1. For theological significance see Yong-Eui Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel (JSNTSup 139; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 305–6.
2. The Qumran community restricted travel to less than a quarter of a mile (CD 10.21), the rabbis to a little over half a mile (m. Soṭah 5:3). The only New Testament reference to this travel restriction is in Acts 1:12.
3. M. Casey, “Culture and Historicity: The Plucking of the Grain (Mark 2.23–28),” NTS 34 (1988): 1–23, esp. 4–5.
4. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 351–54.
5. Davies and Allison (Matthew, 2:310–11) list eight different interpretations. The most influential interpretations propose that Jesus indicates (1) that human necessities take precedence over legal technicalities, (2) that Jesus attacks the oral tradition, not the written Torah, (3) that doing good may condone breaking a commandment, or (4) that David as the anointed representative illustrates Jesus’ messianic authority. The interpretation offered here combines some of the truth of each of these perspectives.
6. Gundry, Matthew, 223; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:314.
7. Cf. Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, 187–88.
8. A classic statement of this appeal to mercy is found in David’s psalm of contrition (Ps. 51:16–17).
9. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 357.
10. E.g., “If a man has a pain in his throat they may drop medicine into his mouth on the Sabbath, since there is doubt whether life is in danger, and whenever there is doubt whether life is in danger this overrides the Sabbath” (m. Yoma 8:6).
11. Yang, Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, 209.
12. For brief overviews of this complex subject, see Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 173–81; Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament, 575–618.
13. Richard Beaton, “Messiah and Justice: A Key to Matthew’s Use of Isaiah 42.1–4?” JSNT 75 (September 1999): 5–23.
14. See also 9:27–31; 15:30–31; 20:30–34; 21:14–15; Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 127.
15. For a brief background see Mark Strauss, “Demonization and Exorcism in the First Century,” in “Luke,” ZIBBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 397. See Hans Dieter Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1986). The closest Hellenistic parallel to Jesus’ form of exorcism appears in Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana, 4:20 (LCL), a third century A.D. document.
16. Later Judaism continued this charge into the early centuries of the church era, branding him a sorcerer (e.g., b. Sanh. 43b: “He [Yeshu] is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy”).
17. John P. Meier, Matthew (New Testament Message 3; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1980), 135.
18. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 2d ed. (CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972), 83.
19. Meier, Matthew, 135.
20. Ralph P. Martin, “Blasphemy of the Spirit,” IBD, 1:201.
21. Cranfield, Mark, 142.
22. James D. G. Dunn, “Sign,” IBD 3:1450.
23. Note that “the sign of . . . Jonah” is not some kind of sign that Jonah brings. Rather, Jonah is the sign.
24. Hans F. Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection: The Provenance, Meaning and Correlation of the Synoptic Predictions (WUNT 2/20; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986), 141–45, 182.
25. Cf. Gen. 42:17–18; 1 Sam. 30:12–13; 1 Kings 20:29; 2 Chron. 10:5, 12; Est. 4:16; 5:1.
26. See y. Šabb., 12a, 15, 17 (cf. b. Naz. 5b; b. Pesaḥ 4.2); cited in Gerhard Delling, “ἡμέρα,” TDNT, 2:949–50.
27. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 535.
28. Hagner, Matthew, 1:355.
29. From earliest times seven also had sacred associations; Gen 2:2; 4:24; 21:28; Ex. 20:10; Lev. 25:2–8.
30. See R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 164–65; Guelich, Mark 1–8, 172–73; George Aichele, “Jesus’s Uncanny ‘Family Scene,’ ” JSNT 74 (June 1999): 29–49.
31. Carson, “Matthew,” 299.
32. Leading Roman Catholic Matthean scholars today acknowledge the difficulty of reading “brothers” as anything other than Mary’s children; e.g., Harrington comments, “It is doubtful that Matthew knew the tradition about the perpetual virginity of Mary”; Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra pagina 1; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1991), 191. For an overview of this entire issue, see Richard J. Bauckham, “Relatives of Jesus,” DLNTD, 1004–6.
33. Senior, Matthew, 145.
34. Hagner, Matthew, 1:360.
35. See Wilkins, “Women in the Teaching and Example of Jesus,” 91–112.
36. Wilkins, Following the Master, 66–68; Hellerman, The Ancient Church As Family, 64–70.
37. See Wilkins, Following the Master, ch. 13.
38. For principles of applying the Old Testament today, see Contemporary Significance section of 5:17–20.
39. dc Talk and The Voice of the Martyrs, Jesus Freaks: Stories of Those Who Stood For Jesus, the Ultimate Jesus Freaks (Tulsa: Albury, 1999), 8.
40. Ibid., 135.
41. Ibid., 40.
42. Evelyn Nievese, “Judges Ban Pledge of Allegiance from Schools, Citing ‘Under God,’ ” New York Times (June 27, 2002), National Desk, 1.
43. “The Global Persecution of the Faithful,” World & I (December 2000), 18.
44. See on the Contemporary Significance section of 5:43–47.
1. Charles R. Page II, Jesus and the Land (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 85; Pixner, With Jesus Through Galilee According to the Fifth Gospel, 40.
2. The term ochlos in 13:2b is best rendered “crowd,” not “people” as in NIV (cf. 4:16; 26:24–25).
3. E.g., 5:14–15; 7:24–27; 9:16, 17; 11:16–19; 12:27–29, 43–45.
4. Including byword, proverb, wisdom sayings, story, and allegory. For an overview of the relationship to Jewish usage, see Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew, 90–97. For an extensive discussion of parables within Jewish rabbinic literature, see David Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1991).
5. Robert H. Stein, “The Genre of the Parables,” The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 30–50.
6. Mark L. Bailey, “Guidelines for Interpreting Jesus’ Parables,” BibSac 155 (January–March 1998): 29–38.
7. John W. Sider, Interpreting the Parables: A Hermeneutical Guide to Their Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 88–89.
8. E.g., Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, rev. ed. (New York: Scribner’s, 1972). A recent literary approach that tends to this view is Warren Carter and John Paul Heil, Matthew’s Parables: Audience-Oriented Perspectives (CBQMS 30; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1998), 1–22.
9. Cf. Klyne R. Snodgrass, “From Allegorizing to Allegorizing: A History of the Interpretation of the Parables of Jesus,” The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 3–29. One who has swung back the farthest to suggest that the parables are allegories is Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 29–69.
10. E.g., David Wenham, The Parables of Jesus (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 41–48.
11. Ibid.
12. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 226–29; cf. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 192.
13. Oded Borowski, “Agriculture,” ABD, 1:97–98; idem, Agriculture in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987).
14. Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 149–51; Rousseau and Arav, “Agriculture, Cereals,” Jesus and His World, 8–12; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 377–78.
15. Philip Barton Payne, “The Authenticity of the Parable of the Sower and Its Interpretation,” Gospel Perspectives, ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 1:181–86; Carson, “Matthew,” 305; Bailey, “The Parable of the Sower and the Soils,” 183–84.
16. Jesus begins his answer to the disciples’ question with a causal conjunction “because” (hoti; not reflected in NIV), indicating the reason why he speaks to the crowd in parables.
17. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 92.
18. For further discussion, see Carson, “Matthew,” 308–10.
20. Bailey, “The Parable of the Sower and the Soils,” 179.
21. Donald A. Hagner, “Matthew’s Parables of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:1–52),” The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables, 106.
22. Brad H. Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 1998), 251–76.
23. The two phrases “worry of this life” and “deceitfulness of wealth” are the double subject of the verb “choke,” indicating a combined thorny threat to kingdom life.
24. Payne, “The Authenticity of the Parable of the Sower and Its Interpretation,” 181–86; Bailey, “The Parable of the Sower and the Soils,” 183–84.
25. E.g., see comments on 3:2; 4:17; 5:3–20; 10:7; 11:11–15; 13:11.
26. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 387.
27. Hagner, “Matthew’s Parables of the Kingdom,” 110; Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew, 100.
28. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 96.
29. Blomberg, Matthew, 220.
30. Morris, Matthew, 354–55.
31. Ito, “Matthew and the Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 29–30.
32. Wilkins, Following the Master, 176–93.
33. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 94–95.
34. Carson, “Matthew,” 317; Morris, Matthew, 350. See below at 13:36.
35. The intriguing Copper Scroll found at Qumran lists sixty-four places in Palestine where treasures were apparently hidden.
36. The Mishnah required a contractual statement specifying that the sale of land included its contents (m. B. Bat. 4.9); cf. Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew, 107.
37. Hagner, “Matthew’s Parables of the Kingdom,” 117.
38. See Young, The Parables, 199–221.
39. See Wenham, The Parables of Jesus, 206–7.
40. Young, The Parables, 199–221.
41. Hagner, “Matthew’s Parables of the Kingdom,” 118.
42. Nun, Sea of Galilee and its Fishermen, 16–44.
43. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 202.
44. Hagner, Matthew, 1:401–2; see Wilkins, Discipleship in the Ancient World and Matthew’s Gospel, 160–63.
46. Carson, “Matthew,” 332.
47. David E. Orton, The Understanding Scribe: Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal (JSNTSup 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), esp. 140–53.
48. France, Matthew, 231.
49. See the Contemporary Significance section of 7:1–12.
50. For a more complete discussion, see Wilkins, “Balance as a Key to Discipleship,” 45–64.
51. Hagner, Matthew, 1:373.
52. Alan Cole, The Gospel According to St. Mark: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 91.
53. Ibid.
54. Willard, Renovation of the Heart, 58; his emphases.
55. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 566.
56. Willard, Renovation of the Heart, 60; his emphases.
57. “Resistance,” Encyclopædia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=64876[Accessed August 12, 2002].
58. Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 340–41.
59. Cf., e.g., Bailey, “Guidelines for Interpreting Jesus’ Parables,” 29–38; Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 29–69; Sider, Interpreting the Parables, 13–26, 171–246; Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Parable,” DJG, 591–601; idem, “From Allegorizing to Allegorizing,” 3–29; Robert H. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 15–41; Wenham, The Parables of Jesus, 11–25, 225–38.
60. Cf. Snodgrass, “From Allegorizing to Allegorizing,” 3–29; Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 29–69.
61. Wenham, The Parables of Jesus, 237–38.
62. Cf. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 393.
1. E.g., Blomberg, Matthew, 227; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:452–54; France, Matthew, 232.
2. E.g., Carson, “Matthew,” 335; Morris, Matthew, 364.
3. Mark 6:3 calls Jesus a carpenter.
4. Morris, Matthew, 366.
5. E.g., the Gadarene demoniacs (8:28–34) and the lame man in John 5.
6. Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus (son of Herod the Great) and Bernice (daughter of Herod the Great’s sister, Salome), which made her the half-niece of her husband Herod Philip I and Herod Antipas.
7. Josephus, Ant. 18.5.1 §§109–15.
8. For a brief overview, see Harold W. Hoehner, “Herodian Dynasty, DJG, 322–25. For the most extensive treatment of the era, see idem, Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
9. See “John the Baptist’s Execution by Herod Antipas as Recorded by Josephus,” in Wilkins, “Matthew,” 90.
10. On John’s imprisonment at Machaerus, see Josephus, Ant. 18.112, 119.
11. Wilkins, Following the Master, 86–88, 253–56.
12. France, Matthew, 236; Hagner, Matthew, 2:417.
13. Carson, “Matthew,” 340–41; Morris, Matthew, 417.
14. See Mark 6:32–44; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:1–15.
15. There are harmonization difficulties in connection with Mark’s reference to Bethsaida as the location the disciples head toward after this miracle (Mark 6:45) and Luke’s reference to the feeding miracles as occurring at Bethsaida (Luke 9:10); it is beyond the scope of this commentary to solve them.
16. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 403–4.
17. Hagner, Matthew, 2:418.
18. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 405.
19. R. Bultmann/D. Lührmann, “φάντασμα,” TDNT, 9:6. The term occurs only here and in Mark 6:49.
20. Peterson, Engaging with God, 85–86.
21. Douglas R. Edwards, “Gennesaret,” ABD, 2:963.
22. Cf. Wilkins, Discipleship in the Ancient World, 163–72.
23. See 14:28–31; 15:15; 16:17–19; 17:24–27; 18:21.
24. Myron S. Augsburger, Matthew (The Communicator’s Commentary; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982), 182.
25. Hagner, Matthew, 1:406: “The primary mistake of the people of Nazareth was their automatic limitation of Jesus to the familiar framework in which they had previously known him. This made them unable to evaluate Jesus in terms of his message and deeds.”
26. Pheme Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Studies on Personalities of the New Testament, gen. ed. D. Moody Smith; Columbia, S.C.: Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1994), 18–21.
27. See the graph in the introduction that plots Peter’s actions in Matthew’s Gospel, dramatically illustrating his vacillation of faith.
28. For Matthew’s portrait of Peter and his developing leadership role, see Wilkins, Discipleship in the Ancient World and Matthew’s Gospel, 173–216, 264.
29. John Ortberg, “If You Want to Walk on Water, You’ve Got to Get Out of the Boat,” Pathways 1/1 (Fall–Winter 2001), 11. This is an excerpt from the book of the same name (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001).
30. I recount this story more fully in Wilkins, In His Image, 157–59.
31. Peterson, Engaging with God, 283–85.
32. Lucado, In the Eye of the Storm, 182.
1. On Pharisees and teachers of the law, see 3:7; 5:20; 8:19. See also D. R. de Lacey, “In Search of a Pharisee,” TynBul 43.2 (1992): 353–72.
2. Samuel Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings (New York: Oxford, 1978), 103.
3. Comparing the Sadducees and the Pharisees, Josephus said that they had significant differences, among them, “the Sadducees having the confidence of the wealthy alone but no following among the populace, while the Pharisees have the support of the masses” (Josephus, Ant. 13.10.6, §298).
4. Cf. Rousseau and Arav, “Tyre and Sidon,” Jesus and His World, 327–28.
5. See “Dog,” DJBP, 172; “Animals,” “Dogs,” DBI, 29, 213–14.
6. See F. Gerald Downing, “The Woman from Syrophoenicia, and Her Doggedness: Mark 7:24–31 (Matthew 15:21–28),” Women in the Biblical Tradition, ed. George J. Brooke (Studies in Women and Religion 31; Lewiston N. Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1992), 129–49.
7. Smillie, “ ‘Even the Dogs’: Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew,” 73–97; esp. 93–95; T. W. Manson, “Only to the House of Israel?” in Facet Books Biblical Series 9 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), 22–23.
8. Scott, “Gentiles and the Ministry of Jesus,” 161–69.
9. Carson, “Matthew,” 356–57.
10. For further discussion, see the feeding of the five thousand in 14:13–21.
11. Cf. Hagner, Matthew, 451–52; less convinced is Carson, “Matthew,” 359.
12. Gundry, Matthew, 322; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 420; Rousseau and Arav, “Magdala,” Jesus and His World, 189–90.
13. Some conjecture that removing the first syllable of Migdal Nunya could give rise to a form Dalnunya, similar to Dalmanutha (Mark 8:10); cf. Gundry, Matthew, 322; Blomberg, Matthew, 247 n.87.
14. James F. Strange, “Magdala,” ABD, 4:463–64.
15. Dodo Joseph Shenhav, “Loaves and Fishes Mosaic Near Sea of Galilee Restored,” BAR 10 (1984): 22–31. Only a mile from here the famous first-century fishing boat was found (see comments on 4:21).
16. This is different from Mark, who gives an extended description of the Pharisaic practices, explaining for his audience what lies behind this controversy (Mark 7:3–4).
17. Note that after the permanent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 and the scattering of the Jews, the need for relevant and authoritative application of the Old Testament to daily life became even more pronounced, and ultimately the binding traditions of the elders were codified and written to produce the Mishnah.
18. An evil motive would be like a son who intentionally wanted to avoid the obligation of giving something useful to his needy parents. He then would dedicate it to God for a future offering, so that giving it to anyone else was prohibited. In the meantime the son retained possession and use of the item for himself, and he intentionally dishonored the obligation to his parents.
19. For example, a group within the Presbyterian Church (USA) has tried for several years to have an amendment adopted that would remove from the PC (USA)’s constitution a provision requiring that candidates for ordination “live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.” Proponents of the amendment hoped to clear the way for the ordination of gay and lesbian Presbyterians. This has been voted down consistently by the presbyteries, but appears to continue to be an inflammatory issue within the denomination. For a recent report on this controversy, see http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/02389.htm.
20. Catechism of the Catholic Church (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1994), par. 81.
21. E.g., Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin, 1993), 202.
22. For a helpful overview of these issues, see Robert L. Saucy, Scripture: Its Power, Authority, and Relevance (Nashville: Word, 2001), 230–40.
23. Martin Luther, “The Freedom of a Christian,” Luther’s Works, 31:349; cited in Saucy, Scripture, 248.
24. John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, expanded ed. (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1996), 83–84.
25. Ibid., 83.
26. E.g., Beare, Matthew, 341–42.
27. Frederick W. Schmidt, “Jesus and the Salvation of the Gentiles,” in Through No Fault of Their Own? The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, ed. William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 97–105.
1. James D. G. Dunn, “Sign,” IBD, 3:1450.
2. Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 141–45, 182.
3. I have explored this perspective more fully in Wilkins, The Concept of Disciple in Matthew’s Gospel, 134, 165–66, 230–31.
4. See Wilkins, “Matthew,” 102.
5. Cf. John 6:14; 7:40, 52; Acts 3:17–22; 7:37.
6. Flusser, “Son of Man,” Jesus, 124–25.
7. The prophet Jeremiah is named three times in Matthew and nowhere else in the New Testament; see comments on 2:17 and 27:9.
8. Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 81–94.
9. Since Jesus posed the question to the group of disciples (the “you” is pl. in 16:15), Peter functions at least in part as spokesman for the Twelve. This is the third of five incidents unique to Matthew in which Peter figures prominently (14:28–31; 15:15; 16:17–19; 17:24–27; 18:21).
10. For overviews of the prophecies in Samuel, see Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” EBC, 3:879–96. Somewhat differently, see Philip E. Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel: A Messianic Hope?” in The Lord’s Anointed, 41–65.
11. See, e.g., Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of the Congregation (SBLMS 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
12. See 7:21; 10:32–33; 11:25–27; 12:50; 15:13; 18:35; 20:23; 24:36; 25:34; 26:39, 42; 26:53; 28:19.
13. For an overview, see Marinus de Jonge, “Messiah,” ABD, 4:777–88; for an evaluation of the concept, as well as explicit terminology, see Edward Meadors, “The ‘Messianic’ Implications of the Q Material,” JBL 118 (1999): 253–77.
14. See the additional perspective that John’s Gospel gives in John 1:41; 3:28; 4:25–26, 29.
15. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 424–25, n. 72.
16. See Wilkins, The Concept of Disciple in Matthew’s Gospel, 186–87.
17. Cf. P. Bonnard, L’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu, 2d ed. (CNT; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1970), 244.
18. Most commentators agree that the significant feature of the Christological statement concerned the confession of Jesus as “Son of God,” which is the similar confession of 14:33; cf. Jack Dean Kingsbury, “The Figure of Peter in Matthew’s Gospel as a Theological Problem,” JBL 98 (1979): 74 n. 25; idem, Matthew, 78–83; Carson, “Matthew,” 367; Gundry, Matthew, 330; Schweizer, Matthew, 340; Hill, Matthew, 260; Tasker, Matthew, 159.
19. M. D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974), 387.
20. Contra Beare, Matthew, 354; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 2d ed. (London: SCM, 1999), 204.
21. E.g., Schweizer (Matthew, 341) calls this the Matthean bestowal of the name.
22. Cf. W. Mundle, “πέτρα,” NIDNTT, 3:383; Josef Blank, “The Person and Office of Peter in the New Testament,” trans. Erika Young, in Truth and Certainty, ed. Edward Schillebeeckx and Bas van Iersel (Concilium 83; New York: Herder & Herder, 1973), 50.
23. For an overview of the history of this discussion see Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple—Apostle—Martyr. A Historical and Theological Essay, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 155–70; J. A. Burgess, A History of the Exegesis of Matthew 16:17–19 from 1781 to 1965 (Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, 1976); and Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann, eds., Peter in the New Testament (Minneapolis/New York: Augsburg/Paulist, 1973).
24. Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Kephaʾ and Peter’s Name in the New Testament,” in To Advance the Gospel, 115.
25. Cullmann, Peter, 18–19; Mundle, “πέτρα,” 3:383.
26. Colin Brown, “πέτρα,” NIDNTT, 3:386.
27. This was the interpretation of most of the early church fathers, although very early many fought against its use for establishing any kind of papacy (e.g., Ignatius, Justin, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Firmilian; see Cullmann, Peter, 159–62). This became the view of the Roman Catholic Church and is held today by scholars such as those represented in Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter, 92–93. However, it is the dominant view held of those of a broader confessional background, such as Albright and Mann, Matthew, 197; Carson, “Matthew,” 367–69; France, Matthew, 254–55; Morris, Matthew, 422–24; Stendahl, “Matthew,” 787.
28. This view was held early in church history by John Chrysostom and attested to by Origen, Eusebius, Ambrose, and Theodore of Mopsuestia (cf. Cullmann, Peter, 162; Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter, 93). More recently this has been proposed by Allen, Matthew, 176; Alan McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915), 241; Mundle, “πέτρα,” 384–85, and Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock 58 (BZNW 58; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990).
29. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock, esp. 88–119.
30. This is a view held by Luther (cited in Cullmann, Peter, 162), and early this century by A. B. Bruce, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1976), 224; cf. also Tasker, Matthew, 162.
31. E.g., 21:42, though the term used is lithos; 1 Cor. 10:4, where petra occurs.
32. E.g., 1 Cor. 3:11; 1 Peter 2:4–8.
33. This view was held as early as Origen and Augustine (cf. Cullmann, Peter, 162; Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter, 93 n. 216). This was also the major view of Luther, Calvin, and many of the Reformers (cf. Cullmann, Peter, 162–63).
34. See Carson, “Matthew,” 367–69, for other valuable support.
35. Cf. Oscar Cullmann, “πέτρος,” TDNT, 6:108.
36. Some refer to this as a prime example of biblical exegesis losing to theological eisegesis; cf. Cullmann, Peter, 214ff.; Colin Brown, “The Teaching Office of the Church,” Churchman 83 (1969), 187ff.
37. Carson, “Matthew,” 368.
38. Isa. 38:10; Wisd. Sol. 16:13; 3 Macc. 5:51; Pss. Sol. 16.2.
39. Job 38:17; Ps. 9:13; 107:18; cf. 1QH 6:24–26.
40. McNeile, Matthew, 242.
41. For an historical overview of this saying, see Jack P. Lewis, “ ‘The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It’ (Matt 16:18): A Study of the History of Interpretation,” JETS 38.3 (1995): 349–67.
42. Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter, 96, 100–101.
43. Blank, “Peter,” 51; Manson, Sayings, 205; Stendahl, “Matthew,” 787.
44. Bonnard, Matthieu, p. 246; Kingsbury, “Peter,” 76 n. 27.
45. Cf. a similar saying in Luke 11:52, where Jesus charges the scribes and Pharisees with taking away the “keys of knowledge.” See Dietrich Müller, Colin Brown, “κλείς,” NIDNTT, 2:732; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 714.
46. Müller, Brown, “κλείς,” 732.
47. Guthrie, Theology, 714.
48. Müller, Brown, “κλείς,” 732; Guthrie, Theology, 714.
49. See Friedrich Buchsel, “δέω (λύω),” TDNT, 2:60; who cites Str.-B., 1:739, b. Moʾed Qat. 16a; b. Menaḥ 34b.
50. E.g., Stendahl, “Matthew,” 787; Beare, Matthew, 355.
51. The saying in 16:18–19 draws a distinction between the “church” (16:18) and the “kingdom of heaven” (16:19), but with the inclusion of the parallel saying on binding and loosing occurring in a church discipline passage (18:16–18), the requirement for entrance is the same for both: forgiveness of sins.
52. Brown, Donfried, and Reumann (Peter, p. 96 n. 220) cite C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1963), 347–49. Note that John too has divine passives in John 20:23.
53. Gundry, Matthew, 335; see the excellent discussion in Carson, “Matthew,” 370–74.
54. Cf. Bonnard, Matthieu, 246; Carson, “Matthew,” 370–74; Cullmann, Peter, 205; Müller, Brown, “κλείς,” 733; Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi and Peter,” JBL 100 (1981): 594–95. Guthrie (Theology, 714) points out that Peter is the first historically to proclaim a loosing from sins (Acts 2:38) and a binding (5:3).
55. See James D. Tabor, “Martyr, Martyrdom,” ABD, 4:574–79; Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor, A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom Among Greeks and Romans, Jews and Christians in the Ancient World (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).
56. Annas the high priest, whose daughter married Caiaphas, the head priest at the time of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion (26:3), was the head of one of those powerful priestly families.
57. For an overview of these groups, see Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1425–29.
58. Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 182–88.
59. Wilkins, Discipleship in the Ancient World, 116–24.
60. In other words, Peter “the rock” becomes Peter “the stumbling stone.”
61. A. B. Bruce, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” 226.
62. E.g., 4QNahum Pesher, frag. 3–4, col. 1.6–8 and 11QTemple Scroll 64:7–13.
63. David W. Chapman, “Perceptions of Crucifixion Among Jews and Christians in the Ancient World” TynBul 51 (2000): 313–16.
65. Hagner, Matthew, 1:27.
66. Blomberg, Matthew, 261.
67. Davies and Allison, Matthew 2:679.
68. France, Matthew, 261; Carson, “Matthew,” 382; they somewhat combine this with an allusion to the resurrection.
69. Hagner, Matthew, 2:487.
70. Those who hold to this view either suggest that the prophecy was mistaken about coming in the lifetime of those with Jesus, or else this is a Matthean redaction; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew 2:679–81.
71. E.g., Carson, “Matthew,” 380; Hagner, Matthew, 2:486.
72. Peter’s later comment brings congruency between Jesus’ prediction in Matthew and that in Mark, who records Jesus as saying that “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1). Jesus’ transfiguration is a display of the authoritative establishment of the kingdom with God’s full power, which demands immediate obedience to his calling upon their lives (cf. France, Mark, 344–46).
73. See Gerhardsson, “The Christology of Matthew,” in Who Do You Say That I Am? 20.
74. Cf. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 104–6.
75. Ladd is representative of this view: “Jesus’ disciples are the recipients of the messianic salvation, the people of the Kingdom, the true Israel” (Theology of the New Testament, 106).
76. E.g., Scott Hafemann, “Eschatology and Ethics: The Future of Israel and the Nations in Romans 15:1–13,” TynBul 51 (2000): 161–92.
77. Cf. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 106–14.
78. E.g., Zech. 12:10–14.
79. For extended discussion, see Wilkins, The Concept of Disciple in Matthew’s Gospel, 208–16.
80. This aspect of discipleship is central to Matthew’s theological purposes and a foundation mark of Jesus’ entire earthly ministry; cf. Wilkins, Following the Master, 174–93.
81. Hagner, Matthew, 2:456.
82. Dallas Willard, Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 70.
83. Ibid., 71.
84. Matthew hints at this in the construction of the saying. He switches from the aorist imperatives “deny himself” and “take up his cross” to the present imperative “follow me,” which suggests the ongoing life of following him (cf. Turner, Syntax, 76).
1. Alternatively, the reference to “after six days” (17:1) may signify the time it took to travel to the site where Jesus is transfigured.
2. For more discussion see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 106 (“The ‘High Mountain’ of Jesus’ Transfiguration”).
3. Lit., “And answering, Peter said”; this is a typical Matthean stylistic phraseology in his narrative (e.g., 3:15; 4:4; 8:8; 11:4; 16:16, 17); the NIV drops a reference to “answering.”
4. Randall E. Otto, “The Fear Motivation in Peter’s Offer to Build τρεῖς σκηνάς,” WTJ 59 (1997): 101–12 (esp. 105).
5. See, e.g., Ex. 19:16; 20:18; 34:30; Deut. 4:33; 5:5, 23–27; Hab. 3:2–6, 16.
6. Cf. Markus Öhler, “The Expectation of Elijah and the Presence of the Kingdom of God,” JBL 118 (1999): 461–76.
7. See James A. Penner, “Revelation and Discipleship in Matthew’s Transfiguration Account,” BibSac 152 (April–June 1995): 201–10.
8. Commenting on John’s vehement denial that he is Elijah, B. F. Westcott (The Gospel According to St. John, 2 vols. [London: John Murray, 1908], 18) comments: “The denial of the Baptist is directed to the Jewish expectation of the bodily return of Elijah.”
9. The “two witnesses” (Rev. 11:3) are sometimes identified with Moses and Elijah.
10. Cf. Wilkins, Discipleship in the Ancient World, 164–66.
11. A recent example of this fragmentation is an editorial article I read on the causes of schizophrenia in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. The author acknowledged the complexities surrounding the causation of schizophrenia, but she focused almost exclusively on finding neurological causes, without mention of other possible causes, including spiritual or emotional. See Nancy C. Andreasen, “Understanding the Causes of Schizophrenia,” New England Journal of Medicine 340 (1999): 645–47.
12. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 442.
13. For a table of equivalent weights and coinage at the time of Jesus, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 116.
14. With annual variation, it occurs approximately in the middle of March.
15. See m. Šeqal. 1.3; 2.1; y. Šeqal. 6:1, 5; Josephus, War 5.5.2 §200; Ant. 18.9.1 §§312–13.
16. Cf. Josephus, Life 12 §§62–63. Powell, “Weights and Measures,” pp. 905–8; Rousseau and Arav, “Temple, Treasury,” Jesus and His World, 309–11; “Tax Collectors” and “Taxes,” DJBP, 618–19.
17. They call him didaskalos, a title used commonly in Matthew to address Jesus by nondisciples; cf. 9:11; 12:38; 19:16; 22:16, 24, 36.
18. Evidence for this debate is found at Qumran, where some contended that the census tax had to be paid only once in a person’s lifetime (4QOrdinances 1.6–7) and in m. Šeqal. 1.3–7. For overviews of the debate within Judaism, see W. Horbury, “The Temple Tax,” Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984), 265–86; David E. Garland, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Temple Tax (Matt. 17.24–7),” SBLSP 1987, ed. Kent H. Richards (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 190–209.
19. For further discussion and a table of equivalent weights and coinage at the time of Jesus, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 116.
20. Bruner, Matthew, 2:602.
21. Ibid.
22. As expressed in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead (1943), Atlas Shrugged (1957), and The Virtue of Selfishness (1965).
23. Christianity Today 47/1 (January 2003): 17. See also the website www.WhatWouldJesusDrive.org.
24. Morris, Matthew, 441.
25. Martin Luther, “Concerning Christian Liberty,” The Harvard Classics, trans. R. S. Grignon (New York: Collier & Son, 1910), 36:353.
1. As is typical in Matthew’s Gospel, the mention of “disciples” calls to mind the Twelve, but the wider circle of Jesus’ disciples is in view as well. This wider circle includes all who have responded to his invitation to kingdom life (cf. Wilkins, Concept of Disciple in Matthew’s Gospel, 163–72).
2. For a study that emphasizes the disciples’ consistent lack of understanding Jesus’ message and mission in Matthew, see Jeannine K. Brown, The Disciples in Narrative Perspective: The Portrayal and Function of the Matthean Disciples (SBL Academia Biblica 9; Atlanta: SBL, 2002), esp. 147–52.
3. Warren Carter, Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19–20 (JSNTSup 103; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 96–97.
4. Bruner comments: “Matthew 18:1–4 calls us to humility, then v. 5 gives us a major way to practice humility” (Matthew, 2:637), which indicates that 18:1–4 are a call to enter the kingdom and 18:5 is the life of service in the kingdom.
5. “Cause to stumble” = “cause to sin” (NIV). The use of skandalizo links back to 17:27, but here the use of the term indicates cause to apostatize by losing faith and falling away from God rather than cause offense (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:761–62; Blomberg, Matthew, 274).
6. For discussion of the way that the valley of Hinnom became a metaphorical reference for the eternal fires of hell, see comments on 3:12; 5:22; 25:42.
7. Carson cites approvingly B. B. Warfield’s view that the “angels” of the “little ones” are the spirits of deceased believers after death who are always in the presence of the heavenly Father (“Matthew,” 401). But the majority of commentators rightly emphasize that the context speaks of disciples and their protection by angels in this present life (cf. Morris, Matthew, 464–65; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:768–72).
8. E.g., Tobit 12:13–22; 1 En. 100:5; Jub. 35:1; T. Levi 5.3; 2.5–6. For further literature, see Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 450–51; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:770.
9. Most commentators see a possible reference to guardian angels here, but the passage falls short of final proof for lack of evidence elsewhere in the New Testament; e.g., Blomberg, Matthew, 276; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:771–72; Hagner, Matthew, 2:527; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 450–51; Morris, Matthew, 464–65.
10. Cf. 1 En. 14:21; 40:1–10.
11. Cf. 7:21; 10:32–33; 11:27; 12:50; 16:17; 18:19; 20:23; 25:34; 26:39, 42, 53.
12. Since the transition between Jesus’ statement about angelic care for the disciples and the parable of the sheep seems somewhat rough, several manuscripts have inserted an additional v. 11 (see NIV text note): “For the Son of Man came to save what was lost.” The phrase is lacking in the best manuscripts.
13. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:773–74.
14. Edwin Firmage, “Zoology (Animal Profiles): Sheep,” ABD, 6:1126–27; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 452.
15. Blomberg, Matthew, 275–76, seems to lean toward the former, while the latter is understood by Young, The Parables, 191–200.
16. The Lev. passage also stands behind a three-stage process of discipline found in the Qumran community: individual confrontation, witnesses, and, if necessary, final judgment by the community leaders (see 1QRule of the Community 5:24–6:1; cf. also CD 9:2–4).
17. The saying in 16:18–19 draws a distinction between the “church” (16:18) and the “kingdom of heaven” (16:19), but with the inclusion of the parallel saying on binding and loosing occurring in this church discipline passage (18:16–18), the requirement for entrance is the same for both: forgiveness of sins.
18. Gundry, Matthew, 335; Carson, “Matthew,” 370–74; see comments on 16:19.
19. For discussion see comments on 16:19.
20. See David McClister, “ ‘Where Two or Three Are Gathered Together’: Literary Structure As a Key to Meaning in Matt 17:22–20:19,” JETS 39 (1996): 556–57.
21. Cf. m. Sanh. 1:1; b. Ber. 6a; “Shekinah” means the divine presence.
22. Kupp, Matthew’s Emmanuel, 199.
23. See BDF §248(2), 130; the KJV and NASB have this.
24. See Wilkins, “Matthew,” 115, for a table of weights and measures and coinage at the time of Jesus.
25. For an overview of the parable within its Jewish context, see Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation, 127–44.
26. For a scholarly discussion of fiery judgment in Matthew’s Gospel, see Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew, esp. 130–39.
27. George Gallup Jr., The People’s Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1989), passim.
28. See the entry “Community” in Encyclopædia Britannica.
30. James C. Dobson, Dare to Discipline (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1970).
31. Requests for the report may be sent through the ministerial website http://www.efca.org/freechurch.html.
32. For a practical application, see Ken Sande, The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997).
33. John Perkins and Thomas A. Tarrants III, with David Wimbush, He’s My Brother: Former Racial Foes Offer Strategy for Reconciliation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).
34. Ibid., 228.
1. For a discussion of the dating, see comments on 21:21; 26:17.
2. Matthew’s wording in 19:1 seems to imply that Judea includes Transjordan. The parallel passage in Mark 10:1 has the word kai, meaning “and” (“into . . . Judea and across the Jordan”), though this kai is textually uncertain. For background, see Van Elderen, “Early Christianity in Transjordan,” 97–117; Diane I. Treacy-Cole, “Perea,” ABD, 5:224–25.
3. For a very fine overview of the passage that wrestles with contemporary application, see Craig L. Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Mt 19:3–12,” TrinJ n.s. 11 (1990): 161–96. For what may be the best full-length treatment that concludes with pastoral implications, see Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible.
4. G. D. Collier, “Rethinking Jesus on Divorce,” Restoration Quarterly 37 (1995): 80–96. Jesus is attacking the practice of searching for frivolous authorization for divorce and remarriage.
5. Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, 133–41.
6. Carson, “Matthew,” 413.
7. See Andrew Warren, “Did Moses Permit Divorce? Modal weqaṭal As Key to New Testament Readings of Deuteronomy 24:1–4,” TynBul 49 (1998): 39–56.
8. Allen R. Guenther, “The Exception Phrases: Except πορνει, Including πορνει or Excluding πορνει? (Matthew 5:32; 19:9),” TynBul 53 (2002): 83–96, takes up the question of the grammatical construction, which has been often debated as to whether Jesus meant it inclusively (“if a man divorces his wife even though she has not been unfaithful”), exceptively (“if a man divorces his wife, except if she has been unfaithful”), or exclusively (“if a man divorces his wife—porneia is a separate issue”). Guenther accepts the latter exclusive interpretation, but Instone-Brewer adequately demonstrates how the traditional exceptive interpretation is demanded here and in 5:32 (Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage, 155–56).
9. Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy,” 177; David Janzen, “The Meaning of Porneia in Matthew 5.32 and 19.9: An Approach from the Study of Ancient Near Eastern Culture,” JSNT 80 (2000): 66–80.
10. See Markus Bockmuehl, “Matthew 5.32; 19.9 in the Light of Pre-Rabbinic Halakah,” NTS 35 (1989): 291–95.
11. Cf. Philip H. Wiebe, “Jesus’ Divorce Exception,” JETS 32 (1989): 327–33.
12. Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy,” 185.
13. See Carter, Households and Discipleship, 113–14.
14. Hagner, Matthew, 2:553, notes that the practice of infant baptism is sometimes based on this passage, an unlikely association. There is no water in the passage, and the children are used as a metaphor, not as literal recipients of a conferral of kingdom life.
15. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 277–97.
16. On the surface it may appear as if the young man is attempting to entrap Jesus in a theological error, as other Pharisees did (e.g., 16:1; 19:3), but Matthew does not indicate that.
17. Larry W. Hurtado, “First-Century Jewish Monotheism,” JSNT 71 (1998): 3–26.
18. For a similar perspective that draws on the community pattern of the first-century model of the Mediterranean family and Jesus’ alternative spiritual pattern from Mark’s perspective, see Joseph H. Hellerman, “Wealth and Sacrifice in Early Christianity: Revisiting Mark’s Presentation of Jesus’ Encounter with the Rich Young Ruler,” TrinJ n.s. 21 (2000): 143–64.
19. Note that Jesus uses “kingdom of God” here (19:24). It is used in parallel with “kingdom of heaven” in the preceding verse (19:23), a reminder that the expressions were interchangeable (cf. 3:2; 4:17).
20. Some unimportant manuscripts read kamilon (“rope, ship’s cable”) here rather than kamelon (“camel”), suggesting a rope being pulled through a needle. A popular interpretation, dating from the Middle Ages, suggests that there was a small gate in Jerusalem called “eye of the needle” and that camels had to stoop to their knees to enter it with great difficulty. There is no historical or archaeological support for this gate. Both suggestions miss the point of the analogy, which emphasizes the impossibility of rich persons entering the kingdom of heaven.
21. Palingenesia (“renewal, regeneration”) occurs only here and in Titus 3:5 in the New Testament.
22. Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 103. Contra David C. Sim, “The Meaning of palingenesia in Mt 19.28,” JSNT 50 (1993): 3–12.
23. Carson, “Matthew,” 426; cf. George Beasely-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 275–76.
24. Cf. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 267–69.
25. Thomas E. Schmidt, “Mark 10.29–30; Matthew 19.29: ‘Leave Houses . . . and Region?’,” NTS 38 (1992): 617–20. Schmidt suggests that the Aramaic underlying agrous indicates that Jesus called disciples to leave house, family, and territory, which is a call to a new family and nation.
26. Randy Frazee, The Connecting Church: Beyond Small Groups to Authentic Community (Zondervan, 2001), 22.
27. Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy,” 177; Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, 278–79.
28. For a careful discussion, see Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, 189–212, 279–82; also Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 267–70.
29. Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy,” 192.
30. For a helpful pastoral perspective on dealing with all kinds of scenarios related to divorce and remarriage, see Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, 300–314.
31. The Confessions of Saint Augustine, trans. Edward B. Pusey (New York: Macmillan, 1961), 8.12 (pp. 129–30; I have updated Pusey’s translation at points).
32. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization; vol. 4: The Age of Faith (New York: Simon Schuster, 1950), 66.
33. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, new ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1960), 158.
1. “Vine and Vineyard,” DJBP, 657–58.
2. Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation, 74–80.
3. Blomberg, Matthew, 303.
4. So also B. Rod Doyle, “The Place of the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard in Matthew 20:1–16,” ABR 42 (1994): 39–58.
5. Emily Cheney, “The Mother of the Sons of Zebedee (Matthew 27.56),” JSNT 68 (December 1997): 13–21.
6. Contra Cheney, ibid., who suggests that her presence with the sons indicates their lack of commitment to the family of faith, because they have maintained their family relationship, contrary to what disciples should do (19:19).
7. The verb aganakteo, “I grieve,” is best rendered “indignant,” indicating their anger over an anticipated loss. It is used of the disciples in 26:8 and the chief priests and scribes in 21:15.
8. E.g., diakonos: 2 Cor. 3:6; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23; doulos: Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:10.
9. E.g., diakonos: Phoebe, Rom. 16:1; Tychicus, Eph. 6:21; Epaphras, Col. 1:23; doulos: Epaphras, Col. 4:12;
10. The preposition anti virtually never means “on behalf of” but demands the use “in place of” (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 365–67). The “many” (pollon) has been understood to have either an exclusive sense, “many, but not all,” restricting the application to the community of the elect (e.g., 1QS 6:1–23), or to have an inclusive sense, “many, the totality which embraces many individuals,” opening the application to all without limitation. The most convincing historical and linguistic argument affirms the latter; cf. Joachim Jeremias, “πολλοι,” TDNT, 6:536–45.
11. Cf. Sydney Page, “Ransom Saying,” DJG, 660–62; Scot McKnight, “Jesus and His Death: Some Recent Scholarship,” CurBS 9 (2001): 185–228.
12. For further background, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 125.
13. T. A. Holland, “Jericho,” ABD, 3:737. It survived primarily because of the fresh water from the nearby spring, making it to this day perhaps “the oldest continually inhabited oasis in the world.”
14. See Morris, Matthew, 513–14. Others suggest that the miracle was performed as Jesus left the city (20:29; Mark 10:46), though Jesus first encountered the men as he approached the city (Luke 18:35).
15. Marshall, “Who Is a Hypocrite?” esp. 137, 149–50.
16. Cited in J. D. Douglas, “G. K. Chesterton, the Eccentric Prince of Paradox,” Christianity Today (May 24, 1974), http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/135/52.0.html.
17. Kierkegaard, The Journals, cited by Stuart B. Babbage, “Gratitude,” Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 275.
18. Harold H. Hoehner, “Rewards,” NDBT, 740.
1. For an overview of the importance of Jerusalem to Israel, Christianity, and Islam, see Zitza Rosovsky, ed., City of the Great King: Jerusalem from David to the Present (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1996).
2. For a brief overview of the difficulties of ascertaining the actual dates of the Holy Week using Friday Nisan 15 as a linchpin, and a helpful resolution of the various possibilities, see the brief article “Problems in Dating the Crucifixion,” at the website of the Astronomical Applications Department of the U.S. Naval Observatory: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/crucifixion.html. They offer the dates of Jesus’ crucifixion as either Friday, April 7, A.D. 30, or Friday, April 3, A.D. 33. For similar dating after more extensive discussion, see Kenneth F. Doig, New Testament Chronology (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1990), who contends for the A.D. 30 dating. If we follow the A.D. 30 dating, Jesus arrives in Bethany late Friday afternoon on March 31, spends the Sabbath with his disciples in Bethany, then has the celebratory meal in Bethany on Saturday evening, April 1. The climactic triumphal entry occurs on Sunday, April 2, with the crucifixion Friday, April 7, and the resurrection on Sunday, April 9.
3. See Scott T. Carroll, “Bethphage,” ABD, 1:715.
4. Cf. also, Carson, “Matthew,” 437; Gundry, Matthew, 593.
5. Carson, “Matthew,” 437.
6. Cf. Gundry, Matthew, 409–10; Hagner, Matthew, 2:594–95.
7. Hagner, Matthew, 2:595.
8. Same term, himatia, for the cloaks that the disciples placed on the two animals (21:7).
9. When Elisha announced that Jehu would be anointed king, his fellow officers “took their cloaks and spread them under him on the bare steps. Then they blew the trumpet and shouted, ‘Jehu is king!’ ” (2 Kings 9:13).
10. Cf. John 6:14; 7:40, 52; Acts 3:22; 7:37.
11. E.g., George Beasley-Murray, John, 2d ed. (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 38–42; Hagner, Matthew, 2:599–600.
12. E.g., Matthew’s thematic arrangement of Jesus’ miracles (chs. 8 and 9) and Luke’s thematic arrangement of the order of Jesus’ temptations (Luke 4:1–13; cf. Matt. 4:1–11).
13. Cf. Leon Morris, John, rev. ed. (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 166–69; Carson, John, 176–78.
14. The absence of the first temple incident in the Synoptics is consistent with the overall absence of Jesus’ early Judean ministry in their narratives. The absence of the second incident in John’s narrative of Holy Week may belong to the difference of emphasis on Jesus’ trial. The Synoptics focus on the accusations of Jesus’ statements against the temple (Matt. 26:61; Mark 14:58) and on the related charge of blasphemy, while John records only a vague questioning by Annas (the former high priest) about Jesus’ teaching (John 18:19–23).
15. See Kathleen Ritmeyer, “A Pilgrim’s Journey,” BAR 15/6 (November–December 1989): 43–45, for an informative insight to a journey into the temple.
16. Cf. Wilkins, “Barabbas,” ABD, 1:607.
17. Carson, “Matthew,” 442; Hagner, Matthew, 2:601.
18. See Peterson, Engaging with God, 87–90.
19. France, Matthew, 300–303; Morris, Matthew, 525–26; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:133–37; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61–69.
20. Peterson, Engaging with God, 87–90.
21. Schweizer, Matthew, 408.
22. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew, trans. R. R. Barr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 203.
23. France, Matthew, 302–3; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 502–3.
24. Cf. Matthew’s topical arrangement of the miracles in chs. 8–9.
25. The fig tree also represents the new messianic age, when God’s reign is established fully (cf. Zech. 3:10; Micah 4:4). For a discussion of the symbolism of the fig tree and Israel, see “Fig, Fig Tree,” DBI, 283–84.
26. The apostle Paul will later emphasize that the normal product of a disciple in relationship to Jesus is found especially in the fruit of the Spirit produced in our lives (cf. Gal. 4:6–7; 5:13–26).
27. See Joseph H. Hellerman, “Challenging the Authority of Jesus: Mark 11:27–33 and Mediterranean Notions of Honor and Shame,” JETS 43 (June 2000): 213–28.
28. See Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 506, for background and literature.
29. For analysis, see Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Recent Research on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Assessment,” IBR 8 (1998): 187–215.
30. See Rousseau and Arav, “Viticulture,” Jesus and His World, 328–32.
31. Kingsbury suggests that this is Jesus’ first public assertion of his divine Sonship; see Jack Dean Kingsbury, “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Secret of Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Matthew: Some Literary-Critical Observations,” JBL 195 (1986): 643–55.
32. Carson, “Matthew,” 454.
33. E.g., Acts 2:23–36; 3:13–26; 7:51–53; 10:39–43; 13:26–31; 1 Cor 15:1–7.
34. For an overview of messianic expectation, see Craig A. Evans, “Messianism,” DJG, 698–707.
35. The document in question is 4QTestimonia.
36. 1QRule of the Community [1QS] 9:11. For discussion, see John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 74–101.
37. Cf. John 6:14; 7:40, 52; Acts 3:22; 7:37.
38. These three aspects of Jesus’ work are found together in the book of Hebrews, where Jesus is the messianic king who is exalted to his throne (1:3, 13; 2:9; 4:16), the great High Priest who offered himself to God as a sacrifice for our sins (2:17; 4:14–5:10; chs. 7–10), and the messenger who is the ultimate revelation of God (1:1–14; 3:1).
39. J. I. Packer, Concise Theology (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1993), 133.
40. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 58.
41. Cf. Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 40–42.
42. For an overview of these issues, see Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 104–6. I agree in large part with Ladd’s perspective, but differ where he emphasizes that the church now replaces and becomes Israel, seemingly permanently. See also Scot McKnight, “Gentiles,” DJG, 259–64.
43. Kostenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 103–5, 135–37.
44. Cf. Hafemann, “Eschatology and Ethics,” 161–92.
45. For family-focused activities, see the excellent little booklet with selections from Charles Colson, Billy Graham, Max Lucado, and Joni Eareckson Tada, Christ in Easter: A Family Celebration of Holy Week (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1990).
46. Compiled with reference to A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ: Based on the Broadus Harmony in the Revised Version (New York: Harper & Row, 1922), and Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, eds., The NIV Harmony of the Gospels (Harper & Row, 1978).
47. Hagner, Matthew, 2:601.
1. For details see Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 237–40; for an excellent recent article on this parable, see Noel Rabbinowitz, “Matthew 22:2–4: Does Jesus Recognize the Authority of the Pharisees and Does He Endorse Their Halakhah?” JETS 46 (2003): 423–47.
2. See Gundry, Matthew, 436–37.
3. E.g., Judg. 1:8; Isa. 5:24; 1 Macc. 5:28; T. Jud. 5:1–5.
4. Gundry, Matthew, 439; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:204 n.53; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 522, n. 189.
5. See Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 523.
6. Joachim Jeremias, “πολλοι,” TDNT, 6:536–45.
7. The parable does not speak of the actual wedding feast of the Lamb in heaven (Rev. 19:5–8), but depicts responses to the invitation to the kingdom of heaven. Beyond that, it can illustrate responses of individuals in this life to the gospel message. Jesus points out the seriousness of one’s response to the opportunity of being called into the family of God.
8. For an overview of the evidence and research into this shadowy group, see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3:560–65. The most extensive recent study is Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty.
9. For a chart of the Roman emperors called “Caesar” during New Testament times and later and the corresponding biblical references, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 136.
10. Colin Brown, Norman Hillyer, “Tax, Tax Collector,” NIDNTT, 3:751–59.
11. See Rousseau and Arav, “Tax and Tax Collectors,” Jesus and His World, 278.
12. Cf. 12:15; 18:8; 26:10 for Jesus’ form of special knowledge.
13. Rousseau and Arav, “Coins and Money,” Jesus and His World, 55–61. For a picture of a coin that depicts Caesar Augustus, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 135.
14. Dale Bruner states: “As Caesar’s coin bears Caesar’s image and belongs to Caesar, so God’s humanity bears God’s image and belongs to God” (Matthew, 2:784).
15. Morris, Matthew, 558. For extended discussion of the implications for church-state relationships, see Bruner, Matthew, 2:784–87.
16. E.g., 2 Macc. 7; 1 En. 102; 2 Bar. 49–51; m. Sanh. 10:1; b. Roš Haš. 16b–17a.
17. See Wilkins, “Matthew,” 187, for comments on the resurrection of the dead in Judaism and in Jesus.
18. Bruner, Matthew, 2:790.
19. Cf. Blomberg, Matthew, 333; Carson, “Matthew,” 461–62.
20. Mark tells us that at the end of the interchange Jesus commends him (Mark 12:34), which may indicate that he approaches Jesus with more sincerity than the previous questioners.
21. Hagner, Matthew, 2:646.
22. Genesis Rabbah 24.7.
23. See Abraham Malamat, “Love Your Neighbor As Yourself,” BAR 16/4 (July–August 1990): 50–51.
24. See comments on 1:1; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12–14; Ps. 89:4; Isa. 11:1, 10; Jer. 23:5: cf. Pss. Sol. 17:21.
25. See comments on 1:20; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9, 15.
26. By extension, Jesus implies the Davidic authorship of the psalm as inspired Scripture. For a recent overview, see Barry C. Davis, “Is Psalm 110 a Messianic Psalm?” BibSac 157 (April–June 2000): 160–73.
27. See also Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC 34B; Nashville: Nelson, 2001), 272–75.
28. Only the Essenes do not appear, which is consistent with their largely historical, geographical absence from Jerusalem political life and their literary absence from the New Testament.
29. For a brief overview of the Pharisees, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 25. For an extended treatment, see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3:289–340.
30. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3:560–65.
31. For a brief overview of the Sadducees, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 25. For an extended treatment, see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 389–444.
32. Several related points surface from this latter interaction. (1) Note that Jesus here contends for verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, since his argumentation is based on the tense of a verb from the Old Testament (“I am”). (2) Since the material aspect of the persons to whom Jesus points has died, the immaterial aspect sufficiently implies the real existence of these people. (3) Jesus does not explain the mode of existence of those who have experienced physical death, but only that they still have a form of personal existence.
33. Davis, “Is Psalm 110 a Messianic Psalm?” 172.
34. Calvin, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 3:27.
35. Passages that should be studied to help us maintain the right kind of balance are Matt. 5:38–42; Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1–7; Titus 3:1–2.
36. Bruner, Matthew, 2:785. His treatment of the practical issues is very helpful.
37. See the Contemporary Significance section on 5:17–20.
38. Cited as the quote of the month for June 2002, at Golden Key, an “on-line resource for all things related to Victorian novelist, poet and Christian Fantasy writer George MacDonald (1824–1905)” (www.george-macdonald.com).
39. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds., Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).
1. See comments on 3:7; see also Wilkins, “Matthew,” 25.
2. For discussion, with the latest evidence, see Levine, “Cathedra of Moses,” The Ancient Synagogue, 323–27.
3. See t. Suk. 4:6, cited in ibid., 324.
4. For pictures, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 140.
5. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 326.
6. Carson, “Matthew,” 473.
7. Hagner, Matthew, 2:654.
8. “Tefillin” and “Tefillin, Archaeology of,” DJBP, 621.
9. See Wilkins, “Matthew,” 141.
10. For various customs, see Gene Schramm, “Meal Customs (Jewish),” and Dennis E. Smith, “Meal Customs (Greco-Roman),” ABD, 4:648–53.
11. A later rabbinic passage is representative: “How did the elders sit? Facing the congregation and with their backs to the holy [i.e., Jerusalem and the temple] . . . the administrator of the synagogue faces the holy and the entire congregation faces the holy” (t. Meg. 3:21).
12. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 313–17.
13. “Rabbi,” DJBP, 516; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 440–70.
14. For discussion of this distinction, see Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 449–51.
15. See Wilkins, Discipleship in the Ancient World, 116–24.
16. See Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 404–6.
17. Cf. b. Ketub. 8a; t. Beṣah 1:7; see examples in DJBP, 2–3.
18. E.g., Jub. 1:24, 28; 19:29; Jos. Asen. 12:14; Sir. 23:1, 4; Wisd. Sol. 2:16–20; 14:3; Tob. 13:4; 4Q372; 1QH 9:35. See “Father, God as,” DJBP, 224.
19. See Bruce W. Winter, “The Messiah As the Tutor: The Meaning of καθηγητής in Matthew 23:10,” TynBul 42 (1991): 152–57.
20. E.g., Robertson, Grammar, 138.
21. See Norman Hillyer, “Woe (οὐαι),” NIDNTT, 3:1051–54.
22. E.g., six in Isa. 5:8–22; five in Hab. 2:6–20; cf. the two series of three in Rev. 8:13; 9:12; 11:14; 12:12; and 18:10, 16, 19.
23. Marshall, “Who Is a Hypocrite?,” esp. 139–42.
24. Some manuscripts add an additional verse here (see NIV text note): “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Therefore you will be punished more severely” (23:14). The best manuscripts do not have these verses.
25. See “Proselytes,” EJR, 312–13.
26. See, e.g., Josephus, J. W. 2.560–61[2.20.2]; Ant. 20.24–48 [2.1–4]. Tacitus in Hist. 5.5 criticizes the Jews for attempting to gain converts. On the issue of Jewish proselytizing (which is debated among scholars), see esp. McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles, 106–8.
27. Senior, Matthew, 261; cf. McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles, 107.
28. Hagner, Matthew, 2:668–69.
29. Morris, Matthew, 580.
30. A vow is distinct from the oath: The vow forbids a certain thing to be used, while an oath forbids the swearer to do a certain thing although that thing is not forbidden in itself.
31. Marshall, “Who Is a Hypocrite?” 140.
32. Ibid., 140–41.
33. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:295.
34. Colin J. Hemer, “Bury, Grave, Tomb,” NIDNTT, 1:265.
35. For a discussion of the problems, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:301–2.
36. For pictures and discussion of the practice, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 144, 160.
37. See Rachel Hachlili, “Burials,” ABD, 1:789–94
38. Marshall, “Who Is a Hypocrite?” 141–42.
39. See comments on 10:17; for background on flogging in the synagogue, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 69.
40. The primary difficulty with this view is that Zechariah’s father is there named Jehoiada, and Jesus calls him the “son of Berekiah.” This latter reference fits with the prophet Zechariah, who is called the son of Berekiah, the son of Iddo (Zech. 1:1), which some then suggest is the identity of the Zechariah mentioned by Jesus, which would then make the time span from creation to the last recorded prophet (Blomberg, Matthew, 349). However, since the prophet Zechariah is not recorded to have had his life end in a violent death, others contend the Zechariah whose death in the temple courtyard was recorded in 2 Chronicles was either identified by a developing tradition as the prophet Zechariah (Hagner, Matthew, 2:677; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:319; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [1999], 556), or he was named in Chronicles from his grandfather rather than his father, a generally common practice (Morris, Matthew, 589 n.45).
41. John Fischer, 12 Steps for the Recovering Pharisee (Like Me) (Minneapolis: Bethany, 2000), 1.
42. In addition to the book, the steps are listed at his website: www.fischtank.com/book/12step.cfm.
1. For an overview, see Michael O. Wise, “Temple,” DJG, 811–17.
2. Cf. France, Matthew, 337; Gundry, Matthew, 476; Hagner, Matthew, 2:688; Ladd, New Testament Theology, 196–98; Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah, 1981), 268–69.
3. For discussion of the “Granville Sharp Rule” as it concerns the “article-substantive-και-substantive” (TSKS) construction, see Wallace, Greek Grammar, 270–90. He lists Matthew 24:3 as an ambiguous impersonal TSKS construction that is exegetically and theologically significant (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 288 n.87).
4. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 198. Cf. also Hagner, Matthew, 2:688; Mounce, Matthew, 228–30. Cranfield suggests that in Jesus’ own view the historical and the eschatological are mingled, and that the final eschatological event is seen through the “transparency” of the immediate historical incident (Cranfield, Mark, 390–94). For an attempt to balance the two, see David L. Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1–41: Interaction with Evangelical Treatments,” GTJ 10/1 (Spring 1989): 3–27.
5. For further discussion see below in Bridging Contexts.
6. “Bar Kosiba, Simon,” DJBP, 77–78.
7. Conrad Gempf, “The Imagery of Birth Pangs in the New Testament,” TynBul 45 (1994): 119–35; esp. 132–34.
8. Some see a shift of increased persecution of the church signaled in 24:9 just prior to the Parousia; e.g., Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 49; Brent Kinman, History, Design and the End of Time: God’s Plan for the World (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 80.
9. E.g., Blomberg, Matthew, 354–55; Carson, “Matthew,” 498; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:341; Hagner, Matthew, 2:694.
10. France, Matthew, 338.
11. Hagner, Matthew, 1:278.
12. Cf. John 15:21; 2 Tim. 3:12; 1 Peter 4:13–14.
13. Blomberg, Matthew, 355; Hagner, Matthew, 2:695.
14. The articular ton pollon can indicate majority, as in the NIV rendering; cf. BDAG, 849; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:343 n.98; France, Matthew, 338.
15. Cf. Wayne A. Brindle, “ ‘To the Jew First’,” 221–33.
16. E.g., Blomberg, Matthew, 356–57.
17. E.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:344; Morris, Matthew, 602.
18. E.g., France, Matthew, 340–41; Blomberg, Matthew, 357–59.
19. E.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:344; Gundry, Matthew, 485; Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 675–76.
20. Gundry, Matthew, 482.
21. See Josephus, Ant. 55–59; for discussion see Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 144–48.
22. Cf. Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 200–203; Josephus, Ant. 257–309; see F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (New York: Doubleday, 1969), 253–57.
23. For discussion of related issues, see Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 7:111–21.
24. It is interesting to note that there is an active movement within Judaism in Israel to rebuild the temple, which would be the Third Temple (see, e.g., the following website: www.templeinstitute.org).
25. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.5.3.
26. See Josephus, J.W. 5–6,
27. Others try to account for this incredible statement of the build-up of horrors of 24:21–28 by positing that the percentage of Jews killed in Jerusalem at A.D. 70 was greater than any since then (e.g., Carson, “Matthew,” 501), or by suggesting that this describes the suffering of believers throughout the entire church age from A.D. 70 until Jesus returns (e.g., Blomberg, Matthew, 359–60). Neither really does justice to the language here.
28. See Patrich, “Hideouts in the Judean Wilderness,” 32–42. For an overview of these groups, see Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs.
29. Morris, Matthew, 608. This seems to make sense of the metaphor by connecting it with negative connotations, but doesn’t really fit the context of Jesus’ statement about his return.
30. Blomberg, Matthew, 361. This seems to make more sense of Jesus’ statement in the context, but the metaphor doesn’t really make a parallel with Jesus’ coming; does the Parousia correspond to a carcass?
31. Hagner, Matthew, 2:707; though Hagner downplays the judgment aspect.
32. France, Matthew, 344.
33. Toussaint, Behold the King, 266.
34. Cf. Ezek 32:7; Joel 2:31; 3:15; Amos 8:9; 2 Esdras 5:4–5; 7:39; T. Mos. 10:5.
35. In terms of Greek grammar, the question involves whether the genitive in the expression “the sign of the Son of Man” is an objective genitive (“the sign which indicates the Son of Man”) or a genitive of apposition (“the sign which is the Son of Man”).
36. Cf. also the messianic expectation of a person as banner in Isa. 5:26–30; see Gordon D. Kirchhevel, “He That Cometh in Mark 1:7 and Matt 24:30,” BBR 4 (1994): 105–11.
37. The Jewish leaders had repeatedly asked for such a sign (12:38; 16:1; cf. John 2:18; 20:30–31).
38. So Blomberg, Matthew, 362.
39. Isa. 18:3; 27:13; Jer. 4:21; 6:1; 51:27; 1QM 3–4, 8, 16, 17–18.
40. Carson, “Matthew,” 506; Keener, Matthew (1997), 352; Morris, Matthew, 611.
41. Blomberg, Matthew, 363.
42. Pretribulationists contend that Jesus brings with him both the deceased and the “raptured” believers who are with him in heaven, while postribulationists contend that he brings with him only the former.
43. Flusser, “Jesus Weeps over Jerusalem,” Jesus, 240–43.
44. E.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:365–66; France, Matthew, 346.
45. E.g., Schweizer, Matthew, 458.
46. E.g., Gundry, Matthew, 491; Morris, Matthew, 612–13; Neil D. Nelson Jr., “ ‘This Generation’ in Matt 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective,” JETS 38 (September 1995): 369–85.
47. Cf. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 196–205.
48. Daniel Doriani, “The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels,” JETS 37 (September 1994): 333–50, esp. 343.
49. For helpful overviews, see Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1–41,” 3–27; Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 197–99; Carson, “Matthew,” 488–92.
50. This is often called the “preterist” (past perspective) position.
51. E.g., France, Matthew, 333–36.
52. Ibid., 336–46.
53. E.g., Christians fled to Pella nearly two years prior to the fall of Jerusalem, not after, and the description of Israel’s tragedy in these events as the greatest tribulation in history or in the future (24:19) does not square with later tragedies in Israel’s history; cf. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 197–99; Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 132–34.
54. See Louis Barbieri Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 76–78.
55. Whatever one concludes with reference to a “rapture” in the unfolding of these events (see Bridging Contexts of 24:36–25:46), the scantiness of exegetical material, esp. in this discourse (if not absence of material here), suggests that it should not be the primary determining factor as to how in interpreting this discourse.
56. Morris, Matthew, 593–94 n.4.
57. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 198.
58. Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1–41,” 9.
59. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 130, suggests that the signs given by Jesus “had their initial fulfillment at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; since this discourse exemplifies the principle of prophetic foreshortening, however, the signs mentioned in them will have a further fulfillment at the time of the Parousia.” See also Hendricksen, Matthew, 852–56.
60. Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1–41,” passim; Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Chicago: Moody, 1959), 136–39; see also Ed Glasscock, Matthew (Moody Gospel Commentary; Chicago: Moody Press, 1997), 468: “The nature of eschatological revelation allows for a typological fulfillment at one level with a more complete fulfillment at another.”
61. Robert Gundry indicates that (1) the events centering around the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 did not exhaust Jesus’ prophecy, with the result that a time of future tribulation immediately before the return of Christ is yet to be fulfilled; (2) the events centering around the destruction of Jerusalem did, however, constitute a fulfillment precursive to a larger and final fulfillment at the end of the age (The Church and the Tribulation, 129). See also Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 198.
62. Carson (“Matthew,” 495) and David Wenham (The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse [Gospel Perspectives 4; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984]) espouse a somewhat unique approach, which Turner calls a “revised preterist-futurist view” (“The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1–41,” 9–10). They suggest that Jesus first gives a general discussion of this time period (24:4–28), with a brief discussion of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 inserted as an example of God’s judgment (24:15–21), and then comes the Second Advent (24:29–31), with the warning in 24:32–35 describing the whole tribulation period that stretches from the Ascension to the Second Advent (cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 495). While somewhat unique, it falls generally within the broad sweep of mediating positions between the extremes of historical and futuristic interpretations, but avoids the significance of the temple and Israel in these tribulational scenes.
63. Hafemann, “Eschatology and Ethics,” 161–92.
64. Nancy Gibbs, cover story: “The Bible and the Apocalypse,” Time (July 1, 2002): 40–48.
65. Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth’s Last Days (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1996).
66. Gibbs, “The Bible and the Apocalypse,” 44–45.
67. The authors of the series espouse a pretribulational, premillennial eschatology, in which they draw first on Paul’s teaching about a “rapture” (1 Thess. 4:16–17) to set the stage for the first novel, and from there draw primarily on scenes from Revelation for their novelistic recounting of end-time events.
1. For an overview, see Erickson, Christian Theology, 1:441.
2. An overview of the theological issues can be found in any standard systematic theology, such as Erickson, Christian Theology, 769–72; Grudem, Systematic Theology, esp. 547–53. Some theologians emphasize that Jesus operated exclusively in his humanity during his stay on the earth and that displays of supernatural activity are really the Spirit’s power working through him (cf. Acts 2:22–23; 10:38). Others, such as Erickson and Grudem, emphasize that Jesus operated frequently in his divine nature while on earth.
3. E.g., Gundry, Matthew, 494; Blomberg, Matthew, 366.
4. E.g., Morris, Matthew, 614–15; Hagner, Matthew, 2:720; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:383.
5. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:383.
6. For the idea of “breaking into a house,” see comments on 6:19–20.
7. Cf. 1 Thess. 5:1–2; 2 Peter 3:10; Rev. 3:3; 16:15.
8. See Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 211–12.
9. Carson, “Matthew,” 510.
10. See J. S. Wright and J. A. Thompson, “Marriage,” IBD, 2:955–56; Victor P. Hamilton, “Marriage (OT and ANE),” ABD, 4:559–69; Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 173–74.
11. For discussion of different types of lamps, see R. E. Nixon, “Lamp, Lampstand, Lantern,” IBD, 2:871–73.
12. Young, The Parables, 89–112. For a similar parable, probably given on a different occasion but with a similar emphasis, see Luke 19:11–27.
13. For discussion, see “Interest,” DJBP, 319.
14. See Carson, “Matthew,” 517.
15. For a scholarly discussion of judgment in Matthew’s Gospel, see Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew, esp. 130–39.
16. For a detailed history of interpretation at to the identity implied here, see S. W. Gray, The Least of My Brothers: Matthew 25:31–42—A History of Interpretation (SBLDS 114; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), although Gray argues that the judgment of the church is described in 24:45–25:30, and judgment of those outside the church in 25:31–46 (358–59).
17. George S. Cansdale, “Goats,” ZPEB, 2:739–41.
18. See Gray, The Least of My Brothers; Eugene W. Pond, “Who are ‘The Least’ of Jesus’ Brothers in Matthew 25:40,” BibSac 159 (October–December 2002): 436–48.
19. This was a minority position for much of church history but has found many recent adherents. For a recent defense, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:428–29; C. E. B. Cranfield, “Who are Christ’s Brothers,” Metanoia 4 (1994): 31–39.
20. See 5:47; 12:49–50; 18:15–17; 23:8; 28:10. Those who take this position: Hagner, Matthew, 2:744–45; Carson, “Matthew,” 519–21.
21. Blomberg, Matthew, 378.
22. E.g., Barbieri, “Matthew,” 81; Glasscock, Matthew, 491–92.
23. E.g., Pond, “Who are ‘The Least’ of Jesus’ Brothers in Matthew 25:40,” 443–48.
24. Morris, Matthew, 639.
25. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1200–1203; Hagner, Matthew, 2:742–43; Blomberg, Matthew, 376; Morris, Matthew, 634–35.
26. E.g., Eugene W. Pond, “The Background and Timing of the Judgment of the Sheep and Goats,” BibSac 159 (April–June 2002): 201–20; Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 130.
27. Pond, “The Background and Timing of the Judgment of the Sheep and Goats,” 219–20; Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 288 n. 67.
28. See Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew, 130–39.
29. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 206–7.
30. For a presentation of each view and interaction between adherents, see Gleason L. Archer Jr., Paul D. Feinberg, Douglas J. Moo, and Richard R. Reiter, The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).
31. Personally, I hold that a pretribulational rapture best explains several theological issues (e.g., the reestablishment of Israel during the Millennium and the time required for developing a people who would populate the Millennium). But I also believe that taking the discourse in the context of Jesus’ instruction to his disciples best highlights principles of discipleship that inform any eschatological position.
32. Daniel J. Lewis, 3 Crucial Questions about the Last Days (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 135.
33. Lewis, 3 Crucial Questions about the Last Days, 135–36.
34. Blomberg, Parables, 193.
35. Hagner, Matthew, 2:716.
36. For an attempt to demonstrate how detailed study of prophecy has historically led to productive outcomes, see Larry D. Pettegrew, “The Rapture Debate at the Niagara Bible Conference,” BibSac 157 (July–September 2000): 331–47.
1. For an evangelical exposition of the meaning of the cross as it is anticipated in the Old Testament, narrated in the Gospels, and explained in the rest of the New Testament, see Derek Tidball, The Message of the Cross: Wisdom Unsearchable, Love Indestructible (BST; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000). Matthew’s perspective is explored by Donald Senior, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1985). For an extensive scholarly study of the passion activities commencing with Gethsemane, see Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1994). For one other extensive scholarly bibliography, see David E. Garland, One Hundred Years of Study on the Passion Narratives (Macon, Ga.: Mercer Univ. Press, 1989).
2. Malcolm Muggeridge, “The Crucifixion,” Observer (March 26, 1967); cited in Tidball, The Message of the Cross, 117.
3. See comments on 26:59, and the helpful overview of the Sanhedrin in Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 614–16.
4. Josephus, Ant. 18.2.2 §35.
5. Ibid., 18.4.3 §95.
6. On the high priests, see Flusser, Jesus, 195–205; Bruce Chilton, “Annas,” ABD, 1:257–58; idem, “Caiaphas,” ABD, 1:803–6.
7. Josephus, Ant. 2:111.
8. This anointing is in the home of “Simon the Leper” (26:6), which is a similar, but quite different event than the anointing of Jesus by a woman in the home of Simon the Pharisee, which Luke recounts (Luke 7:36–50).
9. Some have suggested that Simon may have been the father of the brother and sisters, or the husband of Mary or Martha, though nothing in any context supports this hypothesis.
10. Notice Jesus’ comment at the other anointing scene: “You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet” (Luke 7:46).
11. Rousseau and Arav, “Ointments, Perfumes,” Jesus and His World, 216–20.
12. For an overview, see Karl P. Donfried, “Chronology,” ABD, 1:1015–16. Some suggest that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal but a meal the night before the Passover (John 13:1, 20). However, the Synoptics explicitly state that the Last Supper was a Passover (Matt. 26:2, 17–19; Mark 14:1, 12, 14, 16; Luke 22:1, 7–8, 13, 15). Others suggest that Jesus and his disciples had a private Passover. However, the Passover lamb had to be slaughtered within the temple precincts and the priests would not have allowed the slaughter of the paschal lamb for a private Passover. Still others suggest that the Passover was celebrated on two consecutive days, because it would have been impossible to slay all the Passover lambs on one day, but there is not explicit evidence for such a practice.
13. Annie Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper, trans. Isaac Rafferty (Staten Island, N.Y.: Alba, 1965). So also Morris, Matthew, 654.
14. Harold Hoehner, “Chronology,” DJG, 121; so also Thomas and Gundry, The NIV Harmony of the Gospels, 312–13.
15. This view is best presented by Carson, John, 455–58; so also Blomberg, Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 175–78.
16. For a brief overview of the difficulties and a helpful resolution of the various possibilities of the actual date in the first century, see the article “Problems in Dating the Crucifixion,” at the website of the Astronomical Applications Department of the U.S. Naval Observatory: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/crucifixion.html. They offer the dates of Jesus’ crucifixion as either Friday, April 7, A.D. 30, or Friday, April 3, A.D. 33. See also Doig, New Testament Chronology, who contends for the A.D. 30 dating.
17. Some conflate the predictions in Matthew and Luke, while others suggest that Jesus predicted Peter’s denials twice; see Thomas and Gundry, NIV Harmony of the Gospels, 202, note b.
18. For various customs, see Gene Schramm, “Meal Customs (Jewish),” and Dennis E. Smith, “Meal Customs (Greco-Roman),” ABD, 4:648–53.
19. Morris, Matthew, 656.
20. See Markus Bockmuehl, “A ‘Slain Messiah’ in 4Q Serekh Milhamah (4Q285)?” TynBul 43 (1992): 155–69. Bockmuehl finds little expectation of a slain messiah within first-century Jewish interpretation of Old Testament prophecies and probably none in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but posits it as likely within wider Jewish circles.
21. E.g., 8:12; 11:20–24; 13:42, 49–50; 25:46; cf. John 17:12 where Judas is called “the one headed for destruction” (lit., “the son of destruction”).
22. Senior, Matthew, 298.
23. Baruch M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1984). The expression “Haggadah of Passover” then came to be used for the entire Seder ritual as well as for the book containing the liturgy and ritual narration of the events of Deut. 26:5–9.
24. For an overview of Second Temple Jewish practices, see “Haggadah of Passover,” DJBP, 266–67; Robin Routledge, “Passover and Last Supper,” TynBul 53 (2002): 203–21; Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. Norman Perrin (London: SCM, 1966), 84–88.
25. Routledge, “Passover and Last Supper,” 215–16.
26. Ibid., 219.
27. Cf. Clay Hamm, “The Last Supper in Matthew,” BBR 10 (2000): 53–69.
28. Routledge, “Passover and Last Supper,” 219–20.
29. See “Haggadah, Passover,” EJR, 166–67.
30. Eugene H. Merrill, “Remembering: A Central Theme in Biblical Worship,” JETS 43 (March 2000): 27–36.
31. H. Rusche, “Das letzte gemeinsame Gebet Jesu mit seinen Jungern: Der Psalm 136,” Wissenschaft und Weissheit 51 (1988): 210–12.
32. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 226–27.
33. Blomberg, Matthew, 393.
34. Joan E. Taylor, “The Garden of Gethsemane: NOT the Place of Jesus’ Arrest,” BAR 21.4 (July–August 1995): 26–35, 62. See also Rousseau and Arav, “Gethsemane,” Jesus and His World, 110–11.
35. Morris, Matthew, 668.
36. Cf. Wilkins, “Sinner,” DJG, 757–60.
37. Bruner, Matthew, 2:930.
38. E.g., Acts 2:23–36; 3:13–26; 7:51–53; 10:39–43; 13:26–31; 1 Cor. 15:1–7.
39. Tidball, The Message of the Cross, 134.
40. Cf. Wilkins, Discipleship in the Ancient World and Matthew’s Gospel, 169–70.
41. See comments on 4:18–20; 10:1–4.
42. Ricardo J. Quinones, “Dante,” Encyclopædia Britannica 2003, Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service, www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117772.
43. Quinones, “Dante.”
44. Boring, “Matthew,” 472.
45. Boring (ibid., 472–73) discusses five of these six.
46. See Lloyd John Ogilvie, The Cup of Wonder: Communion Meditations (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1976), 10–11.
1. See 10:4; 26:25; 27:3; Mark 8:19; Luke 6:15–16.; John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2; 18:2, 5. See Wilkins, Following the Master, 164ff.
2. Rengstorf, “ἑταῖρος,” TDNT, 2:701.
3. France, Matthew, 375–76.
4. Hagner, Matthew, 2:790.
5. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiah, 48–87.
6. For discussion, see Brown, Death of the Messiah, 357–63; Carson, “Matthew,” 551–53; Garland, “Mark,” 291.
7. For a classic, vigorous defense of the historicity of the Gospels’ account of Jesus’ trials, see Sherwin-White, “The Trial of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels,” Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 24–47.
8. Hagner, Matthew, 2:797.
9. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 357–63; Morris, Matthew, 678–80.
10. For a recounting of the excavation of a huge palatial mansion in Jerusalem and the possible relationship to the Gospel accounts, see Arthur Rupprecht, “The House of Annas-Caiaphas,” Archaeology in the Biblical World 1/1 (Spring 1991): 4–17. See also Rousseau and Arav, “Jerusalem, Caiaphas’s House,” Jesus and His World, 136–39.
11. For a full discussion of the Sanhedrin and its changing nature, see Brown, Death of the Messiah, 340–57. Cf. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees.
12. John clarified for his readers that Jesus did not mean the physical temple but was prophesying the future resurrection of his body (John 2:21).
13. France, Matthew, 300–303; Morris, Matthew, 525–26; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:133–37; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61–69.
14. Hagner, Matthew, 2:799.
15. For helpful overviews of this concept, see Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 301–21; A. R. Millard and D. W. B. Robinson, “Sons (Children) of God,” IBD, 3:1474–75.
16. The phrase “you will see” is second person plural.
17. For a full discussion of the imagery, see Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53–65 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).
18. Note m. Sanh. 7.5, that after confirming a charge of blasphemy, “the judges stand up on their feet and rend their garments, and they may not mend them again.” Note too how Barnabas and Paul tear their clothes in horror when the people at Lystra try to assign them divine status (Acts 14:14).
19. Cf. “Blaspheme,” DJBP, 97–98.
20. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 523.
21. Flusser (“Who Is It That Struck You?” in Jesus, 187–94) connects the mockery directly with children’s games known then and today, but also with prisoner of war scenes, where Gentiles mock Jewish prisoners.
22. Morris, Matthew, 686.
23. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:549.
24. Keener, Matthew (1997), 380.
25. Morris, Matthew, 694–95.
26. Otto Michel, “μεταμέλομαι, ἁμεταμέλητος,” TDNT, 4:626.
27. E.g., Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer, “Akeldama: Potter’s Field or High Priest’s Tomb?” BAR 20 (November–December 1994): 22–35, 76–78; esp. 25.
28. The majority of scholars concede that the location of the original potter’s field remains unknown today. See the discussion in Ritmeyer and Ritmeyer, “Akeldama,” 22–35, 76–78; also in the same issue, Gideon Avni and Zvi Greenhut, “Akeldama: Resting Place of the Rich and Famous,” BAR 20 (November–December 1994): 36–46.
29. For extended discussion of the difficulties, see Douglas M. Moo, “Tradition and Old Testament in Matt 27:3–10,” in Gospel Perspectives, 3:157–75; Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 15, 52–81.
30. Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 77–81; L. Nortjé, “Matthew’s Motive for the Composition of the Story of Judas’s Suicide in Matthew 27:3–10,” Neotestamentica 28 (1994): 41–51.
31. Recorded in Tacitus, Annals 15.44, where he explains the rise of the term “Christians.”
32. Luke 23:2 expands this into a threefold charge: we have found this man subverting our nation, he opposes payment of taxes to Caesar, and he claims to be Christ, a king.
33. See Flusser, Jesus, 164–66.
34. Robert L. Merritt, “Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon,” JBL 104 (1985): 53–68.
35. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 48–87.
37. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (AB 26; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1971), 343–44.
38. See Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, 144–48; Anselm C. Hagedorn and Jerome H. Neyrey, “ ‘It Was Out of Envy That They Handed Jesus Over’ (Mark 15.10): The Anatomy of Envy and the Gospel of Mark,” JSNT 69 (March 1998): 15–56.
39. Josephus, J.W. 5.4.4 §177ff.
40. See Michael J. Wilkins, “Barabbas,” ABD, 1:607.
41. E.g., Archelaus overreacted to an uprising in the temple at Passover after the death of his father Herod the Great in 4 B.C., sending in troops and cavalry who killed about three thousand pilgrims (Josephus, Ant. 17.9.3 §§213–18; idem. J.W. 2.6.2 §§88–90).
42. E.g., Lev. 20:9; Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 1:16; Ezek. 18:13; Acts 5:28; 18:6.
43. Robert H. Smith, “Mt 27:25—The Hardest Verse in Matthew’s Gospel,” Currents in Theology and Missiology 17 (1990): 421.
44. See Wilkins, “Matthew,” 176, for a picture of a flogging instrument with a wooden handle and six leather straps.
45. See Wilkins, Following the Master, 164–67.
46. Morris, John, 578.
47. Ralph P. Martin, “Judas Iscariot,” IBD, 2:830.
48. Martin, “Judas Iscariot,” 831.
49. See further in Wilkins, In His Image, 28–30.
50. For further background, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 25.
51. Paul Maier, Pontius Pilate (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 349.
52. John Trent, “A Father’s Heart,” Christian Parenting Today 13/5 (May–June 2001): 56.
53. See John J. Johnson, “A New Testament Understanding of the Jewish Rejection of Jesus: Four Theologians on the Salvation of Israel,” JETS 43 (June 2000): 229–46.
54. As Jewish scholars themselves note, “Despite the Christian use of Matthew for anti-Semitic attacks, the harsh polemics in the gospel do not attack Jews as a group but the leaders of the Jews (scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priest, elders) and those people who have been misled into hostility toward Jesus” (“Matthew, Jews in the Gospel of,” DJBP, 416). For a similar perspective from a broadly Christian perspective, see Anthony Saldarini, “Reading Matthew without Anti-Semitism,” The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. David E. Aune (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001): 166–84; he gives six “concrete rules for preaching and teaching about Judaism and about Jews” that have relevance for practical application (cf. 182–83).
55. J. Glyn Owen, From Simon to Peter (Herts, England: Evangelical Press, 1985), 4.
56. I have developed these practically in Wilkins, In His Image, 27–30.
57. Cited by Bob Paulson and Scott D. Noble, “Captive in Afghanistan,” Decision 43/7 (July 2002): 8.
58. “Double Jeopardy,” interview of former Taliban hostages Dayna Curry and Heather Mercer by Stan Guthrie and Wendy Murray Zoba, Christianity Today (July 8, 2002): 26–32, esp. 30.
1. Of the seven cries of Jesus from the cross, three are recorded by Luke (#1, 2, 7) and three by John (#3, 5, 6). Matthew and Mark record only the fourth saying.
2. Page, Jesus and the Land, 147–48; Rousseau and Arav, “Jerusalem, Herod’s Palace,” 151–52.
3. Similar to a U.S. Army battalion.
4. BDAG. Similar to a U.S. Army company.
5. Josephus, J.W. 5.5.8 §244. This would support Antonia being Pilate’s residence.
6. For background to the Roman military contingents, see Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 46–52.
7. See Wilkins, “Matthew,” 177, for a picture of a Roman era pavement on the Via Dolorosa inscribed with images related to “the king’s game.” See also Page, Jesus and the Land, 149–51.
8. Flusser, Jesus, 169.
9. See Plutarch, Moralia 554A/B; cf. 554D; De sera numinis vindicta (On the Delays of Divine Vengeance) 9.
10. The Gospel of Mark makes a passing reference to “a certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus” (Mark 15:21), which suggests that Alexander and Rufus were persons well known to Mark’s audience, which is most likely the church at Rome (cf. Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], 393–94; for bibliography see Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 791). Many suggest that Rufus in Mark is the same person named Rufus whom Paul addresses in his greetings to the church at Rome (Rom. 16:13; cf. Alexander in Acts 19:33).
11. For pictures of the Garden Tomb, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 182. For further discussion see Gabriel Barkay, “The Garden Tomb: Was Jesus Buried Here?” BAR 12 (March–April 1986): 40–57; John McRay, “Tomb Typology and the Tomb of Jesus,” Archaeology in the Biblical World 2/2 (Spring 1994): 34–44.
12. For a picture of a chamber inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and an artist’s recreation of the levels of the original tomb and Constantine’s monuments in relation to later building, see Wilkins, “Matthew,” 184–85. For further discussion, see Dan Bahat, “Does the Holy Sepulchre Church Mark the Burial of Jesus?” BAR 12 (May–June 1986): 26–45; Joan E. Taylor, “Golgotha: A Reconsideration of the Evidence for the Sites of Jesus’ Crucifixion and Burial,” NTS 44 (1998): 180–203; Flusser, Jesus, 255–57.
13. E.g., Morris, Matthew, 715; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 678.
14. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 575; Hagner, Matthew, 2:834–35.
15. The most important historical study is Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 77.
16. See also 27:39, 42–43, 46.
17. The religious leaders apply the words of Psalm 22:8 to Jesus either in a way that they are consciously (Hagner, Matthew, 2:839) or unconsciously (Carson, “Matthew,” 577; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [1999], 681) aware of the connection. If consciously, they mock Jesus by making a parallel to a known messianic prophecy. If unconsciously, this is like the unconscious prophecy that Caiaphas voiced (John 11:51–52).
18. Wilkins, “Darkness,” BTDB, 142–43; Hans Conzelmann, “σκότος, κτλ.” TDNT, 7:423–45; H.-C. Hahn, “Darkness,” NIDNTT, 1:420–25.
19. Hendriksen, Matthew, 970.
20. E.g., Boring, “Matthew,” 492.
21. Hagner says of this cry of Jesus, “This is one of the most impenetrable mysteries of the entire Gospel narrative,” and “Perhaps it is best simply to let the words stand as they are—stark in their impenetrability to us mortals” (Hagner, Matthew, 2:845–46). Morris points out, “Pious and earnest Christians have always found these words very difficult” (Leon Morris, The Cross of Christ [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 67). For a discussion of how Jesus perceived his own death, see Scot McKnight, “Jesus and His Death: Some Recent Scholarship,” CurBS 9 (2001): 185–228.
22. Hendriksen, Matthew, 970.
23. For full discussion of the doctrine of the atonement, see Erickson, Christian Theology, 802–23; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 570–86.
24. See Hans W. Heidland, “ὄξος,” TDNT, 5:288–89.
25. See m. Šeqal. 8.5; Josephus gives a detailed description of the curtain in J.W. 5.5.4 §§212–13.
26. Cf. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 687.
27. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:633.
28. See Blomberg, Matthew, 421.
29. Cf. John W. Wenham, “When Were the Saints Raised?” JTS 32 (1981): 150–52; Carson, “Matthew,” 581–82; Blomberg, Matthew, 421.
30. Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 391.
31. Tidball, The Message of the Cross, 133.
32. David C. Sim, “The ‘Confession’ of the Soldiers in Matthew 27:54,” Heythrop Journal 34 (1993): 401–24. Cf. Whitney T. Shiner, “The Ambiguous Pronouncement of the Centurion and the Shrouding of Meaning in Mark,” JSNT 78 (2000): 3–22.
33. For a technical discussion of Colwell’s Rule and Apollonius’ Corollary (to Apollonius’ Rule), which point in the direction of the construction being rendered “the Son of God,” see Wallace, Greek Grammar, 256–70.
34. Kingsbury, Matthew As Story, 90.
35. Cf. Mark 15:40–41; 16:1; Luke 23:49, 55–56; 24:1, 10–11; John 19:25–27; 20:1–18.
36. Cf. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 691–94.
37. See esp. Jane Kopas, “Jesus and Women in Matthew,” TT 47 (1990), 20; G. Osborne, “Women in Jesus’ Ministry,” WTJ 51 (1989): 275; Witherington, Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 122–23.
38. Jack Kingsbury suggests that two factors—cost and commitment—is the key to understanding whether “following Jesus” should be taken literally or metaphorically in Matthew (Kingsbury, “The Verb AKOLOUTHEIN [‘To Follow’],” 58).
39. E.g., Witherington, Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 118; Hengel, “Maria Magdalena und die Frauen als Zeugen,” Abraham unser Vater, ed. Otto Betz and Martin Hengel (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 247–48. A critique against the assumption that the women only provided domestic help for the traveling ministry team is given by David C. Sim, “The Women Followers of Jesus: The Implications of Luke 8:1–3,” Heythrop Journal 30 (1989): 51–62. Sim does not speculate what their exact role is, beyond providing some economic support.
40. E.g., Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 317.
41. Cf. Beasley-Murray, John, 348–49; Carson, John, 616.
42. Josephus, Ant. 13.127.
43. For a refutation of recent attempts to discredit the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea, see Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall, “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist,” Bib 75 (1994): 235–41.
44. Matthew uses the verb “become a disciple” three times (cf. 13:52; 28:19).
45. Cf. Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. The expression “adherents to Jesus” expresses the central meaning of the relationship in typical first-century usage; cf. Wilkins, The Concept of Disciple in Matthew’s Gospel, 41–42, 124–25.
46. Michael J. Wilkins, “Named and Unnamed Disciples in Matthew: A Literary/ Theological Study,” SBLSP 30 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 418–39.
47. Cf. Keener, Matthew (1999), 691–94.
48. Cf. W. Boyd Barrick, “The Rich Man from Arimathea (Matt 27:57–60) and 1QIsaa,” JBL 96 (1977): 235–39.
49. Gundry, Matthew, 580; Kingsbury, Matthew As Story, 27.
50. See Kjeld Nielsen, “Incense,” ABD, 3:404–9; Victor H. Matthews, “Perfumes and Spices,” ABD, 5:226–28; Joel Green, “Burial of Jesus,” DJG, 88–92.
51. Cf. John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 60–67.
52. E.g., Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1310–13; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:652–53.
53. Cf. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 696–97; Carson, “Matthew,” 585.
54. Ex. 16:29 set a standard for travel on the Sabbath, admonishing people not to go out so that they could observe the Sabbath rest. The rabbis allowed a total distance of two thousand cubits for travel on the Sabbath—approximately three thousand feet or a little over half a mile.
55. See citation of examples in “Burial Sites,” DJBP, 104.
56. France, Matthew, 38.
57. Charles H. Spurgeon, “The Lesson of the Cross,” Evening by Evening (Springdale: Whitaker House, 1984), 157; cited in Calvin Miller, ed., The Book of Jesus, rev. ed. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998), 368–69.
58. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 580–81. See here Grudem’s important caveat on using the “ransom” analogy.
59. Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 158.
60. See Kingsbury, Matthew As Story, 90.
61. Josephus, Against Apion 2:201.
63. This material is developed more fully in Wilkins, “Women in the Teaching and Example of Jesus,” Women and Men in Ministry, 91–112.
64. Lloyd John Ogilvie, The Cup of Wonder: Communion Meditations (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1976), 75.
65. Cf. W. Harold Mare, “1 Corinthians,” EBC, 10:198; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 92; William F. Orr, 1 Corinthians (AB 32; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976), 162–63.
66. Martin Luther, Luther’s Meditations on the Gospels (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 135.
67. Ibid, 135–36.
68. E.g., Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 369.
69. Gordon Dillow, “Battle Transforms Fresh-Faced Troops,” Orange County Register (March 23, 2003), News: 1, 21.
70. Howard Hendricks, “Me, Myself, and My Tomorrows,” BibSac 157 (July–September 2000): 268.
71. Gerd Theissen, The Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest of the Historical Jesus in Narrative Form, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987), 177.
72. Lord John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, The History of Freedom, “Introduction,” by James C. Holland (Grand Rapids: Acton Institute, 1993).
73. Watts’s personal life was a model of consistent faithfulness as a minister of the gospel from 1674 to 1748. He not only carried out a significant ministry of preaching and writing, but wrote over 460 hymns.
1. Cf. Morris, Matthew, 733; Hagner, Matthew, 2:868.
2. N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 718.
3. The literature on the resurrection is massive, but the following will give the reader a start. For the most thorough study of the historical and exegetical issues, see Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God; see also Richard N. Longenecker, Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). The historical reliability of the resurrection narratives is set forth by Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 100–110; William Lane Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?” in Jesus Under Fire, 142–76; and at a more scholarly level, William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1989). On a popular, apologetic level are Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) and George Eldon Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). The theological distinctives of each Gospel are explored by Grant R. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984). For a discussion of the philosophical issues, see Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); at a more scholarly level, Peter Carnley, The Structure of Resurrection Belief (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987). For devotional meditations, see James Montgomery Boice, The Christ of the Empty Tomb (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985).
4. Morris, Matthew, 733; Hagner, Matthew, 2:868.
5. This reconstruction is suggested by John Wenham, Easter Enigma, 139 and passim. For a similar reconstruction see Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 354–55.
6. See comments on 27:57–61; cf. Wenham, Easter Enigma, 60–67.
7. This is the root of the later practice of Christians gathering on Sunday morning to worship the risen Jesus (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:2); cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 587; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:663; France, Matthew, 406; Hagner, Matthew, 2:868–69; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 700; Morris, Matthew, 734 n.3.
8. Cf. Gen. 42:17–18; 1 Sam. 30:12–13; 1 Kings 20:29; 2 Chron. 10:5, 12; Est. 4:16; 5:1.
9. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 700. See also the comments on 27:59–61.
10. Robertson, “Matthew,” Word Pictures in the New Testament, 1:240–41.
11. See Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 636.
12. See Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 71–92; Carol A. Newsom, “Gabriel,” ABD, 2:863; Carol A. Newsom and Duane F. Watson, “Angel,” ABD, 1:248–55.
13. Hagner, Matthew, 2:869.
14. This is the reverse of the earlier Matthean practice, such as when Matthew reports two demoniacs while Mark and Luke focus only on one (cf. Matt. 8:28; Mark 5:1–20; Luke 8:26–39).
15. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 437–38.
16. See 3:16–17; 17:5; cf. Blomberg, Matthew, 427.
17. See Carson, “Matthew,” 589–90; Hagner (Matthew, 2:874) doubts the wider association.
18. E.g., Grant R. Osborne, “Women in Jesus’ Ministry,” WTJ 51 (1989): 270.
19. E.g., Rabbi Akiba in m. Yeb. 16:7. See also m. Šeb. 4:1; Josephus, Ant. 4:219.
20. See Witherington, Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 9–10, for a discussion of the mixed rabbinic attitudes toward women’s ability to give witness.
21. For discussion of the broader issues, see Craig, “Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?” 151–55.
22. E.g., Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew, 543; George Wesley Buchanan, The Gospel of Matthew (The Mellen Biblical Commentary; Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen Biblical Press, 1996), 2:1022–23; Hare, Matthew, 326–27.
23. There is a far-fetched recent theory that the body had only been placed in a shallow grave, barely covered by dirt, and then scavenging dogs ate the corpse (John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus [San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995], 187–88). But this does not accord with the respect with which the Jews treated all bodies and with the grudging respect that the Romans accorded Jewish bodies because of their desire to keep the peace (see Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 638).
24. For a defense of the historicity of the events see William Lane Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” NTS 30 (1984): 273–81; Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 638–40; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 713–15.
25. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 638–39.
26. Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” 273; citing also Paul Rohrbach, Die Berichte über die Auferstehung Jesu Christi (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1898), 79.
27. This implies that the tomb was outside the city walls; for significance, see comments on 27:33, 60.
28. See his Dialogue with Trypho 108.2.
29. Cf. Blomberg, Matthew, 429; Hagner, Matthew, 2:881–83; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 715–21.
30. Chrysostom, “The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 90.2,” cited in Simonetti, Matthew 14–28, 1b:314.
31. Cf. Paul Hertig, Matthew’s Narrative Use of Galilee in the Multicultural and Missiological Journeys of Jesus (Mellen Biblical Press Series 46; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1998), 82–127.
32. Wright refers to this statement as having “the strongest mark of authenticity in this paragraph” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 643). This ambiguous comment would not have occurred to someone telling the story as a pure fiction.
33. Cf. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 644; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:681–82; P. W. van der Horst, “Once More: The Translation of οἱ δε in Matthew 28.17,” JSNT 27 (1986): 105–9; McNeile, St. Matthew, 434.
34. For discussion of the article as a personal pronoun, see Wallace, Greek Grammar, 211–13.
35. Hagner, Matthew, 2:884, points to the following examples, although he grants some of them are ambiguous: 2:5; 4:20, 22; 14:17, 33; 15:34; 16:7, 14; 20:5, 31; 21:25; 22:19; 26:15; 26:67; 27:4, 21, 23; 28:15.
36. E.g., 17:17 apistos (“unbelievers”) or Luke 24:38 dialogismoi (“doubts”).
38. Hagner, Matthew, 2:884.
39. Carson, “Matthew,” 593.
40. See also Morris, Matthew, 745.
41. Otto Michel, “The Conclusion of Matthew’s Gospel: A Contribution to the History of the Easter Message,” The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. Graham N. Stanton, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995), 45.
42. Hagner, Matthew, 2:881.
43. For discussion, see Doyle, “Matthew’s Intention As Discerned by His Structure,” 34–54; David R. Bauer, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988).
44. Cf. Blomberg, Matthew, 431.
45. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 595; Hagner, Matthew, 2:886.
46. Robertson, “Matthew,” 244–45.
47. For the way in which participles attendant to an imperative accrue imperatival force, see Wallace, Greek Grammar, 640–45; also Carson, “Matthew,” 597; Hagner, Matthew, 2:886–87.
48. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives, 91; cf. the note in Moisés Silva, “New Lexical Semitisms?” ZNTW 69 (1978): 256 n. 9.
49. For a discussion of the similarities to, yet distinct differences of, discipleship after Pentecost, see Wilkins, Following the Master, chs. 13–16.
50. See comments on 13:52 and 27:57; also Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:684; Hagner, Matthew, 1:401–2; Morris, Matthew, 746; Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 109–10; Wilkins, Discipleship in the Ancient World and Matthew’s Gospel, 160–63.
51. See Wilkins, Following the Master, 188–89.
52. E.g., Stephen Hre Kio, “Understanding and Translating ‘Nations’ in Mt 28:19,” BT 41 (1990), 230–39; Douglas R. A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967).
53. E.g., see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:684; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 719–20; Charles H. H. Scobie, “Israel and the Nations: An Essay in Biblical Theology,” TynBul 43 (1992): 283–305; esp. 297–98.
54. Likewise, this does not abolish the promises made to Israel nationally. We contended earlier that there remains a future role for Israel (cf. Matt. 21:42–43, see comments; Rom. 11:25–33).
55. Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 430.
56. E.g., Blomberg, Matthew, 431; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1999), 718–19.
57. Richard DeRidder, Discipling the Nations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 190. For discussion of the meaning of baptism as “adherence,” see William B. Badke, “Was Jesus a Disciple of John?” EvQ 62 (1990): 195–204.
58. Cf. Clinton E. Arnold, “Acts,” ZIBBC, 2:236.
59. E.g., onoma in LXX (Ex. 3:13–15; Prov. 18:10; cf. Jub. 36:7).
60. Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:685. For the use of eis with onoma in the sense of “in” employed here, not meaning into, see 18:20; cf. 10:41–42.
61. Various prepositions are used, such as epi, eis, and en, but without significant differences in nuance.
62. Cf. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 644–45.
63. This term is also important as a theme of discipleship in John’s Gospel (e.g., John 14:15, 23–24). See Melvyn R. Hillmer, “They Believed in Him: The Johannine Tradition,” in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. R. N. Longnecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 92.
64. Gottlob Schrenk, “ἐντέλλομαι, ἐντολη,” TDNT, 2:545: “In this context the word ἐντέλλεσθαι simply expresses the unconditional obligation to obedience which, grounded christologically, is the obedience of faith.”
65. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:686: “But more than verbal revelation is involved, for such revelation cannot be separated from Jesus’ life, which is itself a command. ἐνετειλάμην accordingly unifies word and deed and so recalls the entire book: everything is in view. The earthly ministry as a whole is an imperative.”
66. Carson, “Matthew,” 599: “Jesus’ words, like the words of Scripture, are more enduring than heaven and earth (24:35); and the peculiar expression “everything I have commanded you” is . . . reminiscent of the authority of Yahweh (Exod 29:35; Deut 1:3, 41; 7:11; 12:11, 14).”
67. H. N. Ridderbos, Matthew, trans. Ray Togtman (Bible Student’s Commentary’s; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 555–56.
68. Green, Matthew, 322–23.
69. Longenecker, “Introduction,” Life in the Face of Death, 1.
70. Cited in Boice, The Christ of the Empty Tomb, 79–80.
71. C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (New York: Religious Book Club, 1973), 1:149.
72. Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 177.
73. Daniel Defoe, The True Born Englishman (1701), pt. 1, 1.1.; cited in “Defoe, Daniel,” Encyclopædia Britannica (2003).
74. Bruner, Matthew, 2:1072.
75. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 21.