THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
Early second-century interpretation extended the polemic in chapter 23 against Jewish leaders to target all Jews as “hypocrites” in practices of prayer and fasting (Luz 2005, 92–177). This extension enabled Christian interpreters to distinguish Jewish practice from Christian practice (Didache 8). But once the separation of gentile Christ-believers and Jews was more widely established, chapter 23 generally (and surprisingly) seems to play little explicit part in expressing hostility toward Jews, though its continued negative influence should not be underestimated. Instead, readings became more ecclesially centered in attacking vices and exhorting virtuous behavior. The chapter is, then, understood textually to rebuke Jews but functionally to teach and warn Christians. Polemical readings continue but are directed against ecclesial opponents or against inappropriate Christian behavior. Scribes and Pharisees, for example, are understood to represent not Judaism but stingy and greedy actions (23:23, 25). Jerome called Christians who seek public applause “scribes and Pharisees” (23:5). In terms of polemic, Dante called Pope Boniface VIII a Pharisee, and Luther labeled Catholic opponents Pharisees. More generally among the Reformers, Pharisees came to represent those who trust in works and are hypocrites. In our time, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary includes “self-righteous” and “hypocritical” in its entry on “Pharisees.”
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
The presence of the woes of chapter 23 in a canonical Gospel is most troubling (Saldarini). Whatever the interpretive tradition, the chapter has exercised continuing negative influence on Christian anti-Jewish attitudes and practices. Attempts to read the tradition against the grain, in terms of warnings for Christians, have some merit, but they cannot be the only way forward. This dreadful past cannot be glossed over, set aside, and forgotten; repentance is required. Such Christian readings assume in their very language attacks on Jewish practices, and they maintain the hostility by presenting Jews as types of deficient Christian piety.
Moreover, the presence of such language in this Gospel poses the very difficult question of its relationship to the command in 5:44 to love one’s enemies. Chapter 23 is as far from 5:44 as the east is from the west. No definition of love stretches to include condemning one’s opponents to God’s judgment. Yet 23:39 should not be completely forgotten. As much as it offers some hope—the punishment of the leaders’ city is not a final dismissal—it compounds the contradictions. What is the relationship between the divine condemnation of the woes and this glimmer of hope?
In a different direction, 23:8–12 continues the vision of the church in chapters 18–20 as an alternative society marked by egalitarian structures (no teacher, no father) and contrary to hierarchical imperial society. In the history of interpretation, its import has been mollified by emphases on humility and against pride in defending ecclesial hierarchy and power. Matthew’s vision for different social interactions is more radical, its continued challenge underscored by the theological and christological affirmations of 23:9–10.
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
Chapters 24–25 continue the conflict and condemnation of Jesus’ final days in Jerusalem (Carter 2000, 466–97). The two chapters form the eschatological discourse, the Gospel’s fifth major teaching section. Jesus addresses “signs of his coming/return and of the end of the age” (24:3)—his intervention to end Rome’s empire and its Jerusalem allies, and fully establish God’s reign/empire.
The chapter opens with another reference to the temple’s destruction by the Romans in 70 CE. The discourse is located on the Mount of Olives and evokes Zechariah 14, which presents the Mount as the place where God enters the city, overcomes Israel’s enemies, and establishes God’s reign. The disciples ask about Jesus’ “coming” or “arrival” (24:3; Gk. parousia), a term that refers to the arrival of generals or emperors parodied in 21:1–11. Now, though, there is no parody as his powerful and triumphant coming outmuscles the empire. The time until his coming, however, is difficult, marked by false agents misrepresenting God (24:4–5), wars (24:6–7a), natural disasters (24:7b–8), persecution, betrayal and faithfulness (24:9–13), mission (24:14), violation of the temple (24:15), flight and false alarms (24:16–26). The son of man’s coming, however, will be unmistakable. He overcomes Roman power (represented in 24:28 by eagles, not vultures) and cosmic deities, before gathering God’s people (24:27–31; Carter 2003a).
Exhortation takes over, as Jesus underscores the importance of recognizing the signs of his imminent coming with a lesson from the leafy fig tree (24:32–35). Subsequently, several passages warn that while his return is imminent, its timing is unknown and disciples must be ready (24:36–44). Three parables make the same point with slight variations. The first employs the imperial institution of slavery without any questions, and adds a picture of frightful punitive violence (24:45–51). A second parable uses a wedding scenario to show the joy of Jesus’ return and the necessity of being ready (25:1–13). The third employs the common imperial scenario of the wealthy absentee landowner who entrusts his estate’s management to his slaves (25:14–30). Returning, he holds them accountable for the talents entrusted to them. The faithful slaves are joyfully rewarded (25:21, 23); the unfaithful slave is punished (25:30).
The final scene portrays the judgment of the nations to take place at Jesus’ return (25:31–46). Jesus appears as son of man and king in representing God’s rule over the nations (25:34). The key interpretive question concerns the criterion for vindication (25:34–40) and condemnation (25:41–46). The participants themselves do not know (25:37–39, 44). One reading sees the nations judged on the basis of how they have treated those in need. Another reading sees the nations judged on the basis of their response to Christian proclamation of the good news. This latter view highlights the mission of 24:14 to all the nations (gathered in 25:31), and understands positive response to “the least of these” (25:40, 45) as referring not to the needy but specifically to receiving disciples and their Gospel message (so 10:40).
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
Chapter 24 has been read along various, but at times overlapping, lines (Luz 2005, 178–296). One approach, beginning with the Didache, and present from Irenaeus through the Reformers, has read it as an eschatological text culminating in Jesus’ parousia. Verses 3–26 are understood as depicting the final collapse, with references often focusing on the personification of evil in an antichrist (imported from 1 John 2:18 and not specifically mentioned anywhere in Matthew). The antichrist is identified variously with the “false prophets” (24:11), the “desolating sacrilege” (24:15), and the “false” Messiahs (24:5, 23–24). A second approach, beginning with Chrysostom, has read the chapter historically, not in relation to the end of the age but in relation to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This approach understands the “desolating sacrilege” as something done by a Roman to profane the temple, such as introducing an image of the emperor or a legionary standard into the temple. The historical approach handles much of verses 4–31 but struggles with the question of verse 3b and with verses 27–31. To solve these problems, a mixed interpretation emerged with Augustine that notes concerns with both the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the age and tries to read the chapter as moving between these two events. Another line emerging from this approach found connections with contemporary ecclesial and world situations. (Spener, for instance, identified the “desolating sacrifice” with the papacy.) This approach was often combined with a sense that the end was near in the time of the interpreter (true of both Luther and contemporary TV preachers).
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
These two chapters pose numerous questions for contemporary readers. Perhaps the most basic question concerns how we engage eschatological thinking, both the notion of divine intervention to affect the end of history with the establishment of God’s purposes, and its bleak, hopeless perspective on the present. Two thousand years later and counting, the imminent expectation of 24:34 has not materialized. Some parts of the contemporary church live in such thinking; other parts find no resonance with it at all. A related issue is the language in which this divine intervention is described. Throughout, the eschatological discourse borrows imperial language (parousia), structures (slavery, absentee landowners), and strategies (punishing violence) to depict divine actions. The ways of Caesar are attributed to God without hesitation. There is no questioning of the violent assertion of cosmic power in 24:27–31 in the defeat of Roman military power (24:28). There is neither critique of slavery in 24:45–51 nor restraint in depicting the horrendous violence of hacking a slave to pieces in 24:51. Violent punishment continues in 25:31–46. How does this strand of violent judgment interact with the depictions of universal divine favor in 5:45 and the elevation of mercy (9:13; 12:7)? And what are we to make of the presentation of judgment by works and the privileging of the poor in the assertion of God’s kingly power in 25:31–46?
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
After two chapters of eschatological discourse (chs. 24–25), the path to the cross via conflict with the Roman governor and the Jerusalem elite resumes from chapters 21–23. The transition from chapters 25 to 26 is stunning. The king who judges the nations is now judged by their rulers even while he exposes the vicious and self-serving ways of the imperial world.
These two long chapters move quickly with short and interwoven scenes, changing characters, and varied settings (Carter 2000, 498–540). The turning point comes in 26:47–56 as Judas betrays Jesus in Gethsemane, Jesus is arrested, and the disciples flee. From 26:57 to 27:26, Jesus is condemned first by the high priestly leadership and then by governor Pilate (Carter 2003b). Matthew 27:27–66 narrates his crucifixion as “king of Israel” (27:37, 42)—a treasonous claim in Roman rule—death (27:50), and burial in a guarded tomb.
The early Christian movement had to account for Jesus’ death by crucifixion and for its own loyalty to one who had been crucified. Doing so clearly posed an enormous challenge. These chapters, as do other New Testament writings, devote considerable effort to offering explanations of that significance both for divine plans and for the life of discipleship. The challenge originates with the act of crucifixion itself.
In the Roman system, the punishment fit the social status of the convicted. Crucifixion, the “most pitiable of deaths” (Josephus, J.W. 7.202–3), was reserved for lower-ranked, more marginal, and provincial folks like violent criminals, unruly slaves, and rebellious provincials or foreigners who claimed kingship not sanctioned by Rome and attacked the personnel and property of elites. Crucifixions were carried out publicly along well-traveled roads so as to intimidate as many as possible.
Jesus’ death by crucifixion puts him—and his followers—in such company. So, in 27:38–44, two rebels (bandits or brigands) are crucified with Jesus for rebellion against Roman order. Matthew’s chapters take up the questions: What was God doing? What is the significance of this event? How does it shape discipleship? The two chapters can be read as a catalog of interpretations of his crucifixion, viewed through the perspective of resurrection. Among Matthew’s affirmations are the following:
•Jesus’ crucifixion is the inevitable consequence of a prophetic challenge to the imperial powers that be (26:1–5). The empire always strikes back. This is the way of the cross.
•An unnamed woman—a model disciple—recognizes that Jesus dies not in defeat but willingly (26:36–46), in God’s service (26:6–13) and will (26:56). This service includes the establishment of a covenant for release from sins in anticipation of the full establishment of God’s life-giving will (26:17–30). Jesus’ death exposes the sinful nature of the imperial world.
•Jesus’ death results from the betrayal by one disciple, Judas (26:14–16, 47–56; 27:3–10), and his abandonment by Peter (26:31–35, 69–75) and all the male disciples (26:56). By contrast, it is witnessed by courageous women followers (27:55–56).
•Jesus’ death results from the concerted and effective effort of the alliance of Jerusalem and Roman imperial power to kill a challenger to the imperial status quo. This alliance involves the high priest Caiaphas (26:57–68), the Roman governor Pilate (27:1–2, 11–26), Roman soldiers (27:27–31, 54, 62–66), and the chief priests, scribes, and elders (27:41–43).
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
The interpretive tradition concerning Jesus’ passion is rich and diverse, expressed through art, drama, music, and theological reflection (Luz 2005, 297–589, with images). One history identifies four broad approaches across the last two millennia. Initial interpretations, viewing crucifixion and resurrection as one connected event, emphasized not its suffering but its triumph (indicated in the eschatological anticipations of resurrection in 27:51–53). A second emphasis emerged in seeing the cross as an act of love (cf. Rom. 5:8). A third emphasis, especially in medieval exegesis, emphasized the suffering of the cross in which believers emotionally share and suffer through various contemplative practices, including self-flagellation, so as to learn love, pity, and thankfulness, and live a world-denying life. Protestant Reformation piety commonly associated with Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon emphasized the benefits—both judgment and grace—of Jesus’ death as pro me (“for me”) or pro nobis (“for us”), encountered through preaching and sacraments, and responded to with faith.
Contemporary strands of interpretation have continued emphases from the past such as ransom theories (Anselm: Jesus’ death satisfies God’s honor and justice and buys release from sin and the devil), God’s wooing love that draws humans into divine relationship (Abelard), Christus victor formulations of triumph over sin, and the pro nobis benefits of Jesus’ sacrificial death. Other contemporary approaches, such as feminist and liberation work, have reacted strongly against sacrificial emphases, regarding “God giving God’s son to die” as more akin to child abuse and as encouraging submission to abusive power and suffering. Instead, in focusing on life-giving and liberating dimensions, they have, for example, emphasized Jesus as one who suffers with us and strengthens all who are poor and oppressed. A similar approach has countered spiritualizations of the cross by seeking to restore it to its Roman imperial context. On this approach, the cross exposes human (imperial, systemic) evil, violence, and scapegoating (Girard) in the resistance to Jesus’ alternative societal vision and practices.
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
Creative reflection on the significance of Jesus’ death continues, though often ecclesial communities seem wary of this diversity and favor traditional, especially sacrificial, interpretations without exploring the diversity in the New Testament writings and the tradition across the ages.
These two chapters are full of characters that provide numerous points of entry into discipleship as the way of the cross. These characters include the anointing woman (26:6–13), the betrayer Judas, the overconfident but fragile Peter, the disciples who sleep through the Gethsemane prayer meeting, Caiaphas, who represents Jewish identity and allies with Roman power, Pilate, not spineless but concerned to maintain Roman rule and score a victory over his begging provincial allies (27:22–23), Simon of Cyrene, who is compelled to carry the cross (27:32), and the faithful and brave women at the tomb (27:55–56).
Part 6: God Thwarts Imperial Power and Raises Jesus (Matthew 28)
On normal expectations, the Gospel story should end with Jesus’ death and the ruling elites’ victory. Chapter 28, though, boldly declares God’s miraculous intervention, which creates a different future with the raising of Jesus (Carter 2000, 541–54). The worst that imperial power can do is thwarted and reversed.
THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT
Verses 1–10 emphasize this divine intervention. The raising of Jesus is assumed and declared, not described, thereby augmenting its mystery. The narrative focuses on the two women who come to “see” the tomb. Unlike Mark 16, they do not bring spices to anoint a dead body. That omission and the significant verb “see,” with which Matthew frequently denotes understanding (Matt. 9:2) and insight into Jesus’ mission (13:13–17), suggest they expect resurrection.
The descent from heaven of “an angel of the Lord,” the earthquake, and the angel’s divine-like appearance and reassuring words “do not be afraid” underscore God’s presence and intervention. God’s action renders the empire’s military agents powerless, “like dead men,” in this place of new life (28:3–5a). The angelic proclamation underscores both divine intervention with its passive, “he has been raised” (28:5–8), and the need to reveal this activity. The notion of resurrection emerged in contexts of imperial tyranny to affirm God’s triumph over death caused by imperial tyrants, and to provide assurance of participation in God’s eschatological purposes (Dan. 12:1–3; 2 Maccabees 7). With joy and fear, the women obey the instruction to proclaim this message to the disciples in Galilee, an instruction renewed in their worshipful, fearful encounter with the risen Jesus (28:8–11; Cotter).
While the chapter’s first section interprets the empty tomb in terms of God’s life-giving intervention, its second scene presents the ruling powers’ perspective (28:11–15). The now-revived soldiers, representing the power of the alliance of Pilate and the Jerusalem leaders (27:62–66), report “everything that had happened.” The chief priests, assuming the governor’s support, bribe the soldiers to declare an alternative story: the disciples have stolen the body. Regrettably, the scene presents those who do not believe or accept the angel’s story as corrupt, deceiving, greedy—and not very smart.
In this conflictual context, the all-powerful Jesus commissions the disciples (28:16–20). The obedient disciples worship and doubt Jesus on a mountain, echoing Mts. Sinai and Zion. Jesus’ massive assertion that God has given him “all authority in heaven and earth” declares a share in God’s reign over all creation (contrast 4:8). The assertion both contests yet imitates Roman imperial claims to rule land, sea, and people. Jesus commissions the disciples to worldwide mission, making disciples, baptizing, and teaching Jesus’ instruction (evoking the teaching of chs. 5–7; 10; 13; 18; 24–25; Carter 2004). Again the commission contests yet imitates imperial practice. Rome paraded its Jupiter-given mission to be “lords of the world” and to “crown peace with justice, to spare the vanquished, and to crush the proud” (Virgil, Aen. 1.254–82; 6.851–53).
The scene closes with Jesus’ promise to be present with the small community of disciples as they undertake this mission in the resistant world of 28:11–15 (28:20). The Gospel ends by repeating its opening claim, that Jesus’ presence manifests God’s saving presence and reign/empire throughout the world (1:21–23; 4:17).
THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION
The four Gospels present significantly different resurrection accounts comprising different characters, events, appearances, and settings (Luz 2005, 590–636). Early interpreters regularly combined these different versions to reconstruct a narrative sequence of “what actually happened.” With the Enlightenment emerged new understandings of historical inquiry that dismissed miracles, gave prominence to rationality, and emphasized cause-and-effect explanations and the importance of analogous situations. This approach has meant for much—but not all—contemporary interpretation a shift in focus from the narratives as providing a historical account to their significance or meaning.
Interpreters have found meaning variously in allegorizing the accounts, with a primary focus on hearing the word that the stories narrated. The Reformers urged attention to the “for us” quality of the narratives, particularly focusing attention on the women. Calvin, for example, interprets the women in terms of 1 Cor. 1:27 and God’s choice of those who are regarded as weak and foolish. Others have highlighted the emotional, rather than cognitive, components of joy and fear, worship and doubt in Matt. 28:8, 17, as alternative but appropriate, meaning-making responses.
THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION
Evangelism is a significant issue for contemporary congregations, both its strong advocates and those troubled by the practice. The history of interpretation shows that 28:19–20, a central text for contemporary debates, gained that central place as recently as the late eighteenth century. Early interpretation and the Reformers interpreted the verses as referring only to the disciples’ mission. Catholic practice centered on territorial expansion such as the Spanish and Portuguese missions in the Americas and Asia. It was among Anabaptist and Protestant pietists that a missional interpretation developed. The English Baptist William Carey argued in 1792 for 28:19–20 as a central missional text, commanding worldwide mission to convert non-Christian individuals to Christianity. Such understandings have informed both Protestant and Catholic evangelistic missions.
Others, however, have become increasingly uncomfortable with assertions of ecclesial power and the association of the church with the damage done by colonial powers on local ways of life. Interfaith dialogue has also questioned evangelistic practices as triumphalistic and disrespectful of diverse traditions. Does 28:19–20 authorize such practices, or does its location at the end of the Gospel point to an interpretation in relation to the Gospel’s previous teaching, such as Jesus’ emphasis on the praxis of love for God and neighbor as demonstrated in “good works” more than words (5:16; 22:37–39)?
The Gospel’s final promise raises questions as to how the continuing presence of the risen Jesus is experienced. Interpreters have suggested the Spirit, otherwise not prominent in the Gospel, the Eucharist, and the proclaimed word. Perhaps also this presence is experienced in worship and joy in the midst of fear and doubt.
Allison, Dale. 1993. “Divorce, Celibacy, and Joseph (Matthew 1:18–25 and 19:1–12).” JSNT 49:1–10.
Betz, Hans Dieter. 1995. The Sermon on the Mount. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Bornkamm, Günther. 1963. “The Stilling of the Storm.” In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, by Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Held, 52–57. London: SCM.
Carter, Warren. 2000. Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
———. 2001. Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
———. 2003a. “Are There Imperial Texts in the Class? Intertextual Eagles and Matthean Eschatology as ‘Lights Out’ Time for Imperial Rome (Matt 24:27–31).” JBL 122:467–87.
———. 2003b. Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
———. 2004. “Matthew and the Gentiles: Individual Conversion and/or Systemic Transformation?” JSNT 26:259–82.
———. 2007. “Power and Identities” and “Embodying God’s Empire in Communal Practices.” In Preaching on the Sermon on the Mount: The World That It Imagines, edited by David Fleer and Dave Bland, 8–21 and 22–35. St. Louis: Chalice.
Cotter, Wendy. 2001. “Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew.” In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, edited by David Aune, 127–53. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Deutsch, Celia. 2001. “Jesus as Wisdom: A Feminist Reading of Matthew’s Wisdom Christology.” In A Feminist Companion to Matthew, edited by Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff, 88–113. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Duling, Dennis. 2012. “ ‘Egalitarian’ Ideology, Leadership, and Factional Conflict within the Matthean Group,” “The Matthean Brotherhood and Marginal Scribal Leadership,” and “Matthew 18:15–17: Conflict, Confrontation and Conflict Resolution in a ‘Fictive’ Kin Association.” In A Marginal Scribe: Studies in Matthew in a Social-Scientific Perspective, 145–78, 179–211, and 212–44. Eugene, OR: Cascade.
Hanson, K. C. 1994. “How Honorable! How Shameful! A Cultural Analysis of Matthew’s Makarisms and Reproaches.” Semeia 68:81–111.
Hanson, K. C., and Douglas Oakman. 1998. Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Horsley, Richard. 1989. The Liberation of Christmas: The Infancy Narratives in Social Context. New York: Crossroad.
Levine, Amy-Jill. 1998. “Matthew.” In Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition, edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, 339–49. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
———. 2001. “Discharging Responsibility: Matthean Jesus, Biblical Law, and Hemorrhaging Woman.” In A Feminist Companion to Matthew, edited by Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff, 70–87. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Loader, William. 2005. Sexuality and the Jesus Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Luz, Ulrich. 1994. Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects. Minneapolis; Fortress Press.
———. 2001. Matthew 1–7. Trans. James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
———. 2005. Matthew 8–20. Trans. James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
———. 2007. Matthew 21–28. Trans. James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Meier, John P. 1994. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles. New York: Doubleday.
Moss, Candida R., and Jeremy Schipper, eds. 2011. Disability Studies and Biblical Literature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Murphy, Catherine. 2003. John the Baptist: Prophet of Purity for a New Age. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Patte, Daniel. 1999. The Challenge of the Sermon on the Mount: A Critical Study of the Sermon on the Mount as Scripture. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Powell, Mark Allan. 2001. Chasing the Eastern Star: Adventures in Biblical Reader-Response Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Ringe, Sharon. 1985. “A Gentile Woman’s Story.” In Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Letty Russell, 65–72. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Saldarini, Anthony. 2001. “Reading Matthew without Anti-Semitism.” In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, edited by David Aune, 166–84. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Sheffield, Julian. 2001. “The Father in the Gospel of Matthew.” In A Feminist Companion to Matthew, edited by Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff, 52–69. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Taylor, Joan. 1997. The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Waetjen, H. 1975. “The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel of Matthew.” JBL 95:205–30.
Wainwright, Elaine. 2001. “The Matthean Jesus and the Healing of Women.” In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, edited by David Aune, 74–95. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wink, Walter. 1992. “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus’ Nonviolent Way.” RevExp 89:171–214.