f59

This genealogy, though, is not primarily about biology. The artificial patterning of 3 × 14 generations, the lack of match between the number of generations and the likely time spans, the false link between Salmon and Rahab (1:5), and missing generations (1:8, 11) indicate a different focus. Matthew narrates a distinctive version of the biblical story in which the purposes of God are worked out through the ages and generations, and especially through Jesus. Jesus’ significance is defined by divine purposes and not, for example, by cultural markers such as elevated social status, noble birth, wealth, and power. The selected biblical traditions provide a theological framework for the rest of the Gospel, where everything and everyone are evaluated in relation to God’s workings (Carter 2000, 53–66; Waetjen).

While repeating a formula “a was the father of b” some thirty-nine times may not strike modern sensibilities as a gripping beginning, first-century readers found this opening genealogy to be of great significance. Genealogies linked the present with the past. They named prestigious ancestors, creating identity through an ancestral line to which some belonged and some did not. Jesus and his followers are set in a line that originates with the eminent figures of David and Abraham.

This theological focus is polemical in the context of Matthew’s audience. Jewish traditions included various tellings of the biblical story. Matthew’s account chooses to highlight the key role of Jesus. Further, in the context of the Roman Empire, Rome’s self-presentation in coins, public festivals, buildings, and literature written by elite authors emphasized Rome as chosen by the gods. Jupiter had chosen Rome to manifest the gods’ will and blessing throughout the earth. The genealogy’s concern with God’s purposes contests those claims and offers an alternative. God’s purposes are displayed through Israel and Jesus, not Rome.

The genealogy establishes that God intends life for all people, not only the empire’s privileged elite. The opening verse (“the book of the origin”) evokes God’s life-giving act of creation (Genesis 1). Abraham recalls God’s declaration of blessing through him for all the nations of the earth (Gen. 12:1–3), a promise elaborated in terms of fertility, food, health, and safety in the covenant blessings of Deuteronomy 28–29. Linking Jesus to David recalls the kingly tradition that was to represent God’s reign, justice, and protection for the vulnerable (Psalm 72). The genealogy also uses a common technique in the ancient world involving numbers to emphasize David’s importance. The number fourteen, which structures the three sets of fourteen generations, underlines David’s importance (1:17). The numerical value of the consonants in David’s name in Hebrew adds up to fourteen.

The genealogy demonstrates that God’s purposes are wide and inclusive, embracing gentiles (Ur, Babylon) and Jews (Israel, Judah), men and women (five in 1:3, 5–6, 16), the celebrated (Abraham, David) and the nobodies that even the tradition has forgotten (1:3b–4, 13–15), the powerful (kings) and those on the cultural margins (the women). Nor is God bound by human structures such as imperial power (Babylon), patriarchy (the women), or primogeniture (Isaac not Ishmael; Jacob not Esau). God is not confined by human boxes.

At least two issues have dominated interpretive discussions. Interpreters have long noticed that Matthew’s genealogy differs significantly from that of Luke 3:23–38. Tertullian explained the difference by claiming that Matthew offers Mary’s genealogy while Luke provides Joseph’s. Others have tried to distinguish between a “natural” genealogy and a “legal” genealogy, though which Gospel offers which continued to be debated. Both approaches are unsatisfactory because they do not recognize the theological and narrative functions of the genealogy.

As christological debates and formulations unfolded through the second to fifth centuries, interpreters read the genealogy as underscoring the humanity of Jesus. It showed the birth of the human Jesus. John Chrysostom saw the marvel of the incarnation in observing the skeletons that rattled in Jesus’ closet. These rattling ancestors included sinful characters such as the women, Judah who had sex with an apparent prostitute (his daughter-in-law Tamar), and the adulterer David.

Matthew 1:18–2:23: Jesus’ Conception, Commission, and Vulnerability

The genealogy is often regarded as irrelevant for contemporary congregations and is not often utilized in preaching. Yet it contains important perspectives both for the Gospel narrative as a whole and as a subsection of the Gospel.

For example, every name evokes a story of encounter with God and a role in the divine scheme. What emerges from these individual stories is a mosaic attesting that God’s work embraces all people through diverse circumstances: faithfulness or sinfulness (many of the kings in 1:6b–11 were unfaithful to the vision of kingship in Psalm 72) or gender (male and female) or ethnicity (Jew and gentile) or imperial power (Babylon cannot thwart God’s faithfulness, 1:11–12) or even anonymity when some of the characters, especially in verses 12–15, are unknown. Human sinfulness and assertions of imperial power are caught up in, but cannot derail, God’s faithful efforts to be with God’s people and enact God’s will. Preaching and informed Bible study can explore these numerous stories.

The presence of the women, unusual but not unique in ancient genealogies, provides another point of connection. They also underline God’s inclusive and unconventional ways of working. The naming of Tamar (1:3; cf. Genesis 38), Rahab (1:5; cf. Joshua 2), Ruth (1:5; cf. Ruth), the wife of Uriah (Bathsheba, 1:6; 2 Samuel 11–12), and Mary (1:16) disrupt the pervasive and patriarchal “a was the father of b” pattern. Why are they included? Numerous suggestions have included their gentile origins or connections, and unconventional sexual roles (Tamar, seducer; also Ruth; Rahab, prostitute; Bathsheba, adulterer; Mary, pregnant virgin) that bypass and even threaten conventional patriarchal structures. They occupy socially marginal and often culturally powerless locations in which they exercise initiative and participate in God’s plans. They often exhibit faithfulness lacking from their attendant males (Levine 1998, 340–41).

Framed by the theological context of the genealogy, the Gospel story commences with the conception, commissioning, and endangerment of Jesus as God’s agent (Carter 2000, 66–89).

First, Jesus is conceived at God’s initiative. Twice Mary’s pregnancy is attributed to the Spirit (1:18, 20), and twice she is said to be pregnant before having sex with Joseph (1:18, 25). Stories of miraculous conceptions involving divine power circulated about great conquering military men and rulers such as Alexander “the Great” and the emperor Augustus. Jesus is placed among heroes, though for very different reasons (Horsley).

Second, God commissions Jesus as the agent of God’s purposes. Named “Jesus,” he is to save from sin (1:21) and, as Emmanuel, to manifest God’s presence (1:23). As God’s chosen agent (“son,” 2:15), Jesus joins and exceeds other agents such as Moses (5:21–22), David (22:42–43), Solomon (12:42), as well as chosen places such as the temple (12:6). He also contests Roman claims to be the designated agent of divine purposes, will, and blessings among humans (Carter 2001, 57–107).

Third, the Scriptures interpret Jesus. Five times (1:22–23; 2:5–6, 15, 17–18, 23), the narrator stops the action to underscore God’s shaping of events by quoting the Hebrew Bible. Four of these instances involve prophets: Isaiah (1:22–23), Micah (2:5–6), Hosea (2:15), Jeremiah (2:18). The fifth is attributed to the collective entity of “the prophets,” with no one particular source able to be identified (2:23). The citations do not mean that prophets predicted events in Jesus’ life or his messianic identity centuries ago. None of these texts mentions a messiah. Rather, the prophets addressed a word from the Lord to circumstances in their own time. Matthew, reading with “Jesus-glasses,” sees God doing similar things in Jesus’ life and uses Hebrew Scriptures to interpret his significance.

Fourth, Jesus is opposed by King Herod. Herod ruled Judea as Rome’s client king and agent of Rome’s interests. Introducing both Herod (2:1) and Jesus (2:2) as kings sets up the conflict. Herod uses various methods typical of an imperial tyrant to eliminate Jesus as a threat to his and Roman interests. He gains information from his allies, the Jerusalem leaders (the chief priests and scribes; 2:3–6). He tries to turn the magi into spies (2:7–8). He tells lies, claiming that he wants to pay homage to Jesus (2:8). He tries to kill Jesus (2:13), creating misery in killing all the male babies two years and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem (2:16–18). His attempts are thwarted by divine intervention through an angel and dreams (2:13). He dies, an event the narrative attests three times by way of emphasizing God’s protection of Jesus and God’s purposes being worked out through him (2:15, 19, 20). The threat of imperial power to Jesus continues with Herod’s son Archelaus (2:22).

Fifth, the magi and a star witness to Jesus. The gentile magi “from the East” are astrologers, interpreting events in relation to the stars. Stars were commonly associated with important events or the births of important figures such as emperors (Augustus, Nero). Magi often had some marginal and destabilizing role as political advisors. They come to pay homage to Jesus, thereby threatening Herod (2:2–3). They bring gifts for Jesus (2:11), which in Matthew’s narrative recalls Hebrew Bible traditions of gentile homage in Jerusalem (Isaiah 60; Ps. 72:10–11). Their witness emphasizes Jesus’ significance for gentiles and Jews.

And sixth, Jesus is protected from Herod by the righteous Joseph (1:19). In chapter 2, Joseph’s righteousness comprises his receptivity in dreams to the angel’s leading and his instant obedience (2:13–15, 19–21, 22). The narrative underscores his obedience by narrating his actions with wording almost identical to the angel’s instructions.

This section has a rich interpretive history (Luz 2007, 89–131). The passage itself engages in reinterpretation of biblical texts, reading them in a new context in relation to Jesus. It also employs numerous echoes of the Moses story—killing male children, conflict with rulers, divine protection, Egypt—thereby linking Moses and Jesus.

In the church’s history, Matthew’s reading of Hebrew Bible texts in relation to Jesus has often provoked anti-Jewish attitudes in Christian readers. These citations have often been misread in mechanistic, predictive terms with prophets “obviously” referring to Jesus. Accordingly, when Jewish readers of the Hebrew Bible texts did not see references to Jesus, condemnations from Christians have been harsh. Martin Luther, for instance, fumes about “obstinate damned Jews” who did not see Isa. 7:14 (addressing an eighth-century-BCE crisis with Assyria) as a reference to Jesus. As with many readers, Luther fails to see Matt. 1:22 and all Matthew’s citations of the Hebrew Bible as distinctively Christian readings.

Mary’s conception has been much debated. The Roman Catholic tradition has defended her perpetual virginity, while Protestant interpreters have noted Matt. 13:55’s references to Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Other interpreters have read this verse in terms of Joseph’s children from another marriage (Epiphanius), or cousins (Jerome).

Since the Enlightenment, Mary’s virgin birth has been both strongly defended by those who understand God to intervene in human history to accomplish anything and dismissed as improbable by rationalists and those committed to cause-and-effect historical inquiry. The latter can, nevertheless, find meaning in the narrative in terms of God’s gracious initiative of the events of Jesus’ life.

The magi have spawned extensive traditions (Powell, 131–84). They have been turned into kings, numbered (three? twelve?), named (in the sixth century), celebrated in festivals (thirteen days after Jesus’ birth: Augustine), and paid homage in a Middle Ages cult of relics and devotion that was opposed by the Reformers. Their gifts have been interpreted christologically (gold for kingship, frankincense for high priesthood or divinity, myrrh for humanness or death) or as denoting discipleship qualities (variously, prayer, faith, good works, reason, mercy, etc.).

Matthew 3:1–4:16: Witnessed to by John and the Scriptures, Tempted by the Devil

Often read around the Christmas season, this rich text counters popular sentimentality and materialism with a profound theological claim (“God is with us”), a christological revelation of Jesus as agent of God’s saving presence, examples of faithful discipleship (Joseph, the magi), and a warning that empires always strike back, resisting to death divine efforts for a transformed world (Herod).

Chapters 1–2 have introduced Jesus and his mission as agent of God’s saving presence (1:21–23). He is initiated and commissioned by God, interpreted by (as he interprets) the Scriptures, opposed by Herod, ignored by the Jerusalem leaders, attested to by a star and the gentile magi, and protected by Joseph. This section continues to prepare for his public ministry (Carter 2000, 90–116).

In 3:1–12, John the Baptizer appears, a popular prophet, like others in the first-century Judean context (Taylor). His mission is to purify people in preparation for God’s coming reign and the agent of that reign. Isaiah 40:3, originally a reference echoing the exodus to describe God’s saving the Babylonian exiles, is reinterpreted to sanction John’s work. Perceiving life in Rome’s empire to be inconsonant with God’s empire/kingdom, John demands repentance (3:2), expressed, at least initially, in the cleansing sign-action of baptism (3:6).

His ministry, oriented to God’s empire, is opposed by Pharisees and Sadducees. The phrase “coming for baptism” is much more adequately translated “coming against baptism.” The exchange is ugly, with John’s harsh rebuke and threat of divine judgment (3:7–10). These groups, with the chief priests and scribes (2:4), constitute the religious-societal leaders who, as allies and retainers of Rome, embody a societal vision and practices that Jesus contests throughout. Their presence may reflect post-70-CE debates over societal practices such as observance of the Sabbath, food purity, and interactions with gentiles. The scene ends with John witnessing to Jesus as the dispenser of the Spirit and eschatological judge (Murphy). The Gospel emphasizes the latter role, with Jesus as the agent of God’s judgment of a world ruled by Rome, which is allied with the Jerusalem leaders (e.g., 25:31–46).

In 3:13–17, Jesus appears as an adult. His baptism by John is presented as a revelatory occasion with the “heavens opened” (compare Ezek. 1:1–2), the Spirit descending on him, and God speaking (which happens again in 17:5). God endorses Jesus as God’s agent or beloved Son, empowered and sanctioned to carry out the mission of manifesting God’s saving presence (1:21–23). For first-century readers, the language of “son” employs Hebrew Bible language denoting God’s people (Hos. 11:1) and kings (Ps. 2:7) as representatives or agents of God’s will. It does not yet bear the high christological meanings that will develop in subsequent centuries.

As God’s agent/son, Jesus demonstrates loyalty to God by resisting the devil (4:1–11). Numerous Jewish traditions attest the devil as tempter. The central issue concerns whether Jesus will remain faithful to his identity as God’s son/agent (3:17; 4:3, 6), or whether he will be directed by the devil. Even when the temptation has a noble end—turning stones into bread—the issue remains one of authorization. The third temptation positions the devil as the power in control of Rome’s empire. Though not the Gospel’s only statement about the empire, it is nevertheless an important perspective for Jesus-followers who live in the Roman Empire. While the empire claims to be chosen by the gods (as Jupiter) to manifest their blessings and worldwide rule, this temptation scene “reveals” that the actual power “behind the throne” is the devil. Jesus-followers are cautioned to be careful in ascribing absolute power to the empire.

Witnessed to by John, sanctioned by God, tempted by the devil, Jesus is now interpreted and legitimated by the Scriptures (4:12–16). Prompted by John’s arrest (unelaborated until 14:1–12), Jesus withdraws to Galilee and Capernaum in Zebulon and Naphtali. These regions, bearing the names of two Israelite tribes, were land allocations in the promised land (Josh. 19:10–16, 32–39). Jesus thus withdraws to territory that the tradition attests God had given and over which God should have sovereignty. Now Galilee is “of the Gentiles” (4:15). The genitive case indicates possession and suggests translations such as “Galilee under the Gentiles” or “Galilee possessed by the Gentiles.” The gentiles are Rome, whose world is described as “darkness” and “death.” The citation from Isa. 9:1–2 referred, in the eighth century, to Assyrian domination. Matthew reads it in relation to Roman control and deliverance (“light”) in Jesus, the eschatological judge.

Two of the scenes, Jesus’ baptism and his temptation, have presented interpreters with significant challenges (Luz 2007, 133–60). Mark’s Gospel narrates Jesus’ baptism as a revelatory event without explanation or rationale. Matthew’s addition of the dispute between John and Jesus over who should baptize whom (3:14–15) reflects concern or embarrassment among Jesus’ followers over Jesus’ submission to John, and the implication of Jesus’ need for forgiveness. Matthew’s solution is to present the event as enacting the divine will and saving action (“fulfill all righteousness”). Subsequent interpreters found the scene difficult for high Christologies, rejecting notions that Jesus the eternal Son was adopted as God’s Son at baptism or that the fully incarnated eternal Logos was somehow devoid of the Spirit until baptism. Others, like Calvin, saw the scene witnessing to the triune God with Father, Son, and Spirit acting in concert, with the revelation of Jesus’ Sonship not for his benefit but as a public witness. The problem of course is that Matthew presents the revelation of the Spirit’s presence as something Jesus alone sees (3:16) even while recasting the heavenly voice. Mark’s private word to Jesus (“You are my Son, the Beloved,” Mark 1:11) becomes in Matthew a public announcement (“this is my Son, the Beloved”).

Interpreters have, predictably, connected the scene with the ecclesial practice of baptism. Ignatius saw Jesus purifying water. Augustine celebrated the connection of water and word. In Eastern traditions, epiphany became the occasion for baptisms. Interestingly, the New Testament writers do not make the argument that believers should imitate Jesus in being baptized. Some have seen this absence as indicating, using the criterion of dissimilarity, the historicity of Jesus’ baptism. (The criterion of dissimilarity has been used by scholars questing for the historical Jesus; it states in its classic form that if an action or saying is dissimilar to Jewish culture and to early church practice or teaching, the saying or action probably derives from Jesus.)

A more useful reading strategy might be found in understanding the scene’s roles in the unfolding narrative of the Gospel. Each scene underscores aspects of Jesus’ mission and identity in preparation for his public ministry, which begins in 4:17.

The scenes in this section can be difficult for contemporary readers looking for ready guidance for daily living. John the Baptist can seem to us to be something of a caricature: weird and remote, involving anger issues, bad wardrobe, and an obsession with judgment. Clearly Matthew’s presentation takes him very seriously. The temptation scene with the devil is also difficult for some readers, many of whom have not found quoting Bible verses to be an effective strategy for countering temptations.

Part 2: Jesus’ Public Ministry Begins (Matthew 4:17–11:1)

A new section begins with the transitional statement that “from that time, Jesus began to preach …” (4:17). In this section Jesus commences his public ministry (Carter 2000, 119–27).

Matthew 4:17–5:48: God’s Empire Displayed in Jesus’ Actions and Teaching

Jesus declares that “the kingdom/empire of the heavens has come near” (4:17, author’s translation; cf. 3:2). The term “kingdom/empire” is also used to denote Rome’s rule. Jewish traditions used the image of rule to celebrate God delivering God’s people (Psalms 47; 72). Here it expresses Jesus’ commission to manifest God’s saving presence (1:21–23). This reign originates in God’s domain, heaven (cf. 6:10); the verb “come near” tensively holds together nearness and arrival.

The following two scenes illustrate the disruptive and restorative impact of God’s rule/empire. In 4:18–22, it overturns the lives of four fishermen embedded in the empire’s socioeconomic structures of a fishing economy, providing new allegiance, mission, and community (Hanson and Oakman, 106–10). Then Jesus heals numerous sick people (4:23–25). The sick embody the damage of imperial structures, especially elite control on food supply whereby the powerful few ate well while many struggled for regular adequate nutrition, resulting in diseases of deficiency and contagion. God’s reign, manifested in Jesus’ healings, restores wholeness and anticipates the physical wholeness of the eschaton.

Having enacted God’s grace in calling disciples, Jesus instructs them (5:1–2) in the Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5–7; Betz; Patte). The sermon’s placement after their call is decisive for its interpretation as an identity-forming, practice-shaping discourse. God’s empire (5:3, 10, 19–20; 6:10, 33; 7:21) provides the central image of this first of five major teaching blocks (chs. 5–7; 10; 13; 18; 24–25). Its setting on an unidentified mountain evokes God’s giving of the Decalogue to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Other traditions anticipated the establishment of God’s reign over all nations at Mt. Zion (Isa. 2:3).

The sermon opens with nine beatitudes or blessings (5:3–12). Beatitudes were common in Greco-Roman writings and in Jewish wisdom and apocalyptic texts. They are not concerned with individual feelings and emotions. The inaccurate translation “Happy are” makes these declarations into the “Be-Happy attitudes.” Rather, they announce God’s favor on certain situations and actions (see Ps. 1:1–2), both present and future, when God reverses and transforms current injustice (Hanson). They reassure people experiencing distress that God’s favor is with them.

They also function to exhort human actions consistent with God’s favor. They thereby identify actions characteristic of the community of disciples. These situations (being poor) and practices (being merciful) are commonly not those valued by the Roman elite. Hence a countercultural quality to the community of disciples contests and challenges the status quo.

The first four beatitudes (5:3–6), shaped by Isa. 61:1–3, name situations of oppression and distress in which God’s just and transforming favor is already manifested in Jesus’ ministry, in anticipation of the future transformation in the eschatological completion of God’s purposes. Specifically, these four beatitudes identify God’s transformation of the destructive sociopolitical, economic, and religious consequences of Roman rule. The “poor in spirit” are not to be spiritualized. They are the literal poor whose material poverty has crushed their very being (e.g., 4:23–25). They mourn their desperate circumstances. The meek are not what contemporary culture would consider “wimps,” but are, in Jesus’ citation of Ps. 37:11, 22, 29, the powerless poor who trust God to deliver them from “the wicked” (elite control) by inheriting the basic resource of land. They hunger for justice, transformed societal structures, and access to life-giving resources. They will not be disappointed at the completion of God’s purposes.

The second group of five beatitudes (5:7–12) moves from God’s reversal of these circumstances to human actions that enact God’s purposes. Acts of mercy, integrity of action and worship (evoking Ps. 24:4), peacemaking and nonviolent dissent from Roman rule, and enduring the backlash result in divine approval and participation in God’s good reign (line two of each beatitude).

Two further images of discipleship follow, in 5:13–16. Salt flavors, purifies, transforms. Light, used in 4:15–16 to describe Jesus’ manifesting God’s saving presence and reign, now describes the continuing lifestyle and mission of the community of disciples.

Six further examples of the actions of “exceeding justice/righteousness” that God’s empire shapes follow in 5:17–48. Verses 17–20 indicate that these examples are consistent with and do not abolish “the law and the prophets.” Accordingly, the six scenes in 5:21–48 are not antitheses, where Jesus quotes from the biblical tradition and then abolishes it. Rather, he quotes the passage and interprets it. He instructs disciples to be a reconciled community (5:21–26), to curb male lust and power concerning adultery and divorce in a patriarchal society (5:27–32), to speak trustworthy words (5:33–37), to employ active, nonviolent resistance to evil (5:38–42; Wink), and to love neighbors and enemies (5:43–48).

Debates about the sermon’s meaning have been extensive (Luz 2007, 161–294). Does it offer an impossible ideal, thereby provoking repentance? Is it an interim demand until the kingdom comes in full? Or does it shape discipleship, as Anabaptist traditions, for example, have argued? Particular scenes have caused much controversy especially in relation to other parts of the Gospel. For example, how does the prohibition of divorce cohere with the mercy of new relationships (5:7; 9:13; 12:7)? How does the scathing attack on Jewish leaders in chapter 23 display love for enemies?

Matthew 6:1–7:29: Jesus Continues Teaching on the Mountain

This rich sequence challenges contemporary readers to careful reading, informed reflection, and communal action. If the sermon is practicable, how are contemporary Jesus-followers to live the practices shaped by the identity of being salt and light, of the Beatitudes, or of the examples in 5:21–48? For example, the renouncing of violence in 5:38–42 and urging of love for enemies in 5:43–48 offer the church a practice that is out-of-step with the aggressive assertion of personal will and military power typical of our world. To embody this teaching requires both a firm witness to this alternative, nonviolent practice matched by pragmatic efforts for justice that remove occasions for violence.

The sermon continues in these two rich chapters (Carter 2000, 158–95; 2007, 8–35). The first section (6:1–18) assumes three conventional Jewish acts of “justice” (misleadingly translated in verse 1 as “piety”).

Verse 1 establishes the basic principle. Disciples live for God’s approval, not public approval. First-century values of honor and shame required public displays of beneficence by wealthy elite members (funding food distributions, buildings, festivals). These “honorable” actions enhanced power and societal status. Disciples do not imitate this value system.

The first act of justice concerns almsgiving or acts of mercy (the root meaning of the Greek word; 6:2–4; cf. 5:7). Almsgiving was a normal part of Jewish faithfulness (Prov. 25:21–22). The negative example of blowing a trumpet is a caricature (6:2). The polemical tone may suggest strained relationships with synagogues. The “how-to-do-it” of 6:3–4 presents acts of mercy as normative and uncalculated in enacting God’s redistributive justice through providing resources for all.

The second act of justice concerns prayer (6:5–15). Matthew 6:5–6 contrasts prayer with the false practice of public performance; 6:7–15 contrasts prayer with a false theology comprising unknowing, uncaring, and vain gods, manipulated by repetition and verbosity. Many gentiles would rightly protest this polemical caricature. Disciples, by contrast, engage God as a knowing and caring Father (6:8; Sheffield) and align themselves with God’s purposes for the world.

The Lord’s Prayer sets out these purposes (6:9–13). The first petition, hallowing or sanctifying God’s name, concerns God’s saving will (Lev. 22:31–32; Ezek. 36:22–38). The parallel petition, “Your kingdom/empire come,” similarly asks God to accomplish God’s life-giving and just reign in Rome’s world. Jesus enacts this mission (4:17), as do disciples (10:7–8). This is the doing of God’s will, which shapes “earth” in accord with God’s domain, heaven (6:10).

The fourth petition requests God’s provision of food that is “necessary for existence” (the difficult word translated “daily”). God’s forgiveness requires forgiveness of others (6:12, 14–15). The “testing” petition of 6:13 concerns perhaps general temptation, or deliverance from eschatological woes, or God’s overcoming of all evil in transforming the world.

The third act of justice concerns fasting (6:16–18). How is divine, not societal, approval gained through fasting? Isaiah 58 emphasizes that fasting participates in the struggle against societal injustice by doing God’s will.

The second major section (6:19–34) concerns justice and materialism. Previously, the destructive impact of Rome’s empire has been evident on the poor, who are deprived of access to adequate resources (5:3–6). And disciples have been instructed to do economic justice in the three acts of 6:1–18. Now they are warned against pursuit of and distraction by material things (6:19–21), exhorted to focus on God’s empire (6:22–23), alerted to the incompatibility of serving God and wealth (6:24), and urged to rely on God’s provision of daily necessities (6:25–34).

The third section highlights three characteristics of discipleship. Disciples are to embody compassionate correction, not condemnation (7:1–6), persistent prayer (7:7–11), and indiscriminate love for all as the key interpretation of the biblical tradition (7:12). This “golden rule” exists in both positive and negative forms in various ancient cultures.

The fourth section (7:13–27) contextualizes discipleship in God’s future. This eschatological goal provides incentive (reward/inclusion, not punishment/exclusion) and perspective on the present. So 7:13–14 adapts the common “two ways” metaphor (Deut. 30:15–20) to underscore the countercultural way of discipleship. Verses 15–23 warn against false prophets, urge attention to their lifestyle, and provide assurance of their final condemnation. And verses 24–27 contrast two responses to (doing/not doing) and two eschatological consequences (of vindication/condemnation) Jesus’ teaching. Verses 28–29 note the crowds’ positive responses (cf. 5:1–2) and contrast Jesus’ teaching with that of the scribes.

The interpretive traditions concerning this material are extensive (Luz 2007, 295–397). The Lord’s Prayer has been used in personal piety (the Didache instructs its use three times a day), communal worship, and teaching, both as a summary of doctrine in catechesis and for ethical instruction. Interpretive questions have explored whether the prayer is answered by God’s actions alone, or through the actions of disciples, or a partnership of both. Is the prayer answered in the present or in the eschatological future, when God’s purposes are finally established?

The passage on trusting God to provide (6:19–34) has posed substantial difficulties. Many in the Matthean world knew degrees of poverty, and hence God’s lack of provision, a situation repeated throughout history. The passage has seemed simplistic and naive. Others have found it to exhort laziness, at odds with the apostolic command to work (2 Thess. 3:8–12). Yet others, some hermits, have interpreted it literally—giving away possessions, not working, and not providing for the future. Some have spiritualized it to say that God meets spiritual needs. Others have interpreted it to permit possessions, but focus on their use in almsgiving. Others have read it as forbidding worry about earthly matters but legitimating concern over heavenly matters. Verse 34 has been central for some in pointing to a way of life focused on God’s kingdom/empire, a way that is an alternative to seeking security in things, careers, and cultural conformity.

Matthew 8:1–9:38: God’s Empire Displayed in Jesus’ Actions

Contemporary interpreters interact with this text in a number of productive and often difficult ways. Attention to economic justice, for example, is pressing in a global village where many lack adequate resources. For rich Christians, the petition for daily bread (6:11), for example, recognizes this lack because of human greed, misuse of power, and unjust access to and distribution of resources. The petition, then, counters greed and incessant questing for “more stuff.” It requires appropriate actions of redistribution and disinvestment. Along similar lines, we can note the use of debt forgiveness as a strategy of international justice.

Some have experienced “dis-ease” with the eschatological judgment of 7:13–27. Matthew regularly ends teaching blocks with eschatological threats and rewards. For some, this “bullying” tactic imitates the strategy of the empire and stands at odds with the Gospel vision of God’s indiscriminate love (5:45).

After three chapters of teaching, chapters 8–9 present Jesus’ actions (Carter 2000, 196–231). Miracles dominate with six healings—leprosy (8:1–4), paralysis (2×; 8:5–13; 9:2–8), fever (8:14–15), hemorrhage (9:20–22), blindness (9:27–31)—two exorcisms (8:28–34; 9:32–34), a rescue-epiphany (8:23–27), and a raising from the dead (9:18–26). Two summary passages (8:16; 9:35–36) indicate widespread preaching, healing, and exorcism (Wainwright). There are also dialogue scenes about discipleship—faith (8:9–12), the cost of following (8:18–22), calling (9:9), eating with the marginalized (9:10–13), and not fasting (9:14–17). A well-established tradition of itinerant teachers and miracle workers exists from the ancient world (Meier, 509–1038).

Five perspectives on Jesus’ actions emerge.

1. His actions express God’s empire (8:11–12; 9:35). They enact his commission to manifest God’s saving presence (1:21–23), elaborating the initial presentation of the impact of God’s reign in 4:17–25 (proclamation, calling disciples, healing, exorcism). The Scripture citation of 8:17 confirms he does the divine will.

2. Three statements declare Jesus’ purposes and motivation. In 9:13, citing Hos. 6:6, his actions perform mercy. In 9:16–17, his actions mean interactions between the old and the new. In 9:36, he enacts compassion for harassed and afflicted people.

3. These displays of the transforming power and wholeness that God’s empire effects interfere with and repair Rome’s world. A centurion cannot heal his servant (8:5–13). And the demon-possessed empire, depicted by demons named after the central unit of the Roman army, the “Legion,” faces inevitable destruction: the boar was the mascot of the tenth Fretensis legion, which played a key role in Jerusalem’s defeat in 70 CE (8:28–34). The destruction of the demon-controlled pigs in the sea depicts God’s sovereignty and portends Rome’s eventual destruction.

4. Elites oppose Jesus. Town leaders ask him to leave (8:34). Scribes (retainers) deny that his ministry enacts God’s authority (9:3). Pharisees question his association with “tax collectors and sinners” (9:11) and declare he is the devil’s agent, not God’s (9:34). Jesus echoes the indictment of Israel’s leaders in Ezekiel 34 for failing to provide for the poor and weak. He laments that the Rome-allied Jerusalem leaders oppress, rather than provide for, the people (9:36).

5. By contrast, the marginalized and broken receive Jesus’ ministry positively in being healed and exorcized.

Miracle stories dominate the chapter. The prevalence of the sick and demon-possessed is not surprising, given a context of disease-promoting social conditions such as urban and rural squalor, poor water supply, limited medical knowledge, poor nutrition, diseases of deficiency and contagion, overwork, and tough daily living conditions. The miracle scenes often follow a predictable fourfold form. An introduction assembles participants (Jesus, crowd, distressed person) and narrates a respectful request for Jesus’ help. Verbal exchanges often elaborate the distress or involve conflict. The miracle takes place, involving touch or word, distance, and a report or demonstration. The scene’s conclusion can involve wonder, dismissal, an alternative explanation, secrecy, or spreading the news.

Miracle stories function to demonstrate God’s power in a Roman world in which inhabitants experienced the powers of numerous gods and goddesses. They also manifest compassion in a context in which many understood ailments to result from sin, the devil and demons, angry gods, and hostile people. God’s empire rules over all forces in compassionate and transformative ways. The emphasis on somatic wholeness anticipates the final transformation effected by God’s reign (11:2–6). In the meantime, healings and exorcisms enact the blessing of God’s empire on the poor (5:3), transforming destructive economic circumstances (no work, poverty), social isolation, political oppression, and religious marginalization.

Interpretive questions have commonly centered on the nature of miracles (Luz 2001, 1–65). While some readers have readily accepted the stories as accurate accounts of actual events, numerous others have not done so. The latter have adopted various interpretive strategies. Rationalists have looked for natural explanations of events. Others have declared all life to be miraculous, but failed to account for the distinctiveness of miracles. A dominant line has spiritualized the scenes, overlooking the physical or social in favor of spiritual lessons. So Augustine saw in 8:1–5 a man freed from “spiritual leprosy” or the mortal sin of not observing the Sermon on the Mount. The centurion of 8:5–13 exhibits true humility and faith (Chrysostom). For Luther and other Protestant Reformers, the physical healing of the paralyzed man (9:2–8) recedes before the word of forgiving grace understood in antithesis to legalism and works. The raising of the dead daughter (9:18–26) anticipates Jesus’ resurrection. On the basis of Romans 11:25–32, she and the hemorrhaging woman have represented the inclusion of both gentiles and Jews in salvation history.

A similar symbolizing strategy has been used for the storm scene in 8:23–27 (Bornkamm). Since Tertullian, this story has been read as depicting the church tossed about by various crises but assured of Jesus’ protective presence. Another line of interpretation comprises an individualistic reading with the boat as the human heart that Jesus enters.

Matthew 10:1–11:1: Mission Work for Disciples

Miracle stories remain contentious in contemporary faith communities. Those who read them literally and/or claim contemporary miracles face the challenge of explaining their relative dearth in contemporary society. Hospitals remain full, and most dead people remain so. Those who reject the narrated events and experiences as actual events, but nevertheless find “spiritual” significance in the scenes, face the challenge of explaining why God’s healing or liberative action might be experienced spiritually but not materially or somatically. In a faith tradition that affirms the importance of the material and somatic from the perspectives of both creation and incarnation, this ready dismissal of the somatic requires examination.

The emerging discipline of disability studies seeks, among other things, to honor the suffering and physical challenges of people, past and present, whom the Gospel often presents as “photo ops” for the larger christological and theological agenda. This approach, along with imperial-critical studies that locate the Gospel’s numerous sick and demon-possessed in a context of imperial power, at least moves attention to responses of compassion and justice (9:13). Jesus’ description of his imperial world as “harassed and helpless” by illegitimate leaders and structures (9:36) points similarly toward transformative actions.

Jesus has manifested his God-given commission to disclose God’s saving presence in calling and teaching disciples (chs. 5–7) and in various, especially miraculous, actions (chs. 8–9). In chapter 10, the mission discourse, Jesus elaborates for disciples their call to mission from 4:19 (“fish for people”) and 5:13–16 (salt, light). The ancient world knew numerous individuals and nations who were on missions. Israel was to be God’s light to the nations (Isa. 49:6). Zeus sends itinerant Cynic teachers (Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.19–26). The poet Virgil presents Jupiter giving “empire without end” to Rome to be “lords of the world” (Aen. 1.254–82) and to “crown peace with justice, to spare the vanquished, and to crush the proud” (Aen. 6.851–53).

The disciples’ mission continues Jesus’ manifestation of God’s empire (Carter 2000, 232–46). So in 10:1–4, Jesus calls a community of twelve “apostles” (the only use of “apostle” in Matthew). Peter is named first. Jesus commissions them to continue his mission of repairing imperial damage through proclamation, exorcism, and healing (10:1, 7–8). The community is apostolic in being “sent out” in mission (10:2).

The second section (10:5–15) identifies four aspects of their mission. Its arena is, at this point, Israel (10:5b–6). Its task is to continue Jesus’ mission, proclaiming God’s life-giving empire, and performing the transformative, miraculous actions Jesus performs in chapters 8–9 (10:7–8a). Their material support is minimal. They give without payment or profit, traveling inconspicuously, being vulnerable and sustained by recipients (10:8b–10). And the impact of the disciples’ mission is both positive and negative (10:11–15).

The third section (10:16–23) underscores the challenge of God’s empire to the vested interests of the powerful and of households (10:17–22). Suffering and persecution are inevitable consequences. Mission means danger. The image of sheep among wolves (10:16) picks up Jesus’ “sheep” description of 9:36, which evoked Ezek. 34:5, 10, where the people are food for “wild beasts,” consumed by their rapacious leaders (Matt. 10:17–18). Faithful endurance, sustained by “the Spirit of your Father,” is required (10:20–22) until the son of man returns (10:23).

The fourth section identifies the courage, impact, and reward of faithful mission (10:24–42). As Jesus was resisted, so are disciples (10:24–31). But disciples can “fear not” (10:26, 28, 31) because God rules the future (10:28, 32) and the present (10:29–31). The mission’s exclusive loyalty to Jesus disrupts households (10:34–39). Yet some will be receptive and vindicated in the judgment (10:40–42).

This mission discourse underscores key features of the community of disciples. As a mission community commanded by Jesus, it imitates and continues his mission. Disciples do so in poverty, single-mindedness, itinerancy, vulnerability, and interdependence. They engage society, neither fleeing from it nor accepting imperial society as normative. Mission comprises transformative practices of proclamation, healing, and exorcisms. It is not a sporadic or optional activity but is central to the community’s identity and practice. It requires courage, hope, and conviction about its life-and-death importance in the face of resistance and persecution. The existence of persecution highlights its contestive and conflictual nature.

This chapter has provoked numerous debates as interpreters have read it in circumstances that differ greatly from its original context concerning itinerant preachers (Luz 2001, 66–128).

In the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, for example, Catholics understood the placement of Peter first in the list of apostles (10:2) as an indication of his superior qualities or merits, and thus found support for the primacy of the papacy. Protestant interpreters have maintained the view (drawing on Chrysostom, from the fourth century) that the placement reflects only Peter’s call as the first disciple (4:18–22) and says nothing about his merits or authority.

The restriction of the mission to Israel (10:5–6) stands in contradiction to the Gospel’s final command to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (28:19). Some have explained the difference by arguing that 10:5–6 originated from the historical Jesus (pre-Easter) while 28:19 originated from an early believing community some time after Jesus’ resurrection (a post-Easter community). Others have seen a reflection of a struggle in the Matthean community between Jewish members favoring mission to Israel, and a growing gentile presence supporting gentile mission. The inclusion of both statements reconciles and endorses both missions. Others have seen the verses reflecting not a community struggle but a succession in the narrative. That is, there is a narrative movement from an initial mission to Israel, in chapter 10, that is subsequently expanded, after the resurrection in chapter 28, into the wider world.

The very difficult instruction in 10:9–10 concerning mission, marked by poverty and defenselessness and unencumbered by money, bag, spare tunic, sandals, or staff has received various interpretations. Some have obeyed it literally. According to one source, St. Francis of Assisi is said to have thrown away his shoes after reading these verses. There is also a long tradition that avoids a literal reading and diminishes the severity of the demands by using the verses in polemic against opponents, especially against their (presumed) pride and greed. The verses also appear in debates over whether clergy should be paid, and if so, how much. Luther supported some modest payment; Calvin disagreed.

The chapter underscores frequent rejection of the mission, hostility to it, and division of households over it. How are disciples to respond? Clearly they are to endure (10:22), even embracing martyrdom (10:28). But how are they to treat hostile and hurtful responders? How are the actions of social (10:14) and eschatological (10:32) reprisals consistent with the demand of love for enemies (5:44)?

Part 3: Responses to Jesus’ Ministry (Matthew 11:2–16:20)

The assertion of the church’s identity and practice as a mission community challenges all images and practices of contemporary mainline and emerging churches (Luz 1994, 39–55). At least since the Reformation, the marks of the one, holy, apostolic, and catholic church have comprised word (preaching) and sacrament (baptism, Eucharist). But here the marks of the church comprise mission, powerlessness, vulnerability, poverty, suffering. For Matthew, the church is about actions consistent with the mission and qualities of Jesus. The chapter points churches in this direction. In societies where creature comforts, wealth, security, power, and status are so important, this chapter offers the massive challenge for churches to be always moving obediently to embrace active, countercultural mission for others.

Chapter 11 begins the Gospel’s third section (11:2–16:20), which narrates a growing division of responses to Jesus’ ministry (11:1; Carter 2000, 249–79). The section is bookended with two scenes that pose the question of Jesus’ identity (11:3; 16:13). Increasing opposition emerges from scribes and Pharisees (12:2, 14, 24, 38). Along with the issue of Jesus’ identity is that of his societal vision and claim to reveal God’s will. The section has been understood to reflect a post-70 context of conflict between Jesus-followers and other synagogue members.

Matthew 11:2–12:50: Discerning and Responding to Jesus’ Mission and Identity

The opening scene provides both the central question and the means of answering it (11:2–6). Jesus responds to John’s disciples by summarizing his activity from chapters 8–9 and evoking visions from Isaiah of a society shaped by God’s life-giving reign/empire (Isa. 26:19; 29:18–19; 35:5–6; 42:7; 61:1). Jesus favors the marginalized, repairs elite-inflicted damage, and creates new social participation. Those who perceive his identity and activity as manifesting God’s saving presence and empire are blessed (11:6).

In 11:7–15, Jesus asks the crowds six rapid-fire questions about John. The point is that understanding John’s mission (3:1–12) prepares one, through repentance and understanding, to receive Jesus. Negative responses, however, dominate, with John misunderstood as demonic (11:18) and Jesus rejected as not God’s faithful or wise son (11:19; Deutsch). Jesus curses the unrepentant Galilean towns of Chorazin and Bethsaida, which cannot see the significance of Jesus’ actions (11:20–24).

Yet some receive his revelation. Verses 25–27 affirm his identity and role as revealer of God based in intimate relationship of Father and Son. They also affirm, despite 11:20–24, that the “infants” or lowly, the weary and burdened, accept his yoke (God’s reign rather than Rome’s) and find “rest” (11:28–30; Carter 2001, 108–29). By contrast, the subsequent narrative shows the “wise and intelligent” (powerful leaders and elite) not receiving him.

Chapter 12 opens with rejection. Two scenes concern whether procuring food and healing are acceptable Sabbath practices. Pharisees, retainers in the imperial system with a societal vision extending temple practice to everyday life, protest. The issue is not whether one party observes Sabbath or not, but how Sabbath is honored—by mercy (12:7) and doing good (12:12), or by rest, as God did? Anticipating Jesus’ passion, they plan to kill him (12:14).

More responses concerning the authority and origin of Jesus’ ministry follow. Matthew now applies Isa. 42:1–4, a text originally declaring Israel as God’s servant and light to the nations in the midst of the Babylonian Empire, to Jesus’ activity in Rome’s empire (12:15–21). An exorcism/healing produces three verdicts: from the crowds (Son of David, 12:23), the Pharisees (the devil, 12:24), and Jesus (12:25–37). Scribes and Pharisees demand a sign despite Jesus’ previous actions (12:38–42). Jesus identifies these leaders as an “evil generation.” The chapter ends with Jesus identifying true followers, or “family,” as those who do God’s will, which he reveals.

Among the interpretive challenges of these chapters (Luz 2001, 129–227), one has concerned the “violence” statement in 11:12. Challenges in translating this verse have produced different meanings. One understanding is that the kingdom is aggressively (violently) breaking in and people readily seize it. Another reading sees violence inflicted on the kingdom as people aggressively embrace its proclamation. A variation of this reading sees gentile believers stealing the kingdom from Israel. Both readings, though, are unsatisfactory, because the verb and noun denoting violence and the violent usually have negative associations.

Another reading sees the kingdom suffering because violent people like Zealots blasphemously co-opt it and force God’s hand. This reading, though, ignores the saying’s context in chapter 11. A more convincing, fourth reading understands the language and the context to refer to opponents of John, Jesus, and disciples as agents of the kingdom (3:2; 4:17; 10:7–8). Opponents include synagogues, governors, kings (Herod), leaders, and households (10:17–18, 21, 34–36; 12:14).

Matthew 11:27 featured in the fourth-century Arian christological controversy. Arians understood the claim that God had “handed over” all things to the Son to indicate a time when “all things” had not been delivered to him, thereby denying the eternal divinity of the Son. The orthodox either dismissed the reading, thereby preserving a trinitarian understanding, or with Athanasius, saw the handing over as the moment when the eternal Logos became incarnate in the human Christ. Others, notably nineteenth-century Protestant exegetes, abandoned any trinitarian framework to focus on the historical Jesus’ special insight into or consciousness of God’s plan of salvation.

In 12:32, Jesus declares speaking against the Holy Spirit unforgivable. Interpreters have suggested three explanations for what this speaking consists of. Some see it as denying the divinity of Christ. Others see it as sins committed by Christians despite good knowledge of God’s will. And others, such as Augustine, understand it as resisting the unity of church, an especially useful interpretation for denouncing heretics.

A concern with unforgivable sin remains ongoing among some people. Concern over whether one has committed the unforgivable sin usually indicates one has not. In Matthew’s context, its primary sense seems to involve a sustained refusal to see the Spirit at work in Jesus in manifesting God’s saving presence and empire (3:16–17).

While conflict between Jesus and the leaders increases in the narrative, Christian readers must be careful not to perpetuate anti-Jewish sentiments and practices in interpretations. Jesus’ association of the resisting leaders with demons in 12:43–45 is one such instance. Related to this matter is the understanding that all leaders in the Gospel (Pharisees, priests) are not accurately identified as “religious” leaders akin to contemporary clergy. Rather, they are societal leaders. Their conflicts with Jesus do not involve merely “religious” questions but matters of societal visions and practices.

The Sabbath controversies raise questions about Sunday observance among contemporary believers. In an age of shopping, sports, entertainment, family events, and seven-days-a-week work, in what sense is the day “honored”?

Matthew 13:1–58: Explaining Different Responses to Jesus

Chapter 13 comprises seven parables as Jesus addresses alternatively disciples and crowds (Carter 2001, 280–300). Parables were a familiar form in the Hebrew Bible (2 Sam. 12:1–4: the ewe lamb; Ezek. 17:2–21), rabbinic literature, and collections such as Aesop’s fables. The word parable literally means to “throw something alongside,” indicating a comparison in which one thing—God’s empire—is compared to the situation of the subsequent, short narrative.

The parables in chapter 13 interpret the division increasingly evident in responses to Jesus in chapters 11–12. While some people discern Jesus’ identity as the agent of God’s saving presence and empire, others—especially powerful leaders—do not. The parables explain why this division occurs. The lack of receptivity derives not from failure on God’s part but from human sinfulness and the devil’s activity. The parables also affirm the Gospel audience’s welcoming response and further illumine God’s empire.

The opening section features the parable of the seed and soils and an allegorical explanation (13:1–23). The sower is compared to Jesus proclaiming God’s empire (the seed). Three-quarters of the seed falls on unproductive ground and produces nothing because of the evil one (13:19), opposition (13:21), and the “cares of the world and the lure of wealth” (13:22). These three factors explain in part the dominant negative response to Jesus’ ministry. Only a quarter of the seed finds receptive people (13:23).

The second section (13:24–43) comprises three parables. The parable of the weeds and wheat, interpreted allegorically in 13:36–43, depicts God’s empire coexisting in Jesus’ ministry with evil/the devil (and the devil’s agents). Disruptive weeds, sown by the devil, grow together until the final harvest/divine victory.

The parable offers another reason that some/many do not respond positively. They fail to recognize a “now but not yet” dynamic. God’s empire is present in part but not yet fully.

The mustard seed (13:31–32) offers a further explanation, namely, the strange and mysterious nature of the reign’s present manifestation. The mustard seed denotes invisibility (is anything happening under the ground?), contrast (small seed, big shrub), continuity or inevitability (the seed becomes a shrub), and growth (it takes time). These features describe the present state yet also the future goal of God’s work, explaining why some/many fail to see it, but assuring disciples of God’s work.

A third parable repeats these factors (13:33). God’s reign, like yeast or leaven, works over time, in a hidden manner, yet its transforming work continues inexorably.

A further section (13:44–50) presents three final parables. In the parable of hidden treasure, the focus moves from a contrast of small beginnings and cosmic completion to a person’s encounter with the empire. Searching, joy, setting aside all else, commitment, and disruption of priorities mark the encounter, and confirm its great value. The pearl offers a similar experience. The repetition underscores the point (13:45–46). The parable of the fishnet rehearses emphases from the weeds and the wheat. Evil coexists with God’s empire, as do negative and positive responses until the final division and God’s triumph (13:47–48).

The chapter ends with a rejection scene (13:54–58). People in Jesus’ hometown wonder about his teachings, actions, and origin, but cannot recognize God’s commission. The scene enacts the rejection that the parables explain.

One theme that emerges in the diverse and multivalent interpretations of the parables concerns how God works in the church and world (Luz 2001, 228–304). Some interpreters of the sower/seed/soil parable, for example, emphasized the quality of the soil in exhorting lives receptive to the gospel. Others, such as Luther in the Reformation, emphasized the truth of the word sown by preachers even when it does not produce fruit, thereby encouraging disheartened preachers. Some interpretations of the mustard seed equated God’s kingdom with the church in its growth to dominance, while others understood the seed as Christ or the preached word at work in an individual.

Interpreters of the wheat and weeds parable have variously understood the field or arena of God’s activity to comprise an individual, the church, and the world (cf. 13:38). The weeds have been understood as specific heresy existing alongside the pure doctrine of the church, or the presence of evil coexisting with the gospel, or the presence of sinners within the church. What is to be done about them, and what is the role of church discipline? Chrysostom offers that heretics should be expelled but not killed. Others saw the parable justifying religious wars against enemies (Aquinas). Others saw it justifying patience in recognizing God’s role in judgment. Others saw the parable urging a restrained and realistic use of church discipline, and recognizing the futility of expecting a perfect church. People should be wheat and produce good fruit in faithful living.

Current questions of what, how, and where we understand God to be active in the church and in the world are live ones. Some pieties understand God to be active in arranging all sorts of personal matters and circumstances on a daily basis. When things do not work out well, it is not a matter of divine inactivity but an opportunity to trust and learn whatever God is teaching the individual. The larger world is largely not in view.

Other pieties take a more global perspective and understand themselves to be active partners with God’s life-giving and just work in the world. The challenge here often comes with the recognition that, despite much effort, injustice and human needs seem to continue unabated. This situation raises questions about both the power and the will of God. Is God uncaring and/or powerless in the face of vast human need? Why does God’s reign not seem more evident? Matthew’s chapter offers a range of perspectives on God’s current activity, simultaneously recognizing human resistance or indifference, God’s persistent and faithful activity in the midst of the world, and the certainty of God’s eschatological completion.

Matthew 14:1–36: God’s Empire at Work

The emphasis on discerning Jesus’ identity and God-given mission to manifest God’s saving presence and reign (1:21–23; 4:17) continues in the four scenes of chapter 14 (Carter 2000, 301–13). First, God’s empire arouses opposition from Rome’s client ruler Herod, who was tetrarch of Galilee until 39 CE (14:1–12). Then Jesus attests the fertility and abundance of God’s reign in a feeding (14:13–21). He demonstrates his identity as God’s agent in walking on water (14:22–33). He exhibits the healing, restorative work of God’s empire in more healings (14:34–36). That is, the divisive effect of his ministry continues. The powerful Herod rejects God’s work, the crowds benefit from feeding and healing, and the disciples receive the disclosure of Jesus’ identity as God’s agent or son (14:33).

The Herod scene elaborates the brief references in 4:12 and 11:2 to John’s arrest and imprisonment. John is arrested and executed because of his prophetic criticism of Herod’s liaison with Herodias, wife of Herod’s brother Philip. Given the close allying of John and Jesus in relation to God’s empire (3:2; 4:17), Herod’s action against John is consonant with the negative or hostile responses to God’s work that are depicted in the divisions in the parables of chapter 13 (between weeds and wheat; different kinds of fish), and in the rejection of Jesus in his home town at the end of chapter 13 (13:54–58).

It is also consonant with the Gospel depiction of kings and rulers as opposing God’s work—the disobedient kings of 1:6–11, Herod (ch. 2), Archelaus (2:22), persecuting governors and kings (10:18), the great men of the gentiles (20:25–26), and Pilate and his Jerusalem allies (27:11–26). The powerful elite protect their interests and societal structures against God’s empire and its agents. They do so characteristically with violence, as Herod (2:16) and his sons Archelaus (2:22) and Herod Antipas (14:1–12) demonstrate. By contrast, the martyred John remains faithful (10:28).

After the extravagant and violent, elite birthday feast with its grotesque image of John’s head on a platter, the next scene presents Jesus compassionately enacting God’s will to feed hungry people (Isa. 58:6–7). The act echoes Moses and the exodus wilderness feeding. It also addresses the social reality that a significant proportion of the population struggled for adequate nutrition. And it anticipates the final establishment of God’s reign, marked by fertility and abundant food for all (Isa. 25:6–10; Matt. 8:11; 22:1–10).

With the disciples in a boat (14:22), Jesus performs more Godlike actions. He again calms stormy seas (Exod. 14–15; Ps. 69:1–3, 30–36; cf. Matt. 8:23–27) and walks on water (Job 9:8; Ps. 77:16–20). These acts demonstrate God’s control over the waters (Gen. 1:6–10) and contest an imperial tradition in which emperors claim sovereignty over land and sea. They also demonstrate God’s concern for disciples battered by the storm. Peter imitates Jesus walking on the water, exhibiting both faith and unbelief, and evoking Psalm 69, a psalm of deliverance. The scene ends with the storm calmed and the disciples’ confession, for the first time in the Gospel, of Jesus’ identity as God’s agent (14:33).

The chapter closes with another summary scene of Jesus’ healings (14:34–36).

The scene of Herod’s execution of John has drawn attention in various ways (Luz 2001, 305–24). Numerous artists have depicted John’s head on the platter. Ironically, it is Herodias’s daughter (unnamed in Matthew’s version) who has often received attention. Some writers, including Chrysostom and Ambrose, were drawn to yet appalled by her dancing. They dwell on her voluptuous and seductive movement but are equally sure that her dancing is sinful and/or provokes sin. A nineteenth-century tradition gives the daughter a makeover, freeing her from ecclesial condemnation in (re-)presenting her with positive sensuality, in love with John, and appalled at his execution (Oscar Wilde; Richard Strauss). Both images are, of course, fantasies created by men that focus on sexuality, while ignoring other dimensions such as the scene’s murderous assertion of imperial power.

Interpretations of the feeding story have often found ways to avoid taking seriously the literal feeding of people. Some interpreters, highlighting echoes of Moses and the wilderness journeys, read it in supersessionist terms of salvation history. The five loaves represent the five books of the Torah, and the twelve baskets represent the apostles. Jesus transforms the tradition into life-giving spiritual food. Another line of interpretation, including a number of current interpreters, reads it as a eucharistic scene, noticing the similarities between the distribution of 14:18–19 and the Last Supper scene of 26:26–27. Yet another approach has extended both lines in an ecclesiological interpretation that sees the disciples as priests or pastors in mediating Christ’s benefits and the Eucharist to the laity. Such readings ignore the feeding of people’s bodies.

Matthew 15:1–16:20: Jesus’ Authority as God’s Agent

What does contemporary discipleship look like? This chapter offers various vignettes of discipleship shaped by God’s reign. John, for example, loses his head for courageously speaking truth to power. He remains faithful to his word in the face of life-and-death opposition. His speech in the midst of evil embodies dynamics depicted in the parables of chapter 13. And his disciples display their own courage and loyalty, honoring him in burial. Jesus’ disciples serve food to the people. Peter emerges from the group of disciples with an initiative that imitates Jesus in walking on the water. In responding to Jesus’ command (14:28–29), he courageously and obediently trusts Jesus’ word to forsake the safety of the boat and undertake a task that seems impossible. Having started well, however, his faith gives way to fear and doubt, and Peter the rock sinks like a stone. He knows enough, though, to cry out in the words of a psalm of deliverance and experiences rescue through Jesus. In turn, his experience and the calming of the storm provide the occasion for a revelation of Jesus’ identity and the disciples’ confession. What contemporary situations and experiences do such vignettes address, and how do they shape authentic discipleship?

Disclosure, conflict, and confession continue (Carter 2000, 314–37). Jesus reveals his authority and identity as God’s agent (15:1–20; 16:13–20). He dispenses God’s wholeness and abundance to a Canaanite woman’s daughter, in healings, and in another feeding (15:21–39). He conflicts with scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees from Jerusalem (15:1; 16:1–12). Peter confesses Jesus’ identity (16:13–20).

Jesus’ opponents constitute an alliance of groups with some status, political power, and wealth. Sadducees, absent since 3:7, and scribes, legal agents and interpreters of traditions, have not recognized Jesus’ identity (2:4; 12:38). The Pharisees participate in the ruling group centered on the Jerusalem temple and allied with chief priests and Rome’s governor (15:1). They have some political power and a religious-societal vision involving table companions (9:11), Sabbath observance (12:1–14), hand-washing (15:2), and support for the temple (15:3–7). They think Jesus is an agent of the devil (9:34; 12:24) and want to kill him (12:14).

Jesus reciprocates the antagonism. He disparages their traditions as “human precepts” contrary to “the commandment” and “word of God” (15:3, 6, 9). He rebukes them for teaching that gifts to God (priests and temple) void parental support (15:5). He declares them to be leaders not sanctioned by God (15:13), blind and unreliable guides (15:14). He accuses them of majoring on minor matters (hand-washing) while ignoring disruptive societal practices (murder, theft, slander; 15:19).

In 16:1–12, things deteriorate when the Pharisees and Sadducees ask Jesus again for a sign (cf. 12:38–42). Their repeated demand shows an unwillingness to listen and learn. Verse 1 presents this request negatively, as a “test.” The temptation scene uses the same verb when the devil tempts or tests Jesus (4:1, 3). They thus behave as the devil, tempting Jesus to address their demands rather than maintain his allegiance to God. Jesus rebukes them for failing to discern God’s saving presence and empire in his activity. Jesus calls them evil (16:4), the same term he uses for the devil (6:13). They, like Rome (4:8), are agents of the devil.

Jesus follows up this nasty polemic by warning the disciples against the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ teaching (16:5–12). Given their position as political-societal leaders, this warning embraces more than limited religious questions. Jesus warns against the societal structures and practices that they uphold.

Between these conflict scenes, Jesus blesses the crowds with further healings (15:29–31) and a feeding (15:32–39). He displays God’s care for physical well-being, repairing damage inflicted by imperial structures through inadequate availability of land and food, and diseases of deprivation and contagion. Two confessional scenes—the Canaanite woman who successfully seeks mercy from Jesus for her demon-possessed daughter (15:21–28; Ringe 1985; Levine 2001) and Peter’s confession of Jesus as “Messiah, the Son of the Living God” (16:16; cf. 14:33)—counterbalance the conflicts. The section 11:2–16:20 has depicted growing division in response to Jesus’ activity.

Perhaps there is no more significant a passage for the disunity of the worldwide church than 16:13–20 (Luz 2001, 325–77). Peter confesses Jesus’ messianic identity. Jesus blesses him, announces this answer to be divinely revealed, declares that “on this rock I will build my church,” and assigns to him “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (16:16–19). The interpretive issues, discussion, and tradition are immense; space permits only a brief naming.

One question concerns whether, in confessing Jesus’ identity (16:16), Peter functions as a representative or ideal spokesperson for all disciples (appealing to the previous confession of 14:33), or has a unique and preeminent role (appealing to 4:18; 10:2; and 16:18).

Another concerns the meaning of “on this rock” in verse 18. Does it refer to Christ himself or to Peter? Augustine argued for Christ, appealing to 1 Cor. 3:11 and 10:4, among other passages. If it refers to Peter, in what role? One view emphasizes Peter as representative of all believers, particularly in confessing Jesus’ identity. This line was favored initially by Origen and Tertullian, and was developed by Reformers like Zwingli and Melanchthon in arguing against the papacy. Another option focused on Peter the model bishop and head of the church succeeded by bishops of Rome. This option had clearly emerged by the mid-third century in relation to the bishop of Rome; in the fifth century, it was developed by Leo the Great in arguing that Peter is present in the bishops of Rome as his successors.

A third issue concerns the identity of the “keys” in verse 19. Does this refer to the authority of the pope and the church (for example, forgiveness from sins and the sacrament of penance) or, as in Protestant interpretation, to preaching and communal confession that reflects Peter’s confession?

These centuries-old interpretive debates, of course, continue to influence contemporary ecclesial traditions and practices.

Part 4: Jesus Will Be Crucified and Raised (Matthew 16:21–20:34)

In this rich section is the story of the Canaanite woman who successfully overcomes Jesus’ initial indifference and procures healing for her demon-possessed daughter and commendation for her faith. Troubling, though, is both the disciples’ (15:23) and Jesus’ reluctance to assist a non-Israelite woman (15:24), despite substantial traditions about God’s blessing for all people (e.g., Abraham, Gen. 12:1–3). Worse, Jesus dismisses her in a demeaning and sexist fashion by calling her a dog (15:26). As one contemporary commentator has observed, Jesus is caught with his compassion down. Yet despite this treatment, the woman refuses to be humiliated, perseveres, and outwits Jesus in verbal sparring as she turns his metaphor back on him. She affirms Israel’s temporal priority in God’s purposes along with their universal and inclusive reach (15:27). This “teachable moment” for Jesus results in healing and commendation for this gentile woman’s daughter.

The text has proved disturbing for readers who impose on it later christological formulations of Jesus’ divinity. Some deny any poor treatment of the woman or that Jesus has anything to learn. Other readers recognize a difficult yet intriguing text, which displays courageous faith and, eventually, inclusive divine mercy.

The Gospel’s fourth major section begins in 16:21 (Carter 2000, 341–60). God has commissioned Jesus to manifest God’s saving presence and reign (1:1–4:16). Jesus enacts that commission in his words and actions (4:17–11:1). Responses of division and conflict follow (11:2–16:20). Now, the narrative establishes that Jesus’ commission involves his death by Jerusalem’s ruling elite and his resurrection by God (16:21–20:34).

Matthew 16:21–17:24: The Way of the Cross for Jesus and Disciples

Jesus’ announcement of his imminent suffering in 16:21 provides a plot summary for the rest of the Gospel. His confrontation with the alliance of power in Jerusalem is the inevitable consequence of challenging the status quo with an alternative vision and practices. Yet his opponents do not have the final word or ultimate power. God will raise him from the dead. The understanding of resurrection as God’s vindication of those who suffer faithfully, even to death, emerged in the second century BCE under the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 12:1–3; 1 Macc. 1–2; 2 Maccabees 7).

Jesus’ death has implications for disciples. Peter, the hero of the previous scene, rejects Jesus’ teaching; Jesus allies him with the devil against God (16:22–23). Jesus also declares that disciples walk the way of the cross, thereby specifying how he will die (16:24). Crucifixion was a shameful form of execution reserved for those who challenged the imperial status quo. Jesus calls his followers to discipleship of this same style and consequence, continuing his mission until his return (16:27–28).

The transfiguration scene confirms Jesus’ instruction in two ways (17:1–8). First, Jesus appears in glory, foreshadowing his resurrection and return (cf. 17:2 and 13:43). Second, God speaks, repeating the intimate blessing from Jesus’ baptism (3:17), but adding a key clause, “listen to him” (17:5). With this imperative, God confirms Jesus’ disclosure of his forthcoming death, resurrection, and return, and his teaching about discipleship as the way of the cross.

Jesus performs his final exorcism (17:14–20) after the disciples’ faith fails in the face of Satan’s reign. They are unable to manifest God’s liberating and merciful empire, despite Jesus’ commission to them (10:8). Jesus again predicts death and resurrection in Jerusalem (17:22–23). The repetition underscores its importance.

The chapter ends with an enigmatic scene about taxes (Carter 2001, 130–44). In the Gospel’s post-70-CE context, the scene instructs Matthew’s audience to pay an imperial tax (17:24–27). After Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem, the emperor Vespasian imposed a humiliating and punitive tax on Jews as a defeated people. Vespasian co-opted the temple tax and used it to rebuild and maintain the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome, the sponsoring deity of Rome’s victory in 70 CE. The scene instructs disciples to pay the tax, though with an understanding that—for disciples in the know—it subverts Roman claims of sovereignty and asserts God’s sovereignty. Jesus’ instruction in verse 27, about catching the fish and finding in its mouth the tax coin, evokes and counters imperial claims that Rome’s sovereignty subdued even wild animals and fish. Jesus’ instruction reasserts God’s sovereignty over God’s creation, represented by the fish (8:23–27; 14:13–21; 15:32–39). God supplies the tax. It is paid to Rome. For disciples in the know, it testifies subversively to God’s sovereignty.

Jesus’ statement in 16:28 promises his return before some of his generation die (Luz 2001, 378–420). Various interpretations have arisen to account for its nonfulfillment. The Gospel of Thomas (log. 1) individualizes and spiritualizes the saying by claiming that those who understand Jesus’ words do not die. An extensive tradition found its fulfillment in the transfiguration scene that immediately follows with the “some” comprising Peter, James, and John. Among the Reformers, it was common to interpret the resurrection as attesting Jesus “coming in his kingdom” (Luther, Calvin, Bucer). For nineteenth-century interpreters, one way of avoiding the problem of Jesus’ reliability was to declare that it was not an authentic saying of Jesus.

Not surprisingly, many interpreters understood the transfiguration story as a revelation of, and therefore a confirmation of, the church’s subsequent elevated christological teaching regarding Jesus’ divine being. Another tradition, though, has seen it as a scene in which believers participate. In believers, too, the glory of God’s reign is present, and in Jesus’ experience is prefigured the eschatological experience of transformation.

This passage contains provocative and disparate material about discipleship. The call to self-denial in 16:24 has often been understood to negate the world and personal, somatic existence that God created and declared to be good. As recently as 15:29–39, Jesus has demonstrated in his healings and feeding God’s commitment to physical, created, somatic well-being and flourishing. Yet as Bonhoeffer rightly observes, following Jesus requires a way of life out of step with dominant cultural values. To “take up the cross” (16:24) is to commit to a way of life that does not conform to, but challenges, self-serving societal and personal practices and structures. Hence Jesus does not remain transfigured but comes down the mountain (17:9–13) and repeats his declaration about going to Jerusalem to be killed (17:22–23).

Yet such a life is not monolithic in cultural opposition. The chapter recognizes the humanness of disciples (17:19–20). It also includes the scene about paying taxes. Disciples are to pay taxes that signify submission to Roman rule, yet the story reframes them so that payment simultaneously signifies covert dissent. Taxes for contemporary disciples do not necessarily represent submission to ruling power, but they do provide funding for governmental programs that followers of Jesus might decide are contrary to Jesus’ teaching. The military provides a center of concern, causing some contemporary followers to withhold or redirect a percentage of taxes as a sign that simultaneously expresses cooperation and dissent.

The juxtaposition of such material indicates the complexities and challenges of discipleship, and the need for communities of discourse to discern together appropriate and intentional practices of faithfulness.

Matthew 18:1–35: A Community of Sustaining Relationships and Practices

Chapter 18 constitutes the Gospel’s fourth block of teaching material (see chs. 5–7; 10; 13; Carter 2000, 361–75). Known as the community discourse, it establishes that the difficult and ambiguous way of the cross is communal. This life is constituted as, and sustained by, a network of practices and interdependent relationships. These practices emerge in Jesus’ teaching throughout the chapter.

Jesus has declared that the way of discipleship is the way of the cross (16:24). The image immediately locates disciples committed to God’s empire/reign in the difficult societal place of both being at cross-purposes with Roman power, while also simultaneously accommodating its demands (17:24–27). How, then, to live?

The first section names humbleness as basic practice among disciples (18:1–5). Empires and “greatness” form a natural pair. Alexander “the Great” and Rome’s Pompey “the Great” personified greatness in terms of power (through military subjugation), privileged birth, wealth, office, and status. Jesus rejects such a definition, replacing it with the humbleness of the child (18:4). If we define “child” in terms of our contemporary values—children are pure and innocent—we miss the point. In the ancient world, children were understood to be insignificant nobodies, vulnerable, powerless, and defenseless. By some estimates half died by age ten. They lacked status and resources and were often regarded as unpredictable, even threatening. Matthew 2, particularly verses 13–18, shows children vulnerable in a dangerous political world. They are further depicted as sick (8:6; 9:2), hungry (14:21), demon-possessed (15:22; 17:18), and dead (9:18). The community of disciples knows vulnerability and powerlessness, but also mutual support and protection.

Moreover, disciples do not cause one another to stumble nor despise one another (18:6–9, 10–14; Loader, 20–36). Aware of God’s protection through guardian angels, they are vigilant in communal interactions that reflect God’s valuing of and vigilance for each one. God, like a shepherd, lovingly searches for any that “go astray” (18:10–14).

Such interactions do not mean, though, that disciples always agree with one another. Verses 15–20 recognize the reality that among human beings, especially among a hard-pressed community, conflict and offense are inevitable (Duling). Typical of numerous groups in the ancient world, the verses set out a general process of communal accountability involving reproof and restoration. The one who is wronged initiates the process with the offender (18:15), perhaps involving witnesses (18:16) and the church (18:17). To be treated as “a Gentile and a tax collector” is not to be shunned but to be the object of restorative efforts that are ratified by God (18:18–20). Verses 21–22 confirm the limitless commitment to reconciliation and forgiveness.

The emphasis on the practice of forgiveness continues with the parable of the unforgiving servant (18:23–35). The point is straightforward in establishing forgiveness as a communal norm—God’s forgiveness requires disciples to forgive one another. But the parable sits uneasily here. Verses 21–22 exhort forgiveness, but the parable depicts its opposite with two examples of not forgiving! The king takes back the forgiveness he initially offered (18:27, 32–34), and the forgiven slave refuses to forgive another slave (18:28–30). The parable warns that not forgiving means the loss of God’s forgiveness (cf. 6:14–15).

The discourse exhorts a network of community relationships and practices among disciples marked by humble receptivity to the other, mutual support and active respect, accountability, relentless commitment to reconciliation, and repeated forgiveness. Such a communal life sustains and embodies vulnerable discipleship on the way of the cross.

This chapter as a whole has not often played a significant role in discussions about “marks” of the church (Luz 2001, 421–83). The commonly accepted marks of the church—whether “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,” or preaching and sacraments—do not, in and of themselves, highlight the relationships, practices, and structures evident in this chapter.

Yet while the chapter’s relative lack of influence as a whole is evident, significant interpretive discussions about many of its subsections exist. Its most striking image concerns the repeated instructions to cut off the hand, foot, or eye if they cause one to stumble (18:8–9). Some have placed the saying in a tradition of ancient medical practice whereby people sacrificed a body part to ensure their own survival. Others note a link to torture and martyrdom traditions (cf. 2 Maccabees 7). Some, reading the passage in relation to Mark 9:43–48 and in the context of Matt. 18:1–5, have seen a warning to protect (literal) children from pederastic activity. Others have seen a more generalized, metaphorical reference that graphically exhorts self-protection against sinful behavior, whether one’s own or of others such as evil friends. Another line of interpretation has seen the body imaging, as it commonly did in ancient thinking, an ecclesial or social context (akin to 1 Corinthians 12–14). On this reading, the “cutting off” refers to expelling offending members. There are, though, difficulties with this last reading. Matthew does not use the “body” image for the church, and verses 15–20 and 21–35 exhort reconciliation.

Matthew 19–20: Alternative Households Shaped by God’s Empire

This chapter’s insistence on the central place of “church as community” in following Jesus challenges some contemporary understandings of discipleship. Some frame discipleship in terms of individual salvation and emphasize “my personal walk with the Lord” to such an extent that, in actuality, there is no place for or accountability to any community. While such individual understandings protect against manipulative communal practices, they have no room for the sort of humility, accountability, and interdependence envisioned in Matthew 18.

The chapter’s vision also challenges ecclesial understandings that see the “true” church constituted by particular rituals, or structures of ministry, order and authority, or doctrinal tests, or positions on social issues. That is not to say these things do not matter; each aspect is important for ecclesial life. But in Matthew’s vision, they do not matter as much as relational community that sustains and embodies disciples on the way of the cross. The chapter urges followers to nurture such communities.

Jesus has declared twice that he must walk the way of the cross (16:21; 17:22–23). In 19:1, he and his disciples leave Galilee for Jerusalem, where the ruling elite will execute him. Chapters 19–20 narrate the journey as he continues to instruct disciples about the way of the cross (Carter 2000, 376–410; Loader, 80–81, 102–20, 127–35).

The content of his instruction concerns household matters: marriage and divorce (19:3–12), children (19:13–15), wealth (19:16–30), a parable about a wealthy householder and day laborers (20:1–16), and being slaves (20:17–28), concluding with a healing story (20:29–34). Why this cluster of material on households?

Various philosophical traditions (Aristotelian, Stoic, neo-Pythagorean) as well as Hellenistic Judaism (first-century writers Philo and Josephus) understood the household as the basic unit of a city or empire. They envisioned ideal households as a microcosm of imperial society. Households were, then, to be patriarchal and androcentric, reflecting and constituting elite imperial society in privileging male “power over.” The husband/father/master was to “rule over” wife/children/slaves. He provided the household’s economic well-being and represented it in society.

Given this link between households and empires, Jesus’ manifestation of “the empire of the heavens” predictably includes instruction on households. The Gospel imitates this cultural pattern, just as it continues to privilege male power in recognizing twelve special male disciples (among other disciple figures, including women). Yet simultaneously, it also contests this dynamic to some extent. The first scene, on divorce and remarriage, while maintaining a male perspective, limits male power in divorce (advocated by Pharisees “for any reason,” 19:3) with a vision of “one flesh” reciprocity and mutuality (19:6) and by specifying only one situation of “unchastity” (Allison).

In 19:13–15, instead of maintaining the dismissal and insignificance of “little children” (practiced by disciples, 19:13), Jesus affirms their central place in God’s empire (19:15). He identifies all disciples as children (“such as these,” 19:14–15). He envisions the community of disciples as comprising only children (brothers and sisters, 12:46–50) and without “power-over” parental figures (18:1–5; 23:9). In 19:16–30, he endorses not the pursuit of wealth but its disinvestment. He instructs the rich man to divest himself of his household wealth and redistribute it to the poor (19:21). The poor, not the elite wealthy, have a special place in God’s empire (19:24; cf. 5:3) in anticipation of the abundance of God’s new age for all people (19:27–30).

A parable about a wealthy householder and day laborers exemplifies God’s empire. It in part treats all people equally (20:12), reversing hierarchy. In 20:17–28, Jesus repeats his explanation about going to Jerusalem and co-opts the exploitative and humiliating image of being a slave to present himself acting for the benefit of others (20:28). His actions contrast those of his disciples and the “great men of the Gentiles” who seek power and “lord it over” others. Disciples are to imitate Jesus and seek each other’s good (20:20–27).

The section ends with a display of transforming mercy in response to two determined (faith-full) blind men (20:29–34). The same mercy can empower disciples in unlearning cultural values and structures as they live into societally contestive household structures.

Catholic and Protestant traditions have interpreted the teaching on divorce in 19:9 quite differently (Luz 2001, 484–551). Catholic interpretation has generally read the verse as forbidding divorce and remarriage (complementing 5:32), though recognizing that partners live apart. Protestant interpretation has increasingly come to accept divorce and remarriage without restrictions and increasingly without stigma, although some more conservative expressions are not supportive. The interpretive difficulties multiply. What does “unchastity” mean—adultery, or incestuous marriages as defined by Leviticus 18? Does it modify divorce alone or remarriage also?

The verse assumes a very different world of arranged marriages, younger participants, much shorter life spans, and patriarchal cultural assumptions that only women commit adultery and that men divorce. Contemporary expectations of loving, fulfilling, chosen relationships are not in view. Yet the Gospel values love in urging love for God and neighbor (22:37–39). It also knows the importance of mercy (9:13; 12:7), which surely means, among many things, not only empowering and transforming broken situations (forgiveness), but also the possibility of fresh starts that do not trap people in loveless relationships but sets them free for new life. The verse (19:9) does not seem to be informed by this rich Gospel thread of love and mercy, thereby creating an opportunity for interpreters to put verse and context into conversation.

The saying about eunuchs in 19:10–12 has been read, in the context of 19:3–9, as referring to divorced men who cannot remarry and produce children because of restrictions in verse 9 on remarriage. It has also been read in relation to subsequent ascetic practices of voluntary celibacy, and particularly priestly celibacy as a way of life shaped by God’s reign.

Part 5: Jesus in Jerusalem: Conflict and Death (Matthew 21–27)

The passage raises numerous issues: male power, gender roles, household and societal structures, and discipleship and cultural practices.

Two further brief comments can be made. The “ransom” saying (20:28) has informed a personal piety concerning Jesus’ self-giving death “for me.” A reading that points to a much broader societal scope for God’s work is possible. The verse’s language is plural (“for many”), and “ransom” language often evokes God redeeming or liberating people from imperial powers (Egyptian, Exod. 6:6; Deut. 7:8; Babylonian, Isa. 43:1). Jesus’ death and resurrection expose the limits of Roman power and demonstrate God’s life-giving work for the world.

Second, the Gospel’s concern with wealth and the poor continues in 19:21. This instruction has been read literally, whereby the wealthy should give all their wealth away. The definition of “wealthy” is complex and contested. Interpretation has also moderated the demand to giving, not everything, but something to the poor (almsgiving) and has focused on attitudes to wealth. Clement of Alexandria argued that the threat is not possessions themselves, but emotional attachments to wealth, so the rich who are not attached to wealth can be saved. What do rich, comfortable Christians in a poor global village do with this verse?

The Gospel’s fifth section (chs. 21–27) centers on Jerusalem and Jesus’ fatal conflict with the temple-based rulers allied with the Roman governor Pilate (Carter 2000, 413–31). What Jesus predicted three times now takes place (16:21; 17:22–23; 20:17–19).

Matthew 21: Conflict in Jerusalem

The entry scene is full of irony, imitating celebratory imperial entry processions yet with an “antitriumphal” parody (21:1–11). It borrows features of entry processions that celebrated conquering generals or the arrival of governors and emperors in a city representing imperial grandeur and “power over” subjugated peoples: procession, crowds, hymns, temple worship. Yet it creates street theater to critique imperial practice and mind-set. Entry processions defined greatness in terms of military violence, defeat of enemies, power, plunder, and public gratitude. Jesus, though, rides not a war horse but a donkey, a poor person’s working animal, yet also one that evokes the scene in Zech. 9:9 of God’s eschatological king, establishing God’s reign triumphantly over all enemies in Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14; Matt. 21:1, 4–5). Continuing ironically to mimic imperial ways even while reinscribing them, verse 9 reinforces this emphasis by quoting a Passover processional psalm celebrating God’s victory over the nations (Ps. 118:10–18).

Jesus does not attack empty temple ritual or the futility of Jewish efforts to encounter God. Rather the scene focuses on the temple’s economic practices, which Jesus deems exploitative, turning a place of prayer into a “den for robbers” (21:13; Hanson and Oakman, 99–159). He cites Isa. 56:7 and Jer. 7:11, which condemn injustice and envision just communities. The scribes and priests are angered by his action, healing (21:14), and appreciation from children (21:15–16). A cursed and withered fig tree symbolizes God’s judgment on the temple (21:18–20; Jer. 8:12–13), the first of several explanations for Rome’s destruction of it in 70 CE. Jesus envisions a different community marked by prayer and faithfulness (21:21–22).

The offended “chief priests and elders” initiate open conflict as they check Jesus’ credentials (21:23–27). The conflict is between Jesus and the leaders, not between Jesus and Israel. He prevails in verbal sparring through posing the question of the origin and the legitimacy of John’s baptism. To evaluate John is to evaluate Jesus (11:7–19). The chief priests and elders do not recognize either as commissioned by God.

Jesus counterattacks these societal leaders with three parables (the third comprising 22:1–14). Jesus introduces and ends the first parable, concerning two sons, with a question that requires their response (21:28, 31). They correctly identify the one who does his father’s will. In so doing, they endorse an important emphasis in Jesus’ teaching on obeying God’s will (7:24–27; 12:46–50). They condemn themselves, though, as people who do not welcome God’s agents—unlike the prostitutes and tax collectors (21:31–32).

The second parable—that of tenants who do not pay rent from a vineyard—interprets Jerusalem’s fall to the Romans in 70 CE as punishment on the leaders’ violent unfaithfulness in crucifying Jesus (21:33–43). The landowner planting a vineyard evokes the picture of God choosing Israel (Isa. 5:1–7). But the tenants refuse to pay the rent—the good and just works of obedient living—killing slaves (prophets) and the landowner’s son (Jesus). The temple leaders correctly identify the tenants’ eviction and replacement, thereby announcing their own penalty at the hands of the angry landowner (21:35–41). The vineyard (Israel) is not destroyed, but God replaces the leaders as tenants. On realizing their condemnation by Jesus, “the chief priests and Pharisees” want to arrest Jesus (21:45–46).

Across the church’s history, interpretation of the chapter has emphasized God’s rejection, not of the Jerusalem leaders as in the reading offered above, but the rejection of Israel as a whole from God’s story of salvation (Luz 2005, 1–44). Regularly the chapter’s scenes have been allegorized to underscore the passing of God’s favor from Israel to the church. Even the entry-to-Jerusalem scene was so read. Justin and Origen interpreted the mother donkey as the sin-bound, law-yoked synagogue and the colt as gentiles who leave Jericho (the world) to enter the church (Mount of Olives) and the heavenly Jerusalem. The cloaks on the road are church dogma. In a twist uncommon in the Christian tradition, a few understood the mother donkey (Israel) to follow the colt; she too will enter the heavenly Jerusalem, though after the gentiles. Other interpretations, especially dramatic liturgical reenactments, emphasized Christ as the victorious king, anticipating the Easter victory over sin and death.

The cursed fruitless fig tree was similarly understood, from the second century on, as condemned Israel (not the temple as proposed above). Jesus’ hunger depicted his unsatisfied yearning for faith in Israel. Likewise, the parable of the two sons was read, since Origen, as one of salvation history. The second son, who says “yes” but does not go, represents disobedient Jews or Israel (not only leaders), while the son who obeys represents gentiles. The parable of the vineyard was likewise interpreted as a story of Israel’s rejection. Some, however, like Calvin, rejected such allegorization and read it as a warning to the church to produce fruit.

Matthew 22: Conflict over Jesus’ Authority

Such interpretations of Christian Scriptures constitute a long, shameful, and tragic tradition of anti-Jewish attitude and practices among Christian groups that should not be forgotten, but should never be replicated. Such readings pose an ongoing challenge to Gospel readers. Has God forever abandoned Israel, revoking covenant with God’s people? Has God withdrawn love and grace once and for all? It is both tragic, given the history of interpretation, and hopeful, for a different future, to recognize that these supersessionist or replacement readings are not inevitable or necessary. They can be interrupted. One option is to read against the grain. Another option is to formulate readings such as in the first section above that endorse not a general repudiation of Israel and breaking of covenant but a specific targeting of an institution (temple) and group (leaders).

This solution, though, remains imperfect because of a further issue, namely the notion of judgment that pervades the Gospel (7:24–27; 10:40–42; 13:47–50; 18:21–35; 25:31–46). God the householder acts like an imperial tyrant in destroying the leaders and their temple. The Gospel enacts the imperial practice of requiring acceptance of God’s empire or else punishment follows for those who reject and defy. While verses like 5:45 depict God’s mercy and goodness extending to all people, the Gospel is not convinced that God’s mercy draws everyone into loving relationship with God. Hence judgment plays a significant role. Disturbingly, in this regard, the Gospel constructs God as acting like an emperor.

The conflict between Jesus and the Jerusalem-based socioreligious leaders continues from chapter 21 (Carter 2000, 432–48).

The chapter’s opening scene comprises the third of three parables Jesus tells against the “chief priests and Pharisees” (not all Israel). After the second parable, they want to arrest him, yet he continues the attack (21:45; 22:1). This parable, concerning rejected invitations to the wedding banquet of the king’s son, rehearses the leaders’ rejection of Jesus as God’s agent and their judgment, enacted in Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE. Banquets and eating often signal participation in God’s purposes, including their full establishment (Prov. 9:1–2; Isa. 25:6–10; Matt. 8:11–12). The reference in verse 7 to the burning city is a particularly Matthean feature, missing from the Q version of Luke 14:21, interrupting the sequence between verses 5 and 8, and creating an improbable scenario of a banquet among the smoldering ashes of the burned city. Josephus records Jerusalem’s burning in 70 CE (J.W. 6.249–408), and the city’s fall was widely interpreted as divine punishment enacted by Rome. The reasons for the punishment differed (2 Bar. 1:1–5; 4 Ezra 3:24–26); Matthew’s is explicitly christological: the rejection of the Son. Verses 11–14 extend the reach of the judgment. Guests at the banquet who, once admitted, do not behave in a manner appropriate to that identity (they are not appropriately attired) are also excluded.

Verse 15 narrates the response of Pharisees. They now attempt to trap Jesus. Allied with Herodians, presumably supporters of the Herodian dynasty and Rome, they ask Jesus about tax payment to the emperor. The question is astute. Tax payment expressed submission to Roman rule over God’s people and land. Refusal was serious dissent. Coins bore forbidden images of emperors. Most accommodated; a few openly resisted. Jesus dissembles, first not having the tax coin, then with a naive, perhaps mocking question, then with a riddle (21:21). What is the relationship of the two clauses? Does Jesus endorse paying the tax as part of the things of God, or, in privileging the second cause, as a strategy for removing the blasphemous and idolatrous coin from the land, or, reading the “and” in an adversative sense, does he disqualify payment because the land and people belong to God, not to the impostor Rome? It is indeed an amazing answer (22:22).

The conflict scene involves another power group, the Sadducees, and resurrection. Resurrection is not just a religious matter. The notion arose during the second century BCE in the context of the Seleucid tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes’ martyrdoms of faithful followers of God’s law (1 Maccabees 1‒2; 2 Maccabees 7). Resurrection denoted God’s faithful justice even through and beyond death. The Sadducees parody resurrection with a ridiculous scenario that utilizes the patriarchal structure of levirate marriage that was concerned to continue a dead man’s name (Deut. 25:5–10). Jesus bests them rhetorically, declaring their errors both in their general rejection of resurrection and in their particular construction (22:29–34).

Further conflict follows with the Pharisees (22:34, 41), first in ranking the commandments, then concerning his identity as Messiah. The question about the greatest commandment could be a fair one. Various summaries of the tradition prioritize its requirements (Isa. 56:1; Mic. 6:8). But the verb “test” (22:35) recalls previous confrontational scenes (16:1; 19:3) and the devil’s testing (4:1, 3). Jesus’ prioritizing of love for God and neighbor draws from the heart of the tradition, envisioning societal interaction at odds with an imperial, hierarchical social structure that favored a few. Unable to answer his question about Ps. 110:1, the Pharisees join the Sadducees in being silenced (22:34). Question time ends (22:46).

The wedding-feast parable has most commonly, and troublingly, been read as another allegory of salvation history (Luz 2005, 45–91). On this reading, Jewish rejection of Jesus (refused invitations) means Israel’s rejection by God from the covenant and from their status as God’s chosen. Gentiles replace them (22:9–10) in a full wedding hall (22:10b), where there is no room any more for Israel.

While many interpreters have readily found judgment on Israel in 22:1–10, they have been less happy about finding it extended to the wedding guests in the added scene of 22:11–14. The debates are long-standing. Origen engaged the question of this display of God’s rejecting anger. Luther called it a “terrible Gospel.” The referent for the requisite “wedding robe” has been debated. Initially, the dominant reading identified it with good works, particularly works of love (Augustine). Others, though, saw it as baptism or Christ put on in baptism (Aquinas), or the Holy Spirit. The Reformers (Zwingli, Luther, Calvin) saw it as active faith expressed in works of love. This church-centered reading of 22:11–14 regards Israel’s rejection (supposedly presented in 22:1–10) as providing a warning to the church.

Matthew 23: Jesus Attacks the Scribes and Pharisees

The tax-payment scene continues to raise the question of the relation of Jesus-followers to political and civic authority. A long tradition in both Catholic and Protestant traditions reads this scene through a division of responsibilities between the church (spiritual matters, rites and piety, word and Spirit) and civic authorities (civic and political order). However, such a division separates civic and political order from divine accountability as well as from the voices and input of Christian citizens who are rendered quietistic and automatically compliant by such a dualistic schema (contrary to Acts 5:29). For many Jesus-followers, such forced nonparticipation in the processes of government is unacceptable.

The double-love commandment, drawing from Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18, continues to be central for contemporary Christian practice. Always the question of how we love God has to be addressed. This question includes issues of worship, emotion, mind, mystical communion, and obedience. Yet however we answer the question, it cannot be separated from love for neighbor and for oneself.