text refers to both the destruction of Jerusalem and the parousia and holds them in close chronological sequence (which would imply a date for Matthew c.jo CE). A fourth approach also thinks of both 70 CE and the end. Unlike the third, however, it finds not a chronological sequence—the destruction of the temple, then (soon) the end—but a single prophecy with two fulfilments.
(23:34-9) These verses, which record a definite rejection of Jerusalem and Israel's leaders, outline Jerusalem's history: (i) a time of overture and rejection, when the city was sent prophets who were murdered (the past, v. 37); (2) a time of abandonment, from the Son of Man's departure to the parousia (the present, v. 38); (3) the time of repentance and reconciliation, in which the Messiah is welcomed (the future, v. 39).
'Zechariah, son of Barachiah' (v. 35) is difficult. Zech 1:1 refers to its author as 'Zechariah, son of berekyd'. There is, however, no biblical evidence of his death as a martyr; and, as Jerome observed, the temple was in ruins in his time. The one biblical martyr named Zechariah is the son of Jehoiada, a priest whose story appears near the end of Chronicles. Jewish tradition, however, conflated the prophet Zechariah with the son of Jehoiada, and given that the death of the latter became the popular subject of legends, we may assume the same identification is made in our text. The passage refers to the murders of the righteous from Gen 4 (the first murder in the HB) to 2 Chr 24 (the last murder in the HB).
It seems best to hold that w. 4—28 are a depiction of the entire post-Easter period, interpreted in terms of the messianic woes. The discourse concerns the past, the present, and
877 MATTHEW
Matthew's community still observed the sabbath; and, given the traditional travel restrictions, they would be both hesitant and unprepared for flight on the day of rest.
the future. What has happened will continue to happen and indeed worsen (cf. 2 Thess 2:7). Whether the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE is directly referred to in w. 15—22 or is instead indirectly included in the tribulations of that section remains unclear. But if the former, 70 CE does not exhaust the significance ofw. 5—22, which plainly envisage eschatological events to come. So the answer to the disciples' two-part question in v. 3 is this: the temple will be destroyed during the tribulation of the latter days, which runs from the first advent to the second; and after that tribulation the end—whose date cannot be known—will come.
w. 24-5 makes three points: (i) Jesus himself has made it plain that signs and wonders are not of themselves guarantees of God's activity: incredulity has its place (cf 7:21—3); (2) tribulation can be no surprise for it has been predicted and so it must be endured; (3) unlike the false prophets, Jesus' prophecy is true.
v. 28, which ends the review of tribulation, was an old proverb (cf. Job 9:26; Seneca, Ep. 95. 43). Here its meaning may be that the coming of the Son of Man will be as public and obvious as eagles or vultures circling over carrion. Less likely is the thought that the eschatological tribulation will be concluded by vultures devouring the flesh of the wicked dead, as in Ezek 39:17.
Ch. 24 interprets the interim between the two advents as the time of messianic woe, when Jesus is absent. But 28:1620—which recalls this discourse in that it also features a mountain, refers to 'the end of the age', alludes to Dan 7:13, and proclaims the Gentile mission—depicts the age of the church as one of Jesus' consoling and all-powerful presence. The two different perspectives on the same period reflect Christian experience. Jesus is even now the present Lord who rules heaven and earth. But he is also the absent master whose delay permits evil to inflict tribulation.
The paragraph in w. 29-31 ends the tribulation and narrates the parousia in the traditional language of the OT theophany so that Jesus' coming is the arrival of God's glory. Having, in v. 28, moved the mind's eye from earth to sky, the text now directs our gaze even higher. This imaginative raising of vision leaves distress behind and prepares for envisaging the good help that comes from heaven (v. 30).
While it alludes to many OT texts, Mt 24 draws especially upon Daniel: cf. v. 3 with Dan 9:26; 12:6—7, v6 with Dan 9:26; 11:44, w9"11 wrth Dan 7:25; II:33> vI5 with Dan 8:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11, v. 21 with Dan 12:1, and v. 30 with Dan 7:13. These clear allusions and the explicit citation of 'the prophet Daniel' (v. 15) are proof that, in Matthew, the end-time scenario fulfils the words of Daniel and Jesus simultaneously.
The supernatural darkness of the consummation (v. 29) is richly symbolic. Not only does it belong to the correlation of beginning and end (cf. Gen 1:2), but it is a sign of both divine judgement (Am 5:18, 20) and mourning (Jer 4:27—8) and becomes the velvet background for the Son of Man's splendour (24:27,30). Moreover, on the literary level it foreshadows the darkness of Jesus' death (27:45) while that darkness in turn presages the world's assize.
v. 2 prophesies the end ofthe temple (cf. 26:61; 27:40). This is usually thought of as a fulfilled prophecy for the reader, who knows the events of 70 CE. The declaration does not of itself question the legitimacy of the cult. Other Jewish prophets foretold doom without attacking the Pentateuch. What we have here is a tragic forecast of a disaster fostered by human
w. 31-2 are the dramatic zenith of ch. 24. The coming of the Son of Man—which takes place neither in desert nor inner room but is universally witnessed—is what 24:3—28 introduce and that for which w. 32—44 call one to look. 'The sign of the Son of Man' (an unparalleled expression) might be the sign which is the Son of Man himself, or rather his coming. More likely 'sign' means the same as the Hebrew nes, 'ensign': the
sin. The destruction ofthe temple is God's verdict upon the capital.
Regarding w. 4-5, the first century saw several famous false prophets who made eschatological claims. That any of them (before Bar Kochba) said, in so many words, T am Messiah' is not documented. But several of them did identify themselves as the eschatological prophet like Moses, a figure Matthew equated with Messiah. So for him the two things were one. This verse is then about Jewish messianic deceivers.
Son of Man will signal the eschatological battle by raising an eschatological sign. In Israel a ram's horn was blown to rally the tribes for war. This act was accompanied by the raising of a standard upon a hill. The standard consisted of a wooden pole upon whose top crosspiece was an insignia, most often an animal. In Isaiah the old custom is put to prophetic use: the Lord himself will raise a standard and call for war (Isa 13:2-4), or the root of Jesse will 'stand as a signal to the peoples' (Isa 11:10). The old tradition that the cross will accompany Jesus at his parousia has a straightforward explanation if'sign' means nls, for the nls had a crossbar and would naturally have encouraged Christians to think of a cross.
The climax ofthe woes concerns three subjects: the abomination which marks the time for flight (w. 15-20), the shortening of the tribulation (w. 21—2), and false Christs and prophets (w. 23—8). 'The desolating sacrilege' (v. 15) is from the prophet Daniel, where it refers to the pagan altar and/or image of Olympian Zeus set up in the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BCE. Here it could refer to the destruction ofthe temple in 70 CE, or some future, eschatological defilement and destruction, and perhaps even activities of an antichrist (cf. 2 Thess 2:3-4). m an7 case me sacrilege sets off a series of frightful events which one should flee. As in 10:23, eschatological flight will be interrupted by the return of the Son of Man (v. 29). Whether one is fleeing from evil or fleeing because God, in response to the abomination, is about to let loose his wrath (cf. Gen 19), is not stated. It is also not stated why one should pray that flight not come on a sabbath. But it is probably because members of
w. 34—6 recall v. 3. But the reference to 'generation' has seemed problematic because unfulfilled. Some have referred 'all these things' to 70 CE. But it seems best to think of the eschatological signs as outlined in w. 4—29: the parousia will come to pass before Jesus' 'generation' has gone. In favour of this is the imminent eschatological expectation of many early Christians (cf. 10:23) as W£U as Jn 21:20-3, which reflects the belief that Jesus would come before all his disciples had died.