Part 85
Matthew's last major discourse is the only one to treat eschatology exclusively. But the other four end by turning to
MATTHEW 878
cially for community leaders, for the 'servant' is set over 'fellow servants' to give them their food at the proper time. Such a reading has been popular from the the early church to today.
the last things. So the pattern of the individual discourses is the pattern of the five taken together: the conclusion is always eschatology. The meaning of Matthew's story is determined not only by its literary ending but by the ending of history itself: if history's conclusion is not Christological, then Christology itself becomes a question.
The parable of the wise and foolish virgins (25:1—13) is an allegory of the parousia of Christ, the heavenly bridegroom: the virgins represent the Christian community, the delay of the bridegroom is the delay of the Son of Man's return, the sudden coming is the unexpected arrival of his parousia, and the spurning of the foolish virgins is the great assize. The parable teaches three lessons: (i) the bridegroom delays and comes at an unforeseen time; this means yet again that no one knows the date of the Son of Man's parousia; (2) the wise virgins, who stand for the faithful, reveal that religious prudence will gain eschatological reward; (3) the foolish virgins, who stand for unfaithful disciples, reveal that those unprepared at the end will suffer eschatological punishment.
(24:36—25:30) The declaration of ignorance in v. 36 grounds the entire section: one must be ever prepared for what may come at any time. There follow as illustrations (i) a simile: as it was in the days of Noah, when unexpected judgement suddenly fell, so shall it be at the Son of Man's parousia (w. 37—9); (2) a description of the divison caused by the coming of the Son of Man plus an imperative: one will be taken, one left, so watch (w. 40-2); and (3) a parable and its application: the Son of Man will come as unexpectedly as a thief, so be ready (w. 43— 4). These sayings and similes preface three long parables— the faithful and wise servant (24:45-51), the wise and foolish virgins (25:1—13), the talents (25:14—30). All three concern the delay of the parousia, preparedness for the end, and recompense at the great assize.
Whether or not one uses the word 'allegory', 25:14—30 is filled with obvious symbols. The master stands for Jesus, his slaves for the church, whose members have received various responsibilities. The master's departure represents the departure of the earthly Jesus, and his long absence is the age of the church. His return is the return of the Son of Man. The rewards given to the good slaves stand for heavenly rewards given to the faithful at the great assize, and their joy is that of the messianic banquet. The punishment of the evil slave represents those within the church who, through their sins of omission, condemn themselves to eschatological darkness. Most ofthis is familiar, but the passage is not otiose. Repetition makes for emphasis. Moreover, new are the notions that Christians have received gifts according to their ability (v. 15) and that it is what they make of those gifts which counts in the end.
If 24:4-36 should quell uninformed eschatological enthusiasm, the intended effect is not apathy. This is why 24:37-44 seeks to foster an appropriate eschatological vigilance. Ignorance concerning the date of the end (24:36), although necessary, is dangerous, for it can lead to spiritual lethargy. But in Matthew it leads instead to moral preparation. For the parousia (like death) may come at any time. So one must be ever prepared to give an account before the divine justice, from which there is no escape (25:31-46).
24:37-51 conjures up scenes from everyday life—people eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, two men in a field, two women at a mill, a man asleep in his house, a slave doing his duty, a slave not doing his duty. These images of day-to-day existence stand in stark contrast to the unusual, even surrealistic events depicted in 24:4—31—wars, famines, earthquakes, flights, darkened luminaries, a sign in the firmament, the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven. But the transition from the extraordinary to the ordinary serves Matthew's purpose. Those whose imaginations hold the terrors and hope of things to come still live in the mundane present; they must still work in the field and grind at the mill.
(25:31—46) Although reminiscent of earlier parables of separation (13:24—30,36—43,47—50), this, the poetic and dramatic climax of the final major discourse, is not a parable but a 'word-picture of the Last Judgement' (Manson 1949: 249). The previous pericopae have enjoined readers to be faithful, to be prepared, and to invest talents. But exactly what these things entail has not been explicit. This passage makes all clear and so culminates Matthew's eschatologically grounded paraenesis. One prepares for the parousia by living the imperative to love one's neighbours, especially the marginalized. By this will all be judged on the far side of history.
24:36 invites the vigilance of eschatological agnosticism. Irenaeus could take the declaration of Jesus' ignorance at face value. But Luke omits the saying, as did certain copyists of Matthew and Mark. Origen wondered whether Jesus was referring to the church of which he is the head. Ambrose attributed 'nor the Son' to Arian interpolation. Athanasius suggested that Jesus only feigned ignorance. But modern theology, emphasizing with the creeds that Jesus was 'truly man', has come to terms with the saying as an expression of kenosis, or the self-emptying of the Son of God.
The identity of those gathered (panta ta ethne) is disputed, but they are probably all humanity. For the passage belongs to a long section which is full of paraenesis for believers, and one expects here a solemn appeal to those within the church. It also seems best to identify 'the least of these my brethren' in v. 40 (cf. v. 45) with the needy in general (and not with all Christians or Christian missionaries or leaders). This identification is consistent with the command to ignore distinctions between insiders and outsiders and with Jesus' injunction to love even enemies.
In 24:40—1 one is taken and one is left. But are the righteous taken to meet the Lord in the air? Or are the wicked removed by angels and cast into fire? The former is more likely: the picture of angels taking the saints to meet the Son of Man was probably common in early Christianity (cf. Mk 13:27).
The concept of service to Jesus through service to others goes back to Prov 19:17: 'Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and will be repaid in full.' What is new in Matthew is the Son of Man's identification with the needy. This novelty is, however, not explained. Do we have here the real personal
The parable of the servant (24:45-51) is congruent with an agraphon preserved in Justin, Dial. 47: 'In whatsoever I find you, in this will I also judge you.' But 24:45—51 may be espe-
879 MATTHEW
God has foreseen. Indeed, the apparent triumph of evil is mysteriously also the work of God—as in Gen 50:20: 'Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good.' There might also be an allusion to Ex 21:32: Judas reckons Jesus worth no more than a slave. Whether that is so or not the amount is surely intended to be trifling; and his action likens him to the guards at the tomb, whose cowardice leads them to lie: they also take silver from the authorities
presence of the Son of Man in the poor? Or what one scholar has called 'juridical mysticism'? Or the identification of the world's king with his people?
Feeding the hungry, welcoming strangers, and visiting the sick are mundane acts. In this sense 'virtue is not far from us, nor is it without ourselves, but it is within us, and is easy if only we are willing' (Anthony the Great). The Son of Man does not demand supernatural feats but simple, unobtrusive charity. The former but not the latter can easily be counterfeited (24:24). Charity is accordingly the true test of faith.
(28:11-15).
When Judas strikes his bargain Jesus' freedom to speak and act is almost gone. This lends emphasis to what follows, for what Jesus does with time running out has special meaning. In other words, w. 14-16 not only make the time before the arrest tense with anticipation, they also indicate that the narrative is about to depict Jesus' final free acts and in this way enlarge the significance of those acts. (26:17-29) Jesus, as a law-observant Jew, celebrates the Passover within Jerusalem, w. 26-9, which record the foundation of the Lord's supper, interpret the tragedy revealed in w. 20—5 as redemptive: the betrayed Jesus is a sacrifice whose blood is poured out 'for many'. The passage is enriched by its links with other texts, w. 260 and 270 strongly recall the two feeding stories of chs. 14 and 15: the last supper has been foreshadowed by the miraculous multiplications. Our passage has also often been connected with the bread of the Lord's prayer, while 'this is the blood of the covenant' takes up Ex 24:8 and makes the act of Jesus resemble an act of Moses. The reference to 'covenant' might also allude to Jer 31:31. 'For many' and 'poured out' probably advert to Isa 53:12 and so imply that Jesus in his death is the suffering servant of Isaiah.
The Passion and the Resurrection (26:1-28:20)
(26:1-5) wI~2 + 3~4 together constitute the prologue to the passion narrative. They are parallel in structure but antithetical in content. In the first Jesus prophesies his black future. In the second the chief priests and elders conspire against him (cf Ps 2:2). (The absence of the Pharisees here and hereafter—except only 27:62—surprises; but historically no doubt Jesus' opponents at the end were the temple aristocracy. This also explains why the scribes henceforth appear only in 26:57 and 27:41.)
'After two days' (v. 2) may allude to the Isaac traditions. Gen 22:4 puts the sacrifice of Isaac on the third day, and in Jubilees it is during Passover (17:15; 18:3), while in Ps.-Philo, LAB 32:1-4 Isaac voluntarily offers himself (cf. 4 Mace 16:20). Further, a parallel between Jesus and Isaac is explicit in Barn. 7.2 (cf. already Rom 8:32?), and Mt 26:36 could allude to Gen 22:2-5. (26:6-13) While Jesus is at the home of Simon 'the leper'— yet another befriended outcast—a woman, with motives unknown, performs an extravagant act which inevitably suggests Jesus' messianic status: he is the anointed one. (Cf. Dodd 1963: 173: 'the idea of an anointing, as of a king or priest, which is also an embalming of the dead', means that Jesus is 'the messianic King whose throne is a cross'.) Because anointing was evidently customary at feasts (cf. Ps 23:5), one may think the woman affectionately anoints Jesus as part of a celebration (cf. Ps 45:7). The use of 'head', however, makes one think of the OT narratives in which kings are anointed. The disciples' pious denigration is not about the act itself but the luxurious waste. Jesus' different opinion rejects utilitarian calculation. He praises the woman's deed as above almsgiving because it shows her 'personal commitment of love for the specific person of Jesus at a time of urgent need rather than an impersonal giving to the general group of the poor always in need' (Heil 1991: 26; cf. Deut 15:11). The situation is akin to 8:21—2, where allegiance to Jesus also means leaving a good deed undone. Here such allegiance means not being prudent with resources, even when they could benefit the poor. (26:14-16) In contrast with the woman who anoints Jesus, Judas (cf. 10:4) acts treacherously. While she unselfishly gives what she has, Judas seeks his own gain; and whereas her sacrifice is costly, Judas strikes his bargain for a relatively paltry sum. In complete antithesis to everything Jesus has taught, Judas wants money (cf. i Tim 6:10). None the less Judas later returns the silver, so his avarice is not unbounded.
The connections with Ex 24:8 are perhaps particularly important. Mark and Luke make Jesus' last supper a Passover Seder. Jn 6 links the bread of the eucharist with the manna given to Israel during the Exodus. In i Cor 10:1-4 participation in the Lord's supper is likened to drinking from the rock which followed Israel in the desert. And Heb 9:15—22 uses eucharistic language in retelling the story of Moses' covenantal sacrifice. Clearly it was conventional to view the last supper as part of a new exodus. And so it is in Matthew. The last supper is foreshadowed by stories in which Jesus is like Moses and contains parallels with the Exodus narrative: Jesus celebrates the Passover, w. 17-18 (cf. Ex 12); the disciples do as Jesus directs them, v. 19 (cf. Ex 12:28); and the blood of the covenant is poured out for the forgiveness of sins, v. 28 (cf. Ex 24:8 and the targums on this). The last redeemer is as the first. The command to eat, followed by 'this is my body', implies participation in the death of Jesus or its effects: just as those who partake of Passover share in the redemption from Egypt, so too those who take and eat share in the benefits of Jesus' atoning death. While so much is clear, bitter debate has centred upon Jesus' words. There is a natural tendency to think of 'blood' and 'body' as correlative: together they are the elements of sacrifice, or the two elements making up a person. But in Luke and Paul the two elements are separated by a meal. Moreover, the Greek 'body' (soma) can mean simply 'self.
The identification of the elements with the body and blood of Jesus Christ has made much of the verb, estin ('is'), and taken it literally. But others have found here only figurative
v. 15, which anticipates 27:9, stands under the influence of Zech 11:12: 'So they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver.' This text shows that the betrayal is in accord with what
MATTHEW 880
There are three sources of pathos in this passage. First there is the innocence of the one who suffers: like Job, he is not guilty. Secondly, Jesus, although he has plainly prophesied crucifixion for himself, here contemplates a route around suffering. Obviously he is at war with himself. Thirdly, there is Jesus' isolation. Although he comes with his disciples he soon separates himself from them and casts his face to the ground. The physical circumstances are symbolic: Jesus is alone. Despite the threefold mela ('with') linking him to others, his followers, as though indifferent, abandon him for sleep. Moreover, we likewise hear nothing from heaven. It is as if Jesus' prayers go unanswered.
representation: the bread symbolizes Jesus or what will happen to him. This accords with the use of'is' in 13:19—23, 37—9 ('this is that' means 'this represents that'). The truth is that estinhas a range of uses and is in itself ambiguous. Moreover, we cannot determine what Matthew believed about the elements—whether, for example, we should think of him as being closer to Luther than to Zwingli—or whether the categories from later theological debates would even be relevant.
The prophecy of abstinence in v. 29 is another passion prediction: it foretells imminent death as well as eschatological victory. So the Lord's supper is not just commemorative but prophetic. One wonders whether the sequence in Ex 24:8ii underlies w. 28—9. In Exodus the establishing of the covenant through blood is followed by eating and drinking and seeing God. In Matthew the proclamation of the eschatological covenant through blood prefaces the promise of the eschatological banquet. Already Isa 24:23—25:8 takes up the language of Ex 24:8—11 to prophesy the future and the eschatological feast. (26:30-5) From this gloomy prophecy of impending events, which is almost an outline of the remainder of the gospel, we learn the future (i) of the disciples—they will all fall away and be scattered but later gathered in Galilee to see Jesus; (2) of Peter—he will deny his Lord three times before the cock crows; and (3) of Jesus—he will be killed but then raised and appear to his disciples in Galilee. Because the last supper is a Passover meal, many have referred 'sung the hymn' to the custom of singing at Passover the second half of the great Hallel (Ps 114-18). But first-century Christian readers may also or instead have thought of hymns sung with or after the eucharist. v. 30 (cf 21:1; 24:3) alludes to 2 Sam 15:30 where David, who has been plotted against by his trusted royal counsellor, Ahithophel, leaves Jerusalem and goes up 'the ascent of the Mount of Olives'. There the king weeps and prays for deliverance (cf. Gethsemane). That Matthew intends the parallelism follows from 27:3-10, where Judas is modelled upon Ahithophel. Perhaps then it is more than coincidence that Ahithophel wants to overtake David at night (2 Sam 17:1; cf. Mt 26:31) with 12,000 men (17:1; cf. Mt 26:53) so mat he can strike (pataxo, 17:2; cf. Mt 26:31) the king and cause all the people with him (mela autou, 17:2; cf. Mt 26:18, 20, 38,40, 51, 69, 71) to flee (pheuxetaipas, 17:2; cf. Mt 26:56). v. 31 quotes Zech 13:7. Zechariah's imperatival 'smite' becomes in the NT T will smite' (cf. Ex 12:13; 2 Sam I7:2> both LXX). This emphasizes God's activity. The promise of restoration in v. 32 (fulfilled in 28:16—20; cf. 28:7,10), which offers forgiveness in advance, reverses the scattering and so softens the disciples' failure. It alone is not disputed by Peter. (26:36-46) One can embrace death because one hopes it a good (so Plato's Socrates) or one can resist it because one thinks it an evil (as in Jewish legends about Abraham and Moses). Jesus does neither. Although he recoils from death, or at least crucifixion, his course is fixed by the will of God, and this overrides whatever beliefs or feelings he has about death. For Jesus the issue is not death but submission to the divine will: 'Thy will be done.' (This phrase comes from the Lord's prayer; cf. the address, 'my Father' in v. 39 and 'that you may not come into the time of trial' in v. 41.)
Jesus goes to Gat-semani ('oil-press' Heb.), an olive orchard on the Mount of Olives. Following the exposition (w. 36—8) is an alternating series of triads—three prayers of Jesus and three encounters between Jesus and the sleeping disciples. The three prayers (w. 39,42,44) display much parallelism, as do the scenes in which Jesus speaks with his disciples. The whole is dominated by Jesus' speech. Four times he speaks to his disciples and three times he prays. (Asking for something three times expresses earnestness; cf. 2 Cor 12:8.) The three parallel prayers exhibit a literary technique found elsewhere (cf. Josh 6:12—14). While Jesus' first and second prayers are quoted, his third is just summarized ('saying the same words'). This recalls 20:1-16, wherein we hear the instructions given to the labourers hired at the early hour and the third hour but not the instructions given to those hired at the sixth and ninth hours. Of these last we are simply told: 'he [the householder] did the same'. Similar is 27:39-44, which quotes the mockery of two groups but says of a third: they 'also taunted him in the same way'.
The adverbial use of autou ('here') in v. 36 appears only here in Matthew. Does it allude to Gen 22:5 LXX? In the story of the binding of Isaac Abraham says to his servants: 'Stay here... the boy and I will go over there...' Is there a parallel between Abraham's faith and Jesus' faith? or between Isaac's sacrifice and Jesus' sacrifice? In addition to the parallels of wording and content just noted both Abraham and Jesus take along three people, Abraham and Isaac separate themselves from others for worship or prayer, both episodes are set on a mountain, and each involves 'trial' (pdrasmon; Gen 22:1 LXX: epeiraxen).
The words which convey that Jesus' sorrow is so great as to feel fatal (v. 38) conflate Ps 41:6, 12 || 42:5 LXX with Jon 4:9. His grief, enhanced by his companions' failure to give him companionship and solace, is such that he prays for 'this cup' to pass. In T. Abr. 16:11 the angel of death calls himself'the bitter cup of death' (cf. 1:3). But in the OT, intertestamental literature, and the Apocalypse, 'cup' is most often used figuratively in texts about suffering, especially suffering God's wrath or judgement (e.g. Ps 11:6; 116:13). And in 20:22 the cup Jesus must drink is neither temptation nor death nor martyrdom but rather eschatological sorrow, which will be first poured out upon the people of God (cf. Jer 25:15—29). It is the same here: the crucifixion belongs to the messianic woes. (Cf. further on this passage FGS K.)
(26:47—56) The busy story of Jesus' arrest, which is unusually full of characters, pulls together several strands from earlier sections. The setting at night matches the intention of the
88i MATTHEW
will incriminate Jesus. But it does fulfil the requirement of Deut 19:15 by getting two witnesses, and so despite itself the Sanhedrin hears true testimony. The words about the temple should be interpreted neither as an ecclesiological statement—Jesus will raise up the church—nor an apocalyptic prophecy about the destruction and rebuilding of Jerusalem's temple but as a passion prediction: T am able to destroy the temple of God' means T am able to lay down my life', and 'to build it in three days' means 'to rise from the dead in three days'. This is how the prophecy is interpreted in Jn 2:21, and 'in three days' inevitably recalls Jesus' other prophecies of resurrection. Paul, moreover, shows us the possibility of speaking of the individual as a temple (i Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor 5:1).
Jewish leaders to take Jesus 'by stealth' and avoid a riot (v. 4; cf v. 16). Judas' presence vindicates Jesus' foresight in w. 21, 25, and 45. That the crowd is 'from the chief priests and the elders of the people' takes one back to w. 3-5 and 14-16 and likewise to Jesus' passion predictions. Judas' use of'rabbi' recalls v. 25 and here as there tells us he is no authentic disciple of Jesus. 'They came and laid hands on Jesus' (v. 50) makes for a literal fulfilment of 17:22. Jesus' passivity and non-resistance harmonize with his decision in Gethsemane and his earlier moral instruction (cf. the SM). The two references to Scripture (w. 54, 56) resonate with the entirety of Matthew. And the disciples' flight shows Jesus, not his disciples, to be the true prophet (cf. w. 31-5).
The narrative conveys sorrow through irony. Judas is no stranger but 'one of the twelve' (v. 47). The crowd has swords and clubs (v. 47) while the man they seek does not resist evil. Judas, the betrayer, kisses Jesus and greets him (v. 49). And Jesus' own disciples, instead of standing by him, forsake him and flee (v. 56). At the same time, the sorrow is balanced by Jesus' authority and the motif of fulfilment. The Messiah's fate is his own will: he decides not to ask for legions of angels (v. 53; cf 4:6—7). Moreover, his resolution is determined by the voice of the prophets (w. 54, 56), which is to say: Jesus' will is God's will.
When the high priest stands—which is what wicked accusers do in Ps 27:12 and 35:11—he asks the fundamental question of the pericope. Jesus' silence probably alludes to Isa 53:7 (quoted in Acts 8:32), for the language of 26:67 in
several respects recalls Isa 50:6. But what explains the transition from the temple saying to Christology? Zech 6:12 predicts that 'the Branch' will 'build the temple of the Lord'. And 2 Sam 7:13—14—given messianic sense in both the Dead
Sea scrolls and the NT—foretells a royal figure who will build for God a house and be God's 'son'.
Jesus speaks for the last time of the Son of Man and makes a dramatic public confession. He goes beyond the high priest's question and in effect answers the question left unanswered in 22:45. 'You have said so' has affirmative sense (cf. v. 25; 27:11). Why then the indirect response? First, the wording assimilates the trial before the high priest to the trial before Pilate. Secondly, the use of 'you' puts responsibility upon Caiaphas, who knows the truth: he must live with the consequences of knowing the truth. Thirdly, given his teaching on oaths (5:33—7) Jesus may wish to distance himself from the high priest's language.
(26:57—68) Jesus is neither the victim of tragic, impersonal circumstances nor the casualty of the ordinary machinery of justice. He is rather assailed by wicked people. Jesus' adversaries speak falsehoods (w. 59-60), accuse him of blasphemy (v. 65), condemn him to death (v. 66), and viciously hit and mock him (w. 67—8). In the midst of this sinful folly Jesus' identity becomes fully visible. He is the Son of God and Messiah who, in accordance with 2 Sam 7:14, builds the temple. He is the king of Ps 110:1 who sits at God's right hand. He is the suffering servant of Isa 50:6 whose face is spat upon. And he is the Son of Man of Dan 7:14 who will come on the clouds of heaven. The passage is, like 16:13-20, a climactic confluence of the main Christological streams which run throughout the text.
Jesus' public confession combines Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:1314. But 'from now on' is not from the OT. The words are enigmatic because a prediction beginning 'from now on' should introduce a continuous state. Some have thought the expression stresses that Jesus' trial marks the moment of God's rejection of the Jewish people, or that the emphasis is upon the contrast between Jesus' humiliation in the present and his vindication in the near future. It is certainly intriguing that 28:18 implies the fulfilment or proleptic realization of Dan 7:14. On the other hand, 28:11-15 does not imply that the authorities are in any way changed by subsequent events; in no sense can it be said that they 'see' the Son of Man. So then maybe the Greek means in effect 'in the future'. Jesus will no longer be seen as he is now; rather will he be seen when he comes in glory, seated on a throne and riding the clouds. In line with this the verse has to do with public revelation ('you will see', 'clouds').
The chief literary feature of 26:57-68 is its irony (cf. the irony of 26:47-56). The authorities pass judgement on the one who will some day pass judgement on them. They, by seeking false witnesses, and the high priest, by rending his robe, disobey Moses (cf. Lev 21:10) whereas Jesus, by refusing an oath, lives by his messianic Torah. The authorities mock Jesus' claim to be the Davidic Messiah, the fulfilment of OT hopes, while their very actions bring to pass in Jesus OT prophesies. They accuse Jesus of blasphemy and yet it is they who blaspheme the Son of God. Lastly, those who accuse Jesus of saying that he will destroy the temple of God and in three days build another themselves help fulfil that prophecy; for by sentencing him to death they are creating the circumstance that makes it possible for the temple of his body to be raised in three days. So the Sanhedrin has everything backwards and it ironically acts against its own true interests. This is crystal clear to the reader. It will not, however, be evident to Jesus' persecutors until the parousia.
The scene ends with Jesus passively enduring violence and a ritual of dishonour. This makes him the exemplar of the teaching in 5:38—42. For there Jesus exhorts disciples to eschew violence and not resist evil, and several illustrations follow which borrow language from Isa 50:4-9 LXX, which, as already noted, is again alluded to in the present verse (cf. 27:30). So the OT text associated with turning the other cheek is also associated with the passion of Jesus.
The Sanhedrin violates Torah (cf. Ex 20:16; Deut 5:20) and does not seek the truth. It rather wants only testimony that
MATTHEW 882
him.' Calvin had it right: 'Peter's fall... brilliantly mirrors our own infirmity. His repentance in turn is a memorable demonstration for us of God's goodness and mercy. The story of one man contains teaching of general, and indeed prime, benefit for the whole Church; it teaches those who stand to take care and caution; it encourages the fallen to trust in pardon.'
(26:69^75) Earlier in this chapter Judas defects. Later the other disciples flee. Now Peter, retreating from his promise (v. 35), denies his Lord. This is the climax of the disciples' failure. The first to be called is now the last to fall away.
The first accusation is spoken to Peter by a maid, the second to bystanders by another maid, and the third to Peter by bystanders: things become more and more public. Further, the intensity of Peter's denials increases with the accusations: he first denies that he knows what is being said, then he denies with an oath that he knows Jesus, then he denies Jesus with both an oath and a curse (probably of Jesus). Peter's movements, which take him further and further away from Jesus, also add drama: he is in the courtyard, then he goes to the gateway, then he leaves altogether.
(27:1—2) In fulfilment of the prophetic 20:18—19, me Jewish leaders deliver Jesus to the prefect of Judea. The unexplained act probably assumes that the Jews usually did not have the authority to execute criminals (Jn 18:31): such was the responsibility of the Romans. However that may be, throughout 26:1-56 Jesus has been the active protagonist, and one has the impression that he is in charge of his own destiny. Now this changes: he becomes the passive victim, and the text fixes upon those who act against him.
In its present context this passage supplies irony by balancing v. 74, where Jesus' prophetic powers are mocked. Although Jesus makes no appearance in our story, it shows that, so far from being a false prophet, he has predicted the events of the evening in detail. 'Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times' (v. 34) comes to literal fulfilment precisely while Jesus is being reviled with 'Prophesy to us, you Messiah!' (v. 68).
Tradition, impelled to turn Pilate into either a saint or a devil, has offered two contrasting pictures. In one (mostly Egyptian and Syrian) Pilate is, at the expense of the Jews, presented as an unwilling participant in the death of Jesus: he is innocent of Jesus' blood. Tertullian, Apol. 21, even makes him 'a Christian in his own convictions', and the Coptic church has canonized him. Inthe other (mostly Western) picture Pilate bears full responsibility for the death of Jesus and is presented as 'an unjust judge'—weak-willed at best, evil at worst. In the Mors Pilati he commits suicide, and his corpse becomes a home for demons. Matthew is closer to this second picture. Pilate's wife, after her dream, warns her husband not to have anything to do with Jesus—but Pilate disregards her; and after Jesus is dead Pilate co-operates with the Jewish authorities to appoint a guard for the tomb. So the declaration of innocence in v. 24 is ironic: despite his words Pilate is responsible. Washing his hands does not make them clean.
Our story also balances the trial, where Jesus, like Peter, who is not far away, faces three sets of accusers (false witnesses, v. 60, the two true witnesses, w. 61-2, Caiaphas, w. 63—6). There Jesus is asked whether he is the Messiah, the Son of God. He, although heretofore reticent about his identity, fearlessly confesses that he is. But Peter, who earlier confessed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, no longer acknowledges his Lord: when confronted he becomes a coward. Jesus illustrates the good confession of 10:32, Peter the damning denial of 10:33.
The 'sitting' of v. 69 (cf. v. 58) interests because the disciples sit in Gethsemane (v. 36), the guards (and evidently the high priest) sit at the trial (cf. w. 58, 62), Pilate sits when interrogating Jesus (27.19), and the soldiers at the cross likewise sit (27:36). All this contrasts with earlier chapters, in which it is Jesus who sits, that is, takes the position of authority and rest (5:1; 13:2; 15:29; 21:7; 24:3; 25:31). But after the last supper he no longer sits or reclines. He instead stands (27:11), falls to ground (26:39), and hangs from a cross (27:35). His posture during the passion reflects his temporary renunciation of authority (cf. 26:53) an(^ me lac^ °f all comfort.
(27:3—10) The most obvious formal feature of this interruption is the parallelism between the scriptural quotation (cf. Zech 11:13) and me narrative, a parallelism that underlines fulfilment:
The narrative: 'taking' (6) 'thirty pieces of silver' (3,5,6) 'money' (time) (6) 'the potter's field' (7,8)
The quotation: 'they took' (9) 'thirty pieces of silver' (9) 'price' (timen) (9) 'the potter's field' (10)
Matthew's gospel does not idealize Peter and the other disciples. Rather does it present them as completely human, as complex and inconstant creatures who resist easy caricature. While on the one hand they leave all to follow Jesus, on the other they forsake and deny him. And Peter, who confesses Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God, in the end denies that he knows him. Such contradictory behaviour should not surprise. The Bible of the Matthean community, the OT, does not free Noah, or David, or Solomon from their sins. Even Moses is said to have disobeyed God when he struck the rock twice. We may assume that Matthew's readers interpreted the disciples' failures as they did the failures of OT heroes: God can use ordinary people for his extraordinary purposes and, when they fall into sin, he can grant them forgiveness. As Peter says in the Acts of Peter 7:20: 'He who defended me also when I sinned and strengthened me with his greatness will also comfort you that you may love
There are three other early Christian accounts of Judas' death—Acts 1:16—20 and two fragments assigned to Papias apud Apollinarius (of Laodicea) and preserved in catenas to Mt 27 (a short account) and Acts i (a long account). Although very different from Matthew and each other, there are common items: (i) money from Judas purchases a property near Jerusalem (Matthew: the chief priests use the money of betrayal; Luke: Judas himself acquires the land); (2) that property was known as 'the Field of Blood' (but whereas in Matthew the name is associated with the innocent blood of Jesus, in Acts it derives from Judas' gruesome end); (3) the fate of Judas fulfils Scripture (Matthew and Luke cite different OT texts); (4) Judas comes to a bad end (Matthew: he hangs himself; Acts: he bursts open; Papias' short version: a wagon runs over him).
What does 'he repented' (v. 3) mean? The accounts in Acts and Papias have Judas die by the hand of heaven: there is no
MATTHEW
have agitated. The effect is to highlight not just the innocence of Jesus but also the fault of Rome's representative and especially the guilt of the chief priests and elders, who manipulate Pilate and stir up the crowd against the Messiah.
room for authentic repentance. This, and the depiction of Judas throughout much of church history as infamy embodied, have led most to see in Matthew's Judas an everlasting failure doomed for destruction. This accords with 26:24.
The interrogation is in many respects reminiscent of the Jewish trial. The chief priest(s) and elders are present both times (26:57; wI2> 2O)- On both occasions Jesus is called by others 'the Messiah' (26:63; w-
the other hand, the verb translated here by 'he repented' is used in Mt 22:29 an(^ 32 °f authentic repentance. Further, there are no biblical condemnations or prohibitions of suicide. Indeed, Jewish tradition excuses or justifies the suicides of Saul, Samson, Zimri, and the Roman soldier who killed himself after talking to R. Gamaliel (b. Tcfan. 293); and Josephus, in telling the story of Masada, refers to the participants' 'free choice of a noble death' (J.W. 7. 320-401). Moreover, if 4 Mace 17:21 states that the deaths of a mother and her seven sons became 'a ransom for the sin of our nation', 12:19 an(^ J7:I
I7> 22)- m both Jesus is silent (26:62—3; w11—14)- m b°m he none the less says to his interrogator, 'You have said so' (26:64; vn)- Both trials deem Jesus worthy of death (26:66; w. 24-6). And both are followed by scenes of mockery (26:67; w27~31)- Th£ correlations convey futility: the new trial corrects nothing of the first. Roman justice does no better than the Sanhedrin.
When Pilate washes his hands (v. 24) he is more concerned with his own innocence than with justice and the innocence of Jesus. His act is hypocritical; he is not free of responsibility. Pilate's declaration against the facts contrasts with the dramatic cry of 'the people as a whole'. 'His blood be on us and on our children!' is not a self-curse but a declaration of responsibility—in effect: we acknowledge our involvement if the governor will not. The words are an ironic prophecy (cf. Jn 11:50); for surely Matthew, like so many after him, related the cry to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE (cf. 23:35). This accords with the Jewish habit of associating disaster with sin—even
inform us that the deaths of that mother and of one of her sons were self-inflicted: 'he threw himself into the braziers and so gave up his life'; 'she threw herself into the fire so that no one would touch her body'. Are we to think that Judas' suicide atones for his sin (cf Gen. Rab. on 27:27)?
There is a parallel of v. 4 in 27:24. Pilate, as he washes his hands, declares, T am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.' But the similarities are really differences. Whereas Judas declares his guilt for innocent blood, Pilate denies his; and while Pilate, seeking to avoid responsibility, tells others to 'see to it yourselves', this is what Judas, who acknowledges his responsibility, is told to do by others.
(despite Jer 31:29—30) the disaster of one generation for the sin of another. 'And our children' accordingly carries literal sense. We have here an aetiology, an explanation in terms of collective guilt for the destruction of the capital. (The exegete must distinguish between the original intention of verses and their effects, especially here; v. 25 does not refer to all Israel— neither Jewish Christians nor the Jewish diaspora are represented by the crowd—nor should we find here a curse for all time. Nor does the verse explain God's supposed abandonment of Jews or of the end of the Jewish mission.)
The story of Ahithophel is recalled by v. 5 (cf. 2 Sam 17:23) making Judas akin to the famous betrayer of David. The correlation between Judas and Ahithophel was traditional. Cf. 2 Sam 15:23 with Jn 18:1; 2 Sam 15:31 with Mt 26:36—46 and par., also Ps 41:5 and n (which tradition refers to the incident with Absalom and Ahithophel); 2 Sam 17:1-2 with Mt 26:47-56 and par; Ps 41:9 (attributed to David; cf. b. Sank. io6b) with Mt 14:18 and Jn 13:18; and 2 Sam 18:28 with Jn 13:18. To the allusion to Zech 11:12 made with reference to Judas in 26:15, 27:9-10 adds a formal citation of Zech 11:13, which has been prepared for by allusions in w. 3—8. 'Jeremiah' may be due to textual corruption, or perhaps it is a reference to the entire prophetic corpus, which Jeremiah heads in some old lists, or perhaps the evangelist simply had a mental lapse, or perhaps the text comes from an apocryphon. But the best guess is that the quotation is mixed: words from Jeremiah and Zechariah have been combined. (Mk 1:2 attributes Mai 3:1 + Isa 40:3 to Isaiah, and Rom 9:27 assigns Hos 2:1 + Isa 10:22 to the same prophet.) Jer 18—19 concerns a potter (18:2—6; 19:1), a purchase (19:1), the Valley of Hinnom (where the Field of Blood is traditionally located) (19:2), 'blood of the innocent' (19:4), and the renaming of a place for burial (19:6, n). Further, Jer 32:6—15 tells of the purchase of a field with silver.
Concerning v. 26, 10:17 prophesies that missionaries will be flogged; so once more the story of Jesus, the exemplar in suffering, makes his speech come to life. The 'flogging', perhaps intended to recall Isa 53:5, is not described but only referred to. The Roman act offlagdlum, of tying non-Romans and slaves to a post and then whipping them with knotted leather straps (which sometimes held pieces of metal and/or bone), often preceded crucifixion, and sometimes prisoners were whipped on the way to crucifixion. The horrendous punishment (not humanely limited to forty stripes, cf. Jewish law) was so severe that it could expose bone and by itself be fatal.
If the main theological theme of this passage is responsibility, the literary method is irony. Things are upside down, and words have unintended meaning. The judge of the world, instead of sitting upon his judgement seat, stands before the bema of a lesser. The governor does not govern. While the religious leaders of Judaism rail against God's anointed, the truth is revealed to a pagan. The crowds prefer to free a criminal instead of a just man they once acclaimed. The criminal is named 'Jesus, Son of the Father'. Pilate declares his lack of responsibility in word and deed when he is in fact in charge of the proceedings and their outcome. And the crowd willingly accepts responsibility in words which unwittingly prophesy tragedy. As throughout the gospel things are not
(27:11-26) This passage, which returns to 27:1-2, is crowded with characters—Jesus, Pilate, the chief priests, the elders, Barabbas, Pilate's wife, a crowd. If the subject is the Roman trial of Jesus, which 'sounds less like a formal judicial hearing than a macabre example of oriental bargaining' (France 1985: 388), the focal issue is culpability for Jesus' execution. The main character, the governor, instead of conducting an objective inquiry and justly acting upon the outcome, rather gives cowardly heed to the hostile Jewish leaders and the crowd they
MATTHEW 884
Trees bloomed out of season and powder fell from the sky when Buddha slipped away. The heavens shook when Moses was taken to God (2 Apoc. Bar. 59:3). As Francis of Assisi left the body, larks, otherwise only heralds of dawn, sang at night, w. 51—4 are in one important respect conventional. At the same time, the Matthean signs have their own special meaning. First, most of them—darkness, end of the temple, resurrection, conversion of Gentiles—are eschatological. It follows that the day of the Lord dawns on Golgotha: the divine judgement descends, and the first fruits of the resurrection are gathered. The end of Jesus is the end of the world in miniature.
what they seem, and God's will works itself out in unexpected circumstances.
(27:27—31) This passage (cf. Philo, In Flac. 6.36—40), uncharacteristically full of vivid details, partially fulfils the third passion prediction: 'hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged' (20:19) as W£U as Isa 5O:6. It also in several particulars repeats the conclusion of the trial before Caiaphas (see esp. 26:67).
Kings are proclaimed by their soldiers. But when the Roman soldiers give Jesus a robe, a sceptre, and a crown— whose thorns may simulate the light rays supposed to emanate from the heads of divinities—and then hail him king they are making fun of him for their own amusement. Their homage is pretended. Yet in truth the seemingly hapless criminal before them—here Jesus is an utterly passive object—is indeed a king who shall shortly wield all authority in heaven and earth (28:18). In this way the irony of the Roman burlesque is turned on itself, and the scene continues the message of 27:11—26: things are the opposite of what they seem to be.
Secondly, the miracles come only after Jesus dies. Before then the Son's passivity is matched by God's passivity—so much so that the bystanders can jeer and proclaim God's indifference. But the preternatural events which follow death refute the mockers: their calls for a sign are more than answered. God does indeed fight for the one who has not fought for himself. The mystery is only why God is tardy, why torment and death must come first. Whatever the answer to that eternal question might be, the sequence itself cannot surprise. For the same pattern appears in Jesus' own preaching, in which tribulation and suffering precede vindication and victory (e.g. 5:10-12; 10:17-23; 24:4-34).
(27:32—56) This haunting passage depicts Jesus as the suffering righteous one akin to the figures in Ps 22, Isa 53, and Wis 2; and perhaps its outstanding feature is its scriptural language. Although the OT is never once formally introduced, its presence is everywhere:
There is resemblance between w. 51-5 and 28:1-11:
The Death of Jesus The Resurrection of Jesus An earthquake An earthquake Opening of tombs Opening of tombs A resurrection A resurrection The guards fear The guards fear Witnesses to the events Witnesses to the events (the resurrected saints) (the Roman guards) go to the holy city go to the city There are women witnesses There are women witnesses
34, wine mingled with gall: allusion to Ps 69:21 35, division of garments: borrowing from Ps 22:18 38, death between robbers: possible allusion to Isa 53:12 39, passersby wag their heads: cf. Ps 22:7; Lam 2:15 39-40, mockery: borrowing from Ps 22:7 (cf. 109:25) 43, mockery: borrowing from Ps 22:9 44, mockery: possible borrowing from Ps 22:7 or 69:9 45, darkness at noon: allusion to Am 8:9 46, cry from the cross: borrowing from Ps 22:1 48, vinegar to drink: allusion to Ps 69:21 51—3, earthquake and resurrection: use of Ezek 37; Zech 14:4-5
(including Mary (Mary Magdalene and Magdalene and another another Mary) Mary)
Clearly the resurrection of the saints foreshadows the resurrection of Jesus. (27:57-66) The stories about the burial and the guard set the stage for 28:15. Th£ tomb that is filled here (in accord with Deut 21:23, before sundown) is emptied there. The stone that is here rolled across the door of the tomb is there rolled back. The guard that here secures the sepulchre there proves ineffective. The leaders who here worry that the disciples will come and steal Jesus' body there put out the lie that just such a thing happened. And the women who here see all become witnesses there to the empty tomb and risen Lord.
Matthew does not recount the glorious death of a martyr. Of Jesus' heroic valour and faith we hear nothing, w. 32-50 do not encourage or inspire but rather depict human sin and its frightening freedom in the unfathomable divine silence. There is terror in this text. The mocking and torture of the innocent and righteous Son of God are not intended to make but to shatter sense, to portray the depths of irrational human depravity. And the patient endurance of God, which is so overdone that the Son himself screams out feelings of abandonment, powerfully conveys the frightening mystery of God's seeming inactivity in the world, w. 32—50 are the divine absence, a sort of deistic interlude, a portrait (in Luther's phrase) of Deus absconditus in passionibus. They are akin to portions of Job, and like the speech out of the whirlwind they can evoke what Rudolf Otto called the mysterium tremendum. 'Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Saviour' (Isa 45:15).
A corpse can be either disposed of dishonourably or given an honourable burial. In view of how Jesus has been treated throughout the passion narrative one would anticipate for him the former. But thanks to Joseph of Arimathea's unexpected and reverent intervention, Jesus receives a worthy entombment. Further, like the kings of Israel, he is buried beside Jerusalem (i Kings 15:8, 24, etc.).
The apologetic tale of the guard at the tomb (w. 62-6) refutes the criticism of 28:15, that is, rebuts Jewish slander against the disciples by showing that they could not have stolen Jesus' body—there was a guard and in any case they
While w. 32-50 are seemingly devoid of supernatural activity, w. 51-4 offer an explosion of the supernatural. One cannot but recall the habit of world mythology and literature to encircle the ends of great figures with extraordinary events.
885 MATTHEW
to theft in the cause of piety. Our story answers that slander in kind: the rumour of theft was a self-serving lie fortified by money. Clearly Matthew's Christian community knew and cared about what the synagogue across the street was saying.
were nowhere around—and reinforces belief in Jesus' resurrection: given the guard the empty tomb is a very suggestive sign. One can imagine an exchange between Matthew and critical Jews. Matthew: Jesus rose from the dead and his tomb was empty (28:6). Opponent: did Jesus really die? Matthew: a Roman guard kept watch over him; surely he was dead before his body was released (27:36). Opponent: was there a mix-up in tombs? Matthew: the women saw where Jesus was buried (v. 61). Opponent: the disciples, seeking to confirm Jesus' prophecy of his resurrection after three days, stole the body. Matthew: the disciples had fled, they were nowhere near (26:56). Opponent: then someone else stole the body. Matthew: a large stone was rolled before the tomb; it was sealed; and Roman soldiers kept watch (28:62—6). Opponent: the soldiers fell asleep. Matthew: they were bribed to say that (28:12-15).
(28:16-20) Matthew's conclusion has the same broad outline as Mk 16:14-20; Lk 24:36-49; and Jn 20:19-23. All four texts presumably go back to the same primitive protocommissioning.
The resurrection marks the end of Jesus' earthly time and inaugurates the time of the post-Easter church. Accordingly this pericope both looks back to summarize Jesus' ministry as a whole ('all I have commanded you') and looks forward to the time of the church to outline a programme. So the passage functions to relate two periods which, although different, have the same Lord and so the same mission.
In addition to the allusion to Dan 7:13—14 in v. 18, some have also found dependence upon 2 Chr 36:23 (the final sentence in the Former Prophets). This is improbable. More persistent has been the proposal, usually tentative and muted, that the passage evokes Moses. The mountain itself, given its Mosaic associations throughout Matthew, is suggestive, as is the circumstance that Moses ended his earthly course on a mountain. Further, the narrative has close parallels in Deut3i:i4—15, 23; and Josh 1:1—9, which are all about God, or God through Moses, commissioning Joshua. Josh 1:2 tells Joshua to 'go' (v. 9) and cross the Jordan. Josh 1:7 enjoins Joshua to 'act in accordance with all the law that my servant Moses commanded you'. And Josh 1:9 (the pericope's conclusion) promises God's presence: 'for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go'. Given the undeniable presence of a strong Moses typology elsewhere in Matthew, one infers that this passage, like the commissioning stories in i Chr 22:1—16 and Jer 1:1-10, deliberately borrows from the traditions about Moses. Just as Moses, at the close of his life, commissioned Joshua both to go into the land peopled by foreign nations and to observe all the commandments in the law, and then further promised his successor God's abiding presence, so similarly Jesus: at the end of his earthly ministry he tells his disciples to go into all the world and to teach the observance of all the commandments of the new Moses, and then further promises his assisting presence.
Ps 2:1 asks, 'Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain?' The theme of human impotence versus divine power runs throughout the Bible, and it is part and parcel of w. 62-6. Jesus' opponents take every precaution to prevent proclamation of the resurrection: they seal the stone and set a guard. But their efforts are futile: 'he who sits in the heavens laughs'. Human beings cannot oppose earthquakes and angels and the power of God.
(28:1—15) Th£ resurrection is the necessary end to Jesus' story. Without it his words are vacant and his opponents exonerated. With it, Jesus is vindicated, his cause and authority confirmed, and his—and so Matthew's—opponents disgraced.
Matthew's account opens with an angelophany (cf Dan 10:2-14; 2 Enoch 1:3-10) with eschatological motifs (earthquake, resurrection) (w. 1-8); this is followed by an appearance of the risen Jesus (w. 9—10) and a story of how unbelievers treated the facts (w. 11—15). Th£ verbal repetition between w. 5-7 and 10 makes for emphasis while an additional unifying feature is the artistic correlation between the women and the guards. Both groups gather at Jesus' tomb
(w. i, 4). Both see an angel (w. 2—5). Both feel fear (w. 4, 8). Both leave the tomb in order to tell others what has happened (w. 8, n). And both are told by others what they should say (w. 7, 10, 13—14). The difference lies in this, that while (we assume) the women tell the truth to the disciples, the ineffectual guards (cf. Dan 3:19-23; Acts 5:17-26)—the last nameless walk-ons—lie about the disciples.
Jesus is interpreted by v. 20 as the authoritative bringer of revelation, and 'all that I have commanded you' refers not to one command or to the SM but to the whole of Jesus' teaching—not just imperatives but also proverbs, blessings, parables, and prophecies. But more than verbal revelation is involved, for such revelation cannot be separated from Jesus' life, which is itself a command. Jesus' final words accordingly unify word and deed and envisage the entire book. The ministry as a whole is an imperative.
The women (cf. 27:55, 61), having observed the sabbath and waited until the following dawn, set forth to visit the tomb on the first day of the week. They become witnesses to Jesus' resurrection as well as to his death and burial. Although 'to see the tomb' is unexplained, visitation of the newly entombed was probably an established burial custom. Sem. 8:1 records the habit of visiting graves 'until the third day' (cf. Jn 11:17,39) as a precaution against burying someone alive (examples of which are given in Sem.). If this is the premise of Mt 28:1, then the women who go to confirm Jesus' death become instead the first witnesses of his new life. It is not Jesus who is dead but (at least figuratively) the guards ('became as dead men').
This section satisfyingly completes the gospel in part because it is almost a compendium of Matthean theology: 'Galilee' fulfils the prophecies in 26:32 and 28:7 and creates a literary arch with 4:12 that spans the gospel; 'mountain' recalls other mountain scenes, especially 4:8. 'They worshipped him; but some doubted' has been foreshadowed by 14:31—3. 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me' echoes 11:27 as W£U as Dan 7:13-14, which Jesus has elsewhere applied to himself (24:30; 26:64); it further brings to completion
w. 11—15 take up 27:62—6 and 28:2—4 an(^ like them are apologetic. Evidently the Jewish opponents of Matthean Christianity (like Reimarus centuries later) did not dispute the historicity of the empty tomb but rather assigned its cause
MARK 886
Beare, F. W. (1981), The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London:
the theme of Jesus' kingship (1:1, etc.). 'Make disciples' reminds one of 13:52 (cf 27:57); 'all nations' terminates the prohibition of 10:5—6 (cf. 15:24); 'of the Father and of the Son and ofthe Holy Spirit'in connection withbaptism reminds one of ch. 3, where the Son is baptized, the Father speaks, and the Spirit descends. 'Teaching' recapitulates a central theme and gives the disciples a task heretofore reserved for Jesus; 'everything that I have commanded you' envisages all Jesus has said and done; 'I am with you always' forms an indusio with 1:23 and is similar to 18:20; 'the end ofthe age' recurs in 13:39,40, 49; 24:3, and puts one in mind of Jesus' teachings about the end. The allusions to Moses reactivate the Moses typology.
Harper & Row). Betz, H. D. (1985), The Sermon on the Mount, Hermeneia (Minneap-
olis: Fortress). Bornkamm, G. (1963), 'The Stilling ofthe Storm in Matthew', in G.
Bornkamm, G. Earth, and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation In Matthew (London: SCM). Bultmann, R. (1963), History ofthe Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell). Carter, W. (1994), Households and Dlsclpleshlp, JSNTSSup 103 (Shef-
field: JSOT). Davies, W. D. (1964), The Setting ofthe Sermon on the Mount (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press). Dodd, C. H. (1963), Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cam-
The climax and crown of Matthew's gospel is profoundly apt in that it invites the reader to enter the story: 28:16—20 is an open-ended ending. Not only does v. 2oaunderlinethatthe particular man, Jesus, has universal significance, but T am with you always' reveals that he is always with his people. The result is that the believing audience and the ever-living Son of God become intimate. The Jesus who commands difficult obedience is atthe same time the ever-graceful divine presence.
bridge: Cambridge University Press). Donaldson, T. L. (1985), Jesus on the Mountain: A Study In Matthean
Theology, JSNTSSup 8 (Sheffield: JSOT). France, R. T. (1985), Matthew (Leicester: Inter-Varsity). Gundry, R. H. (1982), Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and
Theological Art (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans). Heil, J. P. (1991), The Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Minneapolis:
Fortress). Hengel, M. (1981), The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (Edin-
burgh: T. £ T. Clark). Luz, U. (1985,1990), Das Evangellum nach Matthdus, EKKNT i/i, 2, 2
vols. (Zurich and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger and Neukirchener). Manson, T. W. (1949), The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM).
Allison, D. C. (1993), The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minne-
apolis: Fortress).
58. Mark C. M. TUCKETT
Any link between our gospel and Peter is also hard to establish. It is true that Peter is regularly one of an inner group of disciples (cf. 1:29-31; 9:2-13; 13), and Peter is regularly belittled (cf. 8:33), a fact which some argue is only explicable if Peter had given explicit sanction to the gospel. However, Peter is not unique in all this, and the negative picture is shared with all the disciples; in fact Matthew and Luke have more traditions specifically about Peter (Mt 16:17—19; Lk 5:1—11). The link alleged between Mark's gospel and Peter is probably part of a second-century attempt to give the gospel more status by linking it with the leading apostle.
A. The Earliest Gospel. The Gospel of Mark is probably the earliest ofthe three synoptic gospels to be written. Although it is disputed by some, the most widely held solution today to the Synoptic Problem, the problem ofthe relationship between the three synoptic gospels, is that Mark's gospel was written first and was then used as a source by Matthew and Luke. That theory will not be discussed in detail here but will be assumed in what follows. (On this, see discussions on the Synoptic Problem in ch. 61, below and e.g. Tuckett 1992.)
B. Author. 1. About the author ofthe gospel we probably know very little. Ancient tradition calls him Mark, almost certainly intending to identify him as the John Mark mentioned elsewhere in the NT, a member ofthe primitive Jerusalem church. A tradition going back at least as early as the second-century Church Father Papias also connects Mark with the apostle Peter, so that the gospel is sometimes regarded as in some sense Peter's memoirs. The link with Peter has then also led to Mark's gospel being associated with the city of Rome, perhaps reflecting a situation of extreme suffering by the Christian community there in the persecutions instigated by Nero in the 6os after the great fire of Rome. 2. None of this, however, is certain. It seems very unlikely, for example, that the author ofthe gospel was a Palestinian Jew. He appears to be rather ignorant about local geography (see MK 5:1; 7:31), as well as about Jewish customs or laws (see MK 7:3-4; 10:11-12). He may well have been called Mark, but the name was a very common one in the Roman empire and we cannot simply equate all the Marks we know!
C. Date. The date of the gospel is also uncertain. The traditional view is, as we have seen, that Mark dates from the 6os. Much depends on the interpretation of ch. 13, where Mark's Jesus looks into the future to what is to come, though for Mark no doubt some of what is predicted has already happened. The language there is at times cryptic, and perhaps deliberately so. The view adopted in this commentary is that Mark is looking back to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE as an event in his past: hence Mark is to be dated after 70 CE (though probably not long after). For discussion of this, see MK 13, especially
13:14—20.
D. Place. By tradition, Mark is to be located in Rome. In support of this one can point to the fact that Mark uses Latin loanwords (e.g. for 'centurion' in 15:39) and seems to think in terms of Roman coinage (see 12:42) and the Roman divisions of time (see 13:35). However, although a Roman origin would fit with this evidence, it is not the only possibility. Latin loan-
887 MARK
words and Roman coinage would have been influential in other places than Rome in the empire.
faith they cannot take place (see 6:5); further, the one who performs all these mighty works is the one who will end up on the cross.
The stress on suffering in Mark's gospel (see below) has also been thought to fit a Roman origin. However, it is not absolutely clear that Mark's stress on suffering is necessarily reflecting the situation of his community: it might just as well be due to his wishing to speak to his community about possibilities and dangers which they were not yet facing. See MK 8:34-9:1. Further, a date after 70 for the gospel would mean that it could not be situated directly in the Neronian persecutions. In the end we probably have to be agnostic and say we do not know precisely where Mark comes from or what community he is writing for.
2. Above all the centre of the story for Mark is the person of Jesus. What is crucial for Mark is the question of Christology. At one level this statement is trite since, for all the evangelists, Jesus is the centre of attention in the story. Nevertheless, for Mark it is above all the question of who Jesus is that is paramount. Further, for Mark, it seems that this cannot be answered simply in words or titles. There is an element of secrecy in the story, so that characters in the narrative do not grasp who Jesus is. The reader is told right at the start what are the most appropriate terms in which to understand Jesus (see MK 1:1), but even then, Mark has more to say: indeed that is presumably why he writes his story, to show what any words of title mean in concrete terms. For Mark, Jesus is supremely 'Son of God', but what Mark understands by this is not fully clarified, even for the reader, until the cross (cf 15:39). Mark gives us what can be described as a narrative Christology. It is the narrative which, in the end, tells the reader how Mark wishes Jesus to be understood.
E. Genre. What kind of a text is Mark's gospel? To what genre does it belong? Ever since the second century the book has been known as a 'gospel'. Yet that is a very unusual term for a literary text, let alone an account of the life and ministry of Jesus (see MK 1:1). Older studies had claimed that the gospels were in some sense 'biographies', comparable to works such as those about Socrates (by Plato) or Epictetus (by Arrian). However, early in the twentieth century form critics (Bultmann, Dibelius) argued that the gospels were really folk literature, not to be compared with literary works. The evangelists were simply popular story-tellers who did not impose their own ideas on the material. In particular a text such as
3. A theme almost as important for Mark as Christology is that of discipleship. What does it mean to be a follower of the one who is the Son of God in this Markan sense? As already noted, Mark's Jesus gives an extended block of teaching on discipleship as entailing following Jesus in the same way of suffering and death, the way of the cross (see 8:34—10:52). So too the characters of the disciples play a key role in Mark's story. For Mark it is a matter of concern to show something of what is, or should be, involved in being a follower of Jesus within the Christian church.
Mark displayed none of the characteristic features of biography (nothing on Jesus' personality, psychological development, origins, or education). The gospels were thus without analogy and were sui generis.
Such a claim is very odd in literary terms. Some understanding of the genre of a text is essential if it is to be understood at all. Further, this rather low view of a writer such as Mark has been radically questioned in more recent study. Thus, whilst it remains true that close parallels to Mark are hard to find, in either the Jewish or Hellenistic world of the period, many have swung back to the view that Mark may be seen as in some sense a biography, although not in the modern sense of the word. There is indeed very little on Jesus' background or personality in Mark. Yet equally, ancient writing claiming to give the lives (Gk. bioi) of individuals often lacked some of these features. Thus if one takes a relatively broad spread of ancient 'lives' of individuals, Mark's gospel can be shown to lie within those parameters. (See Burridge 1992.)
G. Purpose. 1. Why then has Mark presented his story in the way he has? There is almost certainly no single answer. Mark writes for a variety of reasons and it would be wrong to pin him down to one single purpose. Some quite general factors are no doubt possible: for example, with the spread of the Christian church geographically, and with the passing of time, Christians no doubt needed information about Jesus and his teaching.
2. Nevertheless, Mark's distinctive presentation remains unexplained by such general considerations. As already noted in passing, the traditional view is that Mark writes for a suffering community (perhaps in Rome) to strengthen their faith in a time of intense persecution. This too is possible, though it is noteworthy that, whilst Mark's Jesus has a lot to say about the necessity of suffering, there is very little in the gospel about any positive significance in such suffering. It is just as likely that Mark's very distinctive account, with the cross so central, is making a positive point to his readers quite as much as reflecting the current experiences of his community. The most extreme form of such a theory is that of Weeden (1971) who argues that Mark is involved in intense Christological debates with a group of people he regards as heretics in his community: they advocate a view of Jesus as a divine man, a super-hero characterized by miracles, glory, and power; Mark opposes them with his view of Jesus characterized by weakness, service, and suffering. Weeden also advocates that, in the story, Mark's point of view is represented by Jesus, that of the heretics by the disciples.
Yet this does not determine exactly how the text should be read. It does not, for example, necessarily imply that the text is ipso facto historically reliable. Many other 'biographies' were written with an author's own axe to grind. In this Mark is no exception. Certainly Mark presents us with a highly distinctive account of Jesus' life and some of its implications.
F. Key Themes. 1. As already noted, a key theme of the gospel is suffering: Jesus is the one who supremely fulfils his destiny as the one who suffers and dies, and any disciple of Jesus is called to follow in the same way (see 8:34—10:52). Jesus is also the great miracle worker, though one suspects that Mark would not see this as the most important part of Jesus' ministry. Jesus is indeed the great miracle worker, but miracles must, for Mark, be seen in their proper context: they can never be the basis for faith, indeed without an existing context of
MARK 888
Christ'. Is it the good news about Jesus, or the good news preached by Jesus? v. 14 (where Jesus proclaims the good news) suggests that the latter is in mind, though it is not impossible that both are intended. The force of the reference to the 'beginning' is also uncertain. Does this mean that v. i refers only to the introductory verses (so that the full 'gospel' then follows) ? Or is there a sense in which the whole of Mark's story is only a 'beginning', and it is up to each reader to carry on where the story leaves off to find the complete gospel? The nature of the ending of Mark's story, with its startling abruptness (see MK 16:8), makes the latter possibility an attractive option. But in any case the opening verse makes it crystal clear to the reader who is the subject of the story to come: it is Jesus who is the Messiah and Son of God. Yet what these terms mean is not yet made clear.
3. Weeden's theory is probably too extreme. His view of the role of the disciples in the story is questionable (see Tannehill 1977 and MK 1:16—20), and the language of 'heresy' in a context such as Mark's is probably anachronistic. Nevertheless, the overall theory may have an element of truth in it. Mark's portrait of Jesus may be intended to modify or correct the views of the readers of the gospel (even if talk of 'opponents' is too extreme). Mark clearly wants to present Jesus in one light and not another (cf e.g. 10:45: Jesus as Son of Man came not to be served but to serve). Similarly, Mark may be wanting to mould, perhaps change, his readers' views about the nature of Christian discipleship.
4. With his stress on the centrality of the cross, Mark is very like Paul in his views about Jesus and the nature of Christian discipleship. Yet we should not take this for granted, as if Mark could be no different and all first-century Christians were the same. We know from Paul's letters that his own views were frequently controversial and disputed by other Christians within his communities. It may be similar with Mark, whose presentation of Jesus in his gospel is, among other things, a call to his readers to re-evaluate their views about both Jesus and themselves (see also MK 16:8). How we read the gospel may be in part determined by how we respond to such a challenge.
w. 2-8 serve to set the scene in a wider context. They first bring on to the stage not Jesus himself but the figure of John the Baptist, and in turn John is introduced by a (mixed) OT citation, (v. 2 is a mixture of Ex 23:20 and Mai 3:1; v. 3 is from Isa 40:3. The reference to Isaiah in the introductory words in v. 2 is probably a mistake.) Yet John has little significance of his own in Mark's narrative. Mark tells us nothing of John's own eschatological preaching (as in Mt 3:7—10 and par.), nor of any of his ethical teaching (cf. Lk 3:11-14). The only words John speaks point forward to Jesus (w. 7-8). Similarly the OT citation (one of the very few explicit citations in Mark) is only brought in to point forward to John. w. 2—8 are really therefore constructed from the end backwards, where each element points forward to the next. The citation of the OT identifies the time as one of the fulfilment of Jewish eschatological hopes. Moreover, the note in v. 6 of John's clothing may be intended to evoke the clothing of Elijah (2 Kgs 1:8): hence John is cast in the role of an Elijah-figure, and Elijah was the prophet expected to come before the final day of the Lord (cf. Mai 4:5—6). So too the 'wilderness', as the place of John's baptizing activity, was the place from where many Jews expected the final eschatological deliverance to appear. Thus the details of Mark's account serve to place the events to come within a context of the fulfilment of Jewish eschatological hopes. How far all these expectations relate to the historical person of John himself is hard to say. It is not easy to ascribe the words of the saying in w. 7—8 to the historical John: John may have been expecting the coming of God Himself. Nevertheless, for Mark, the saying now refers to Jesus.