Matthew and Mark

Introductory Issues
Matthew
Structure
The structure of this Gospel is debated. Certain divisions in the text are apparent, but
there’s no consensus as to where they should be placed. However, these are the most common
proposals:1
1. The model of the five books. It’s based on the fact that the evangelist uses a similar closing
formula2 in all of these alleged sections (3-7; 8-10; 11-13:52; 13:53-18; 19-25),3 embraced
by an introduction (chap. 1-2) and a conclusion (chap. 26-28). Some have seen this five-fold
structure as an allusion to Jesús as an new Moses, establishing the new Torah. However,
since this structure depends on how the narrative sections correspond (or not) to Jesus’
discourses, this type of division is not convincing for some scholars.4 R. T. France, for
example, states that although the marker for the discourses exist, it doesn’t mean that they
are a “central structural principle of the gospel.5
2. The Center type model. Basically, a chiastic structure around a center; commonly, this center
would be the discourse in chap. 13, while other identify chap. 11. Due to the little amount of
consensus, Luz considers it as the least significant.
3. The markan model. This one assumes a break that occurs with the confession of Peter. The
expression “from that time” in 16:21 and 4:17 would identify two sections: (1) his preaching
in Galilee and (2) his way toward Jerusalem; Matthew 1:1-4:16 would be the introduction.
This model is the one that best presents this Gospel as narrative. Although, from a narrative
point of view, France argues that beyond 16:21 it’s difficult to speak of one section. He
identifies “a number of distinct phases of the story” and “new stages in the narrative
development”. However, these same textual markers fit into a geographical outline proposed
by France, where Jesus’ movement from Galilee to Jerusalem and back is key for the
1
Luz and Turner agree in this consensus. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary on Matthew 1–7, ed. Helmut
Koester, Hermeneia–a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007),
3-4; David L. Turner, Matthew, eds. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein, 18 vols., Baker Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 8-10.
2
“When Jesus had finished these words” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; NASB95).
3
Turner calls them “chapters”. Turner, Matthew, 1.
4
Luz, Matthew 1–7, 3.
5
Richard T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, eds. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee, New
International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 3. France addresses the
importance and intentionality of the discourse in section III of his introduction (pp. 8-10).
1
narrative structure. Apparently, Matthew has adopted Mark’s geographic narration and
enhanced it.1
Even if these three models are common, they still face several issues that are
characteristic to Matthew’s Gospel. The abundant repetition of words and formulas makes it
difficult to explain why one type and frequency defines a structure over another. At the same
time, the gospel renders numerous connectors, creating the “impression of a seamless narrative
flow”2; How then, are we supposed to know when Matthew intended a break? With that said,
certain “bends” in the narrative are proposed in 4:12–22; 11:1–30; 16:13–28; 20:29–21:11; 24:1–
2.3
The structural difficulties are more patent when analyzing the book as a whole. The
scenario changes when one considers smaller units of the text. Matthew arranged his text
following certain literary techniques: (1) Similar materials are grouped together; (2) the
discourses are chiasticaly equal in length4; (3) the use of numerical schemes to organize the text;
(4) the repetition of key words to identify themes; (5) central verses that summarize a section
[kĕ lā lı̂ m]; (6) the use of repetitions and doublets as didactic devices or as emphasis; (7) derived
from the former and the repetition of words are the several inclusions (i.e. 1:24, 25 and 28:20);
(7) chiastic ring compositions; and (8) predictions and signs that push the narration forward.
These small literary features and corresponding units are more significant for the definition of
structure than the five major discourses –in Luz’s opinion.5 They establish Jesus’ teaching with
respect to the “kingdom”, but they don’t push the narrative or the plot of the Gospel forward. In
this sense, Luz would tent to speak of them as unattached to the historical events, since they’re
meant to be understood “as [they] were”.6 Since they are five, and stand valid to this day, it’s
correct to understand them as analogous to the Pentateuch.
Luz finally settles with the markan model as the base for his proposed structure. He feels
that the structure is easier to establish from chap. 24 onward, and not so clear in the block
containing chap. 12-20. The internal divisions are mostly thematic, related to his dealings with
the disciples, with certain breaks that deal with his adversaries or the people in general. Luz
opines that the structure is more “vigorous” in chap. 1-11, although he asserts that Matthew still
used sources.7 The expression that refers to Jesus “going through(out)” in 4:23 and 9:35 seem to
be key as structural markers in these first chapters; as such they highlight Jesus’ words (chap.
5-7) and deeds (chap. 8-9). These two aspects establish the tenor for the sending of his disciples
in chap. 10. This similar structure occurs with the call of the disciples in chap. 4, which follows
1
Ibid., 3-4, 7.
2
3
Ibid. Another issue stated by Luz has to do with the dependance on Mark from Matthew 12 and onward. However,
this would be a problem if we critically assume that the writing process was only a human endeavor. If that were the
case, one would wonder about style, dependance, and, allegedly, lack of structure due to those issues. However,
How can one question these matters when inspiration is the guiding principal in the redaction of the text?
4
The first and last are longest, second and fourth are the shortest, and the middle one (chap 13), is of medium
length. Other sections and pericopies share this characteristic. See Ibid., 5.
5
Ibid., 12.
6
Ibid.
7
Basically Mark and its basic structure of chap. 1-9; and he adds Q as another source. See Ibid., 10.
2
the prologue that presents Christ moving from Bethlehem toward Galilee, the type of moving
that the disciples would develop starting from Galilee. Since Luz considers chaps. 12 and beyond
as a retelling of Mark, Matthew 1-11 are considered as the necessary backdrop in which Jesus
met “the nation of Israel in word and deed”.1 Jesus’ activities in Israel faces opposition in the
form of the religious leaders: one that eventually leads to his crucifixion and, after his
resurrection, to his great commission in favor of all nations. In this conflict, the disciples –
apparently– are integrated into the group that learns from Jesus and that have “little faith”.2
Genre
It’s best to preserve the designation that the ancient church gave the Matthew as gospel.
Other genres only emerge as an ulterior analysis of the text, in the context of latter or even
contemporary genres (handbook?). Both in Greek and Jewish writings, biographies weren’t
common, much less with recurrent citation to Scripture. All in all, it’s a unique genre
appropriately called gospel (εὐαγγέλιον).
Even if we establish Matthew as a gospel, it’s impossible to note some literary styles that
are present in his writing, since –as Luz declares– Matthew is “an actual author with actual
readers in a concrete situation”.3 Luz assumes certain characteristics of the intended readers that
emerge from the text itself (they spoke/read Greek, had an encyclopedic knowledge of Jewish
scriptures [LXX], religion and tradition, etc). These readers are confronted directly with Jesus as
protagonist; everyone, even the readers are “seen” through Jesus’ perspective. The disciples are
meant to be relatable for the readers as well; they learned from Jesus as the reader is learning
while reading the gospel. Matthew also portrays the disciples in a very realistic way, something
that will appeal to the reader in most life situations. Turner would say that “each Gospel’s Jesus
stories are calculated to meet the needs of its respective audience”.4 Luz renders this as the
narrator involving his readers into the story; into living the fact that it’s the story of Immanuel
(28:20).5 This idea could be compatible with Turner who writes that “the Gospels narrate what
really happened but do so in part for theological reasons”. They are “theologically interpreted
history, written for the edification of Christian communities”.6
France highlights the theme of fulfillment as central for this gospel. That’s why Matthew
includes Jesus’ genealogy and quotes and alludes to the OT profusely (though he’s not alone in
the latter). Since these citations deal with a number of people, places and institutions, it’s
reasonable to speak of typology as a transversal literary characteristic.7 A feature that betrays
1
Ibid.
2
Ibid., 11. I find this “working hypothesis” reasonable. But, Luz’s second hypothesis point to the role of the
Matthean church that, somehow, integrate their experience to Jesus’ reflected in the text. This kind of “corporate
authorship” doesn’t fit with the biblical principle of inspiration.
3
Ibid., 15.
4
Turner, Matthew, 5.
5
6
Turner, Matthew, 5, 7.
7
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 10-11.
3
Matthews intentionality when quoting the OT is his “formula-quotations”, an expression that has
some variations through the gospel but is easily discernible (“...happened to fulfill what...”).1
Sources
This section of Luz’s introduction deals with the alleged “sources” that Matthew had
available in order to compose his gospel. This is a tricky subject since we believe in inspiration,
and we also acknowledge that –at least with Luke– evidence of sources as a result of an
investigation can be part of that process. However, according to the text, Matthew was a direct
eye-witness, so ¿why would he need to rely on sources? The dependance on Mark doesn’t
present a problem even if it was a source that was administered by inspiration. The existence of
Q is a whole other matter since it presupposes that inspiration didn’t even occur, just oral
traditions that were latter put in writing by interdependent “authors”.
Luz dedicates a separate section for how Matthew would’ve used his sources.2
Vocabulary and theological themes would have been followed intentionally –according to Luz. In
a general sense, he inherits form Mark and Q, but retaining different emphases from each. The
community is also considered a source for the gospel material; the evangelist would be –
allegedly– an “exponent” of that community and its liturgical and hermeneutical practice.
Although France doesn’t speak of sources in his introduction, he does recognize that a
key distinction between Matthew and the other two synoptics are the five discourses. If one
searches for the parallel sayings in Mark and Luke they appear scattered and shorter. It’s easier to
think that Matthew arranged his3 recollection of Jesus’ words, rather than the other two
separating a cohesive discourse.4 Finally, if Matthew relied on Mark can be set aside, as some
have done, to analyze the gospel in its own terms, by means of narrative criticism.5
Style
Luz asserts, quoting Bacon, that Matthew has a “synagogue Greek”, which is polished,
concise, uses repeated formulas and is very didactic; it’s dependent on the LXX and his Greek is
very much influenced by rabbinic Judaism. This is reflected in the syntax that presents errors that
would be common for: (1) a semitic who's second language is Greek or, (2) a native Greek
speaker but immersed in Aramaic idioms.6
In Luz’s opinion, Matthew’s idiomatic characteristics would suggest that he is part of a
community, or that he wanted to include himself in one. This would necessarily be the case if we
read about the existence and growth of the Christian church (Acts of the Apostles, and the
Epistles).
1
Ibid., 12-14.
2
Luz, Matthew 1–7, 41-44.
3
France prefers to speak of an “anthologizer who had a wide range of traditional sayings of Jesus at his disposal” (p.
9).
4
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 8.
5
Turner, Matthew, 3, 7-8.
6
See Luz, Matthew 1–7, 23-25. Turner seems to agree, Turner, Matthew, 10.
4
The historical situation of Matthew
Luz disregards the arguments that propose a gentile author from a gentile church. He
proposes a Jewish Christian author,1 something that would agree with what the text tells us at
face-value. This gospel had great influence in other Jewish Christian writings, in the sense that
they followed its structure, language or themes.
Luz holds the idea that the gospel emerges from a community. The experiences and
teachings of that community would’ve molded the content of the gospel like, for example, the
emphases on the gentile mission developed during the first century. The “tension” between the
role of the law with regards to the gentiles (present in Acts) would have found guidance in the
portrayal of Jesus and the law in Matthew.2 France also acknowledges this tension based on how
the Christian community might have related to the synagogue, or have compatibilized Jewish
heritage with the notion of a new people with allegiance to Jesus the Messiah. In this same line
of thought, the “fulfillment” formulas in the gospel distill notions of continuity and
discontinuity.3 Beyond this point, arguments depend on the presupposition of the Matthean (or
Christian) community, as well as the Jewish self-understanding after AD 70 or extending to the
second Jewish war. France opines: “Matthew portrays a new community which is both faithful to
its scriptural heritage and at the same time open to the new directions demanded by Jesus’
proclamation of the kingdom of heaven, and therefore necessarily expanding beyond the bounds
of the Jewish people”.4 Turner assumes the original readers were “a group of Christian Jews who
were still in contact with non-Christian Jews in the synagogue” and that are “still engaged with
the synagogue”, thus also recognizing this tension, transition or diversity.5
All these ideas concerning a community and its context are a necessary background if one
cannot or simply wont accept the authorship of the gospel at face value from the earliest sources
available. France argues in favor of the apostle Matthew as the author, since we have the “earliest
surviving patristic testimonies”6 that refer only to him as author. In a very pragmatic way, he also
states that Matthew is a “likely candidate as any”.7 The idea of a community cannot be ignored in
the sense that Matthew must have had certain readers in mind. France has no problem accepting
the general consensus that it could have been written in Syria or Palestine.
Date of composition
As an historical note, the similarities between Matthew’s gospel and the teaching and
overall stance of Johanan ben Zakkai might indicate the date an occasion of this gospel.8 In
general, we esteem that his message, as well as ben Zakkai’s, fits well in the social setting prior
1
Luz, Matthew 1–7, 45-47.
2
Ibid., 51, 52.
3
4
Ibid., 18.
5
6
Matthew is the most influential Gospel in the early church, according to Turner, that would explain the “rich
reservoir of patristic commentary”. Ibid., 2.
7
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 15. Turner has a similar position, one in which we have a sum of evidence, but not
“proof” of Matthew as the author. However, he seems to imply his authorship. Turner, Matthew, 11-13.
8
5
to 70 AD.1 The similar language between Matthew and 1 Peter2 fit well with both being direct
eyewitnesses, as well as with an early redaction date. However, Luz sees a certain tension with
this early date and an alleged previous anonymous writer, due to the references to Matthew (cf.
9:9; 10:3).3 On the other hand, France takes a clear stance in favor of a pre-AD 70 date of
composition. His argument stems from the date for Mark and the evidence from Acts.4 This
evidence allow France to put the writing of the Synoptic Gospels in the sixties.5 This notion fits
well with the proposal that the Synoptics emerged from a “more fluid process of mutual
influence between the various centers of Christian gospel-writing as people travelled around the
empire and visited and consulted with one another”.6 Other call this literary interdependence, an
idea that “was held by Augustine and many of the church fathers”.7
Theological emphases
In the introductions, only Turner includes a section such as this.
Since Matthew registers abundant quotations to the OT (aprox. 50), Turner points out
how some have questioned if it’s correct to speak of “old” when the Hebrew Bible is used in a
very relevant and actualized way. Some of them are covered as a theme (by the other
commentators) with the mention of the “fulfillment formula” (πληρόω + τὸ ῥηθέν). Turner
recognizes that in these quotations “point to the dual-authorship view of Scripture where the
human prophet is the channel through which the divine agency speaks”.8
The fulfillment notion doesn’t necessarily point to OT “predictions” (that reading is
simplistic). Rather “Matthew’s fulfillment quotations more often contain Christian hindsight in
which a historical event from the Hebrew Bible serves as a pattern for a NT event that it
anticipated”; e.g, “Just as the prophets anticipate the Messiah, the prophets’ enemies anticipate
the Messiah’s enemies”.9 What is being fulfilled is sometimes explicit or implicit in the OT
Scriptural context that can be “ethical, historical and prophetic”.10
1
Luz states that the earliest date for its writing is the fall of Jerusalem. He implies that 22:7 supposes that the
destruction of Jerusalem had already happened (i.e. Jesus had no foreknowledge). Early Christian authors draw
language from the gospel (e.g. Ignatius and Polycarp), so it must have bee written and in full circulation before the
end of the first century AD; Ibid., 58.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid., 59.
4
Luke doesn’t narrate anything beyond AD 62, and the Neronian persecution (AD 64/5) was probably the cause of
death for both Paul and Peter. Patristic testimony states that Mark wrote his gospel while Peter was alive. See
5
Turner is more vague with regard to a date for composition. He just presents the common options, i.e. before or
after AD 70. Turner, Matthew, 13-14.
6
7
With time, this evolved into Markan of Matthean priority, as well as the two and four-source theory. Turner,
Matthew, 6-7.
8
Ibid., 21.
9
Ibid., 22, 23.
10
Ibid., 25.
6
With regard to Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew, Turner highlights three aspects. The first has
to do with the number fourteen that orders his subdivisions. Only the middle one meet that
criteria, since the first and last divisions have thirteen. Turner explains this pointing to an ancient
literary convention that Matthew could have used. Since the numeric value for the name David is
fourteen, Turner sees that a the reason for the “artificiality” of the genealogy.1 With regard to the
women being included, many explanations have been entertained. Sinners needing salvation
(Mary!?), gentiles that typify the conclusion of the book2, the illegitimacy of their children
(Rahab?, Ruth?, Mary!?)... none of these explanations are satisfactory. Turner can only state that
“Jesus is not bound by race, gender, or scandal”, however, this can be said even without the
women in the genealogy.3 The clear divergence and convergence between the genealogies in
Matthew and Luke present some issues. With the information we have available, any
explanations seems unconvincing. About the intention of these genealogies, once again there a
several interpretations. Royal or priestly, Joseph’s or Mary’s, both Joseph’s but one is his
succession to the throne and the other is his real genealogy... which ever the case, the evidence
we have can’t prove or disprove any or them entirely. But “difficulties and distinct purposes
aside, both Matthew and Luke affirm Jesus’s Abrahamic and Davidic ancestry as well as his
miraculous conception by the virgin Mary”. Turner proposes that the purpose of these
genealogies could be seen by means of the theology of each Gospel. “Matthew uses his
genealogy primarily for christological purposes, to demonstrate the Abrahamic and Davidic
ancestry of Jesus the Messiah while showing him to be the fulfillment of God’s promises”. In
Luke, the intention is to affirm Jesus as Son of God.4
The Christology of Matthew seeks to demonstrate that his person and ministry is rooted
in Scriptures. As Messiah (“the Christ”, ESV) Jesus is linked “to Israel’s history and hopes”,
even though a lowly and suffering one was foreign in Judaism at Jesus’ time.5 The title Son of
David is most common in Matthew and establishes Jesus’ royal authority in favor of the needy;
this title is his credential as Messiah. Together with Messiah and Son of David, Matthew also
uses Son of Abraham (1:1). Though not a Messianic title, it points to “God’s plan that originated
with Abraham”, however, in Jesus “ethics, not ethnicity, is the issue”.6 (Faith would’ve been
better than “plain” ethics). Other terms like Immanuel, or King, though not mentioned as much,
seem to form a thematic inclusio to the Gospel.7 Turner apparently doesn’t disagree with the
notion that Son of God is the preeminent title of Jesus in Matthew. This sonship is show by his
submission to the will of his Father; but also by his authority, shared with the Father. Towards the
end of his ministry, during his trial, Jesus declares that his sonship is Davidic and divine (22:45;
26:63; 27:40, 43, 54). The title Lord has a backdrop in Greco-Roman culture, as well as the many
times it translate Yahweh for in the LXX. Since “lord” can be used in a merely polite situation as
well as an equivalence to the Tetragramaton, the context must help us define its use in the
1
Ibid., 25-27.
2
This seems to be Turner’s position. Ibid., 31.
3
Ibid., 27, 28.
4
Ibid., 31.
5
Ibid., 32.
6
Ibid., 33.
7
Ibid., 34.
7
Gospel.1 Teacher is preferred by those who do not follow Jesus; however Jesus refers to himself
that way in three occasions (10:24, 25; 23:8; 26:18). It’s simply important to note that he is more
that just a teacher. Matthew uses the expression Son of Man more than any other. In the OT it’s
used to refer to man, finite and all. Likewise, it’s used to express Jesus’ enduring and suffering.
Even so, it’s linked to his authority during his ministry and at his coming as glorious King, ideas
that clearly come from Daniel 7:13. “This duality of present and future nuances, referring to both
the authority exercised by Jesus during his earthly ministry and the glorious authority he will
exercise at his return, is crucial for one’s understanding of Matthew’s ‘kingdom of heaven’”.2
Central to the message of Matthew is the expression “kingdom of God/heaven/”. With
“heaven” it occurs only in Matthew (x32); with “God” it becomes a more common expression in
the NT. Trying to differentiate the two seems a sterile endeavor, since a simple literary feature
like the metonym can explain the different use. At the same time, internal and synoptic evidence
renders these expressions as synonymous.3 In Matthew, the “kingdom” is present (inaugurated)
and future (consummated), neither rule the other out. To experience its power now means that
one will “someday receive it in full measure”4 (cf. Mat. 5).
The idea of conflict between Jesus, the gospel and the Jews is apparent in the Gospel.
However, it can be understood as a natural tension inside Judaism, and not as an anti-semite
reading that is anachronistic.5
Matthew is the only Gospel that uses the word ἐκκλησία. It’s understood as the
community of the Messiah. The gospel narrative anticipates how people form diverse
backgrounds and ethnic backgrounds respond positively to the Gospel, a notion that reaches its
climax in the commission to all the nations (28:19). Jesus is exalted above all nations which
explains the universal scope of the mission entrusted to his disciples.6
Mark
Author
The Gospel text doesn’t identify the author by name. Like other biblical authors, self-
identification wasn’t important. He must have been well known for his readers.7 However, in the
1
Ibid., 34, 35.
2
Ibid., 37.
3
Ibid., 39-42.
4
Ibid., 43.
5
Ibid., 44-46.
6
Ibid., 46, 47.
7
Guelish also states that anonymity (the fact that Mark doesn’t explicitly identify himself) in the Gospels could
reinforces the idea that the “gospel” was an entity in itself and not derived from one author; Robert A. Guelich,
Mark 1–8:26, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, Word Biblical Commentary, vol.
34A (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), xxv, xxvi. Strauss states a similar reasoning; Mark Strauss, Mark, ed.
Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 28,
33.
8
manuscripts that we have available, the appended (added later) title with his name appears at the
beginning, the end, or both places in the documents. Mark was a very common name at the time,
however, not an illustrious one in the church. Since it’s not a name someone would choose to
name an anonymous text, it’s reasonable to believe that Mark was indeed the author. The Mark
described in Acts and in Pauls epistles is the most suitable candidate.1 However, not all are
convinced that this is the case due to “the Gentile orientation of the Gospel, the supposed
mistakes and/or unconcern about Jewish laws and customs, and the supposed errors about
Palestinian geography”.2 The fact is that Jesus relates quite positively to Jews and Gentiles, so
the first reason doesn’t carry much weight. The second reason can also be explained by
comparison to Jewish expressions and evidence from archeology, as well as an understanding of
Mark’s audience: mainly gentile (so he adapts Jewish time references, or simply uses the two
methods implicit in the Torah [evening-evening; morning-morning]). At the same time, his
rendition of the Law (similar to Paul’s) fits well into the mindset of a Jewish Christian.3 As to
geography, though the existence of problematic texts can’t be denied (e.g. 7:31), the could be
explained by a “sort of theological geography [that] was common in antiquity”.4
Although Papias refers to Mark as Peter’s interpreter and author of this Gospel, Marcus
opines that it’s not conclusive evidence.5 It could be that the apologetical tone of Papias sheds
doubt on his veracity; or that Peter isn’t as prominent as one would like in a Gospel that was
drawn from his testimony; or that there’s evidence of other “traditions” in the narrative when
Peter was absent. All these factor aren’t conclusive on either side, so Marcus prefers to remain
agnostic as to which Mark wrote the Gospel.6 Guelich concurs with the reservations presented by
other scholars, but however states: “Therefore, while Papias may accurately identify the author
as Mark, his description of Mark’s source and content is oversimplified at best”.7 Overall,
Guelich and Strauss seem comfortable with identifying Mark as the John Mark of the NT.8
The setting
Arguments in favor of a community to which Mark wrote are similar to the ones used in
other Gospels. Namely, that one can infer certain characteristics of this group in phrases and
expression in the text that are particular to it. Marcus considers Bauckham’s defense of an
“encyclical” Gospels that could have circulated somewhat freely amongst the churches not
convincing,9 so he interprets the internal evidence in the text from a community as the
1
Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 17, 18.
2
Ibid., 19.
3
Guelich writes: “the evangelist was indeed well aware of Jewish customs but writing for, at least in part, a non-
Jewish audience”; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxviii.
4
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 21; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxviii. Strauss finds that these errors are decisive; Strauss, Mark,
30.
5
However, Strauss quotes other second century AD sources and finds that “their unanimity is impressive” and that
“no competing claims to authorship are found in the early church”; Ibid., 29, 30.
6
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 21-24.
7
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxvii.
8
Ibid., xxviii, xxix; Strauss, Mark, 32.
9
There’s evidence of other works in the “ancient Jewish-Christian sphere” that were intended to communities of
which the author was part (Epistle of Aristeas, Joseph and Aseneth, of the sectarian scrolls in Qumran). Certain
9
addressees. This would have been a potentially or an effectively persecuted community (cf.
chaps. 4, 10 and 13).1
The place of composition is traditionally thought to be Rome due to the link with Peter
(probably martyred in that city).2 Marcus also links the historical situation portrayed in Mark 13
that is though to be a “prophecy” (vaticinium ex eventu) of the Christian experience of
persecution in the Roman context (under Nero), both in the city and the empire. However,
Marcus point out that persecution is not exclusive of Rome, but it’s clearly attested in other
regions and by other local rulers prior to the Nerorian persecution (Acts 8 and 9; 12:1-5;
18:12-17, et al.).3 So could it reflect a Syrian location for its composition, in the context of the
first Jewish War (AD 66-73)? For some, its seems that the events described in Mark 13 fit with
this war that had the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 as its final event. However, the lack of
evidence for the persecution of Christians is the weak link in this proposal. It can only be read
back from what seems to have happened during the second Jewish wars, due to their negative
stance with regards to messianic claims.4 What affected Judea spilled over to Syria and would
justify the persecution theme. All in all, though Marcus chooses this theory, it’s just that.5
Guelich’s solution is elegant: since an “intrusive narrator” tells the story, he can be “in the
wilderness, by the sea, in a private home, in Herod’s palace, in the synagogue or Temple, on a
mountain, in a boat, in Galilee, in the area of Tyre and Sidon, in Caesarea Philippi, in the
Decapolis, in Bethany, and in Jerusalem”.6
Date
Marcus tries to date the Gospel as close as possible to the destruction of Jerusalem. The
capacity of Jesus to predict the destruction is seen only a “probability”. He ventures a date that
goes from AD 69-75.7 On the same premise, that the evangelist could foresee the doom of
Jerusalem and the Temple, Guelich sets a date between AD 67-70.8 Evans also places the
cryptic passages, like the abrupt ending in 16:8, as well as the omission of Alexander and Rufus on the other
Synoptics lead Marcus to favor an address to a community. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 25-28; Strauss, Mark, 30.
1
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 29. Strauss states: “Mark’s gospel was almost certainly written to a suffering and persecuted
church”; Strauss, Mark, 20. He also finds Bauckham’s ideas “probably overstated” and thinks that there’s “good
reason to suppose that, at least initially, Mark had a specific audience in mind”; Ibid., 33.
2
Strauss points out how the patristic testimony agrees with the NT evidence of Mark being in Rome in association
with both Paul and Peter (Col 4:10; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Pet 5:13). He believes that this traditional identification
is still the most satisfactory; Ibid., 33, 34, 37.
3
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 32, 33. Also, his use of latinisms (e.g. 12:45; 15:16), but apart from that, “Mark’s Gospel itself
offers no concrete basis for determining location”; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxx.
4
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 33, 34. See also Strauss, Mark, 35-37.
5
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 36, 37. Strauss thinks that “Whether or not Mark wrote from Rome, there seems no reason to
doubt that Jesus predicted both the empire-wide persecution of his followers and coming judgement against
Jerusalem”; Strauss, Mark, 35.
6
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxx.
7
8
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxxi, xxxii.
10
composition during the first Jewish war but before AD 70.1 Strauss chooses a date in the late AD
60’s.2
Relation to the Synoptics (or sources)

Marcus defends the two-source (Mark and Q) hypothesis, since it better explains the
literary elements in Matthew and Luke.3 It’s easier that they expanded and enriched Mark’s text
than to think Mark left out valuable narrative and discourse material.4 Marcus dedicates several
pages to different hypothesis about other alternatives or nuances to the two-source option.5 His
conclusion, however, is that Mark didn’t use other sources such as the synoptics nor did he use
Q.6 Apparently, Strauss opts for the two-source hypothesis (Markan priority) while only stating a
possible use of Q by Matthew and Luke, and he is uncertain about Mark’s use of sources.7
Marcus would argue that Mark had access to pre-Markan narratives that elaborated
different themes (passion, parables, controversies).8 With regard to miracles, he compares Marks
“sources” with similar texts of gods or heroes (e.g. Asclepius). His point is that “besides the
passion narrative, the eschatological discourse, a parable collection, one or two controversy story
collections, and some miracle cycles, other types of joined sources may also have been
incorporated into Mark’s Gospel” (maybe in oral form). Mark would have shaped inherited
traditions handed down from the Church, but “elaborated them creatively to addressed the
situation of his own time and place”.9 This would place him in a middle ground between
“creative theologian” and “conservative redactor”.10
1
Though he doesn’t dismiss an early (40’s) date proposed by Wenham; Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, eds.
Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 34B (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001), lxiii.
2
Strauss, Mark, 37-39.
3
Evans develops seven reason why he adopts the two-source theory as the best match for his commentary; see
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, xlix-lviii.
4
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 40-45; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxxiii.
5
A possible proto or deutero Mark, even a secret Mark; also, Did Mark use Q? Honestly, these discussions are
sterile; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 45-53. We have omitted the possible links to John of the gospel of Thomas due to the
speculative nature of the discussion (pp. 53-56). Evans dedicates a section in his introduction to refute the idea that
the synoptics depended on independent and prior non-canonical gospels; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, xxxi-xliii.
6
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 57; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxxiv.
7
Strauss, Mark, 25, 26.
8
Guelich briefly mentions how form criticism led scholars in this direction, and how, eventually, after redaction
criticism, literary criticism is allowing to view the Gospel as a whole literary product of the evangelist; Guelich,
Mark 1–8:26, xxii, xxiii. That doesn’t mean he believes Mark didn’t use sources (that may have existed as oral
traditions), rather that he was more than just a collector of traditions and that was capable of producing a distinctive
literary work; Ibid., xxxiii, xxxiv. See also the similar assessment made by Strauss. Of all the literary criticisms
available, he thinks that Narrative criticism is the most significant; Strauss, Mark, 22-25.
9
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 59.
10
Ibid., 62.
11
Structure or outline
Some have said that Mark is a passion narrative with an extended introduction,1 which is
true but can’t seem to grasp the amount of structural plans proposed by scholars. Strauss
observes that most structures are either theological or geographical in nature. He argues for a
christological (theological) structure, where the authority of the Messiah and his suffering
renders a two-part gospel, where the turning point is Peter’s confession.2 However, a
geographical distribution in the narrative can be argued (chaps. 1-10 outside of Jerusalem; chaps.
11-16 occur in the city).3 Although there is a central portion of the Gospel that render the three
passion predictions (8:22-10:52). Other features like a prologue (1:1-15) and epilogue (16:1-8),
as well as possible subdivisions within the two major blocks are also possible.4 Guelich identifies
three subsections in both halves of the Gospel.5 Another broad two division for the Gospel is
proposed by Strauss that stresses that the first half presents the “mighty Messiah and Son of God
(1:1-8:30)” and the second half that “develops the theme of his suffering role (8:31-16:8)”.6
When viewed as a narrative, Guelich identifies distinct literary features:7 (1) Point of
view: in Mark, it’s that of the “omniscient” narrator. He can reflect sets of values (what’s right or
wrong) as he takes Jesus’ side to weigh the other characters. In fact, through citation to the OT,
Jesus’ vies is the same as God’s. So, the narrator makes us decide between two opposing views:
Jesus’ (God’s) or humanity’s (cf. Mar 8:33). (2) The plot: which is given in 1:1, “Jesus’ effective
proclamation through his words and actions of the ‘gospel’ or ‘good news’ from God”. However,
for this plot to pan out, conflict arises, as well as a keener understanding of Jesus’ identity, that
he is “Messiah, Son of God” (1:1, 11; 3:11, 12; 5:7; 9:7; 14:16, 62; 15:39).
Genre
Is Mark a biography of Jesus? Strauss acknowledges the difficulty when he writes: “First,
no single genre fits the Gospels well in terms of nature, purpose, or structure. Second, these
genres themselves cannot be so strictly defined; individual works within a particular category
exhibit significant variation among themselves”.8 With time, the idea that the Gospels and
Hellenist biographies have seem to find middle ground. However, it’s still difficult to say its a
biography, since Mark employs expressions that are common to narrative in the OT.9 Even his
1
Or “an apology for the cross”, as Strauss quotes Gundry; Strauss, Mark, 41.
2
Ibid., 44.
3
Guelich agrees on this geographical structuring, and also points to the fact that a specific time span is not
identified. A single Passover leaves the impression that the events occurred in one year; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxv.
Strauss states that a “geographical outline conflicts at various points with Mark’s two-stage christological
presentation”. He gives some examples of that clash, as well as some instances where the geographical markers are
incongruent; Strauss, Mark, 44, 45.
4
5
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxxvi.
6
Strauss, Mark, 18.
7
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxiii-xxv. Strauss mentions “point of view, narrators, plot, characters, and setting”; Strauss,
Mark, 24.
8
Ibid., 26.
9
Evans also sees similarities to OT pericopes concerning relevant biblical characters; see Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20,
12
fist word, Ἀρχὴ, “is more often used to begin a historical narrative than a biography”. It would
focus more in Jesus as the climax of redemptive history and, as such, as giving beginning a
movement.1 Another reason for why a biography is not entirely suitable, is the fact that Jesus’
story hasn't ended, it’s not finished.2 The fact is that Mark uses the word εὐαγγέλιον, but this
would be a liturgic proclamation within the Church (according to Marcus),3 which has led some
to believe that Mark might have started out in the form of lectionaries, or as a whole server a
liturgical role in Mark’s community.4 But one again, Where is the evidence? Marcus, at the end
in inconclusive about the genre.
Taking a clearer stance is Guelich, which recognizes in the opening words of Mark a
distinctive literary genre: the gospel. Since he follows Markan priority, he asserts that Marks
served as a pattern for Matthew and Luke and “contributed to the eventual use of ‘gospel’ as a
literally designation in the early Church”.5 He also recognizes the other several attempts to
identify an appropriate genre. As all four gospel follow a linear chronology of Jesus’ ministry
and life, they are biographical, but that in itself is not a genre (for they may come in diverse
genres themselves). At the same time, other latter writings were also called gospels, but were not
biographical, but mostly a collection of sayings. The fact that the inscription or subscription
would be “The Gospel according...” implies that there were more literary works that were similar
and thus conformed to a certain genre identified by the Church. This happened even though
Matthew refers to his writing as a book and Luke to his as a narrative. The fact that Mark sees
this Gospel as a fulfillment of OT prophecies (e.g. Isa 52:7; 61:1), point to the fact that the good
news (gospel) was about the promised Messsiah and so, the “eschatological deliverance,
salvation, expressed in the person and ministry of Jesus”. However, this link to Isaiah is also
present in the early sermons in Acts, so Mark is writing within a frame already recognized by the
church. The distinct message was “the good news about God’s salvation in and through Jesus’
ministry according to the Scriptures”, so Mark and similar writings that presented this message
were identified as Gospels.6 This emphases on message even gave room for gnostic writings that
only contained sayings to be called gospels. So the literary form was secondary to the content or
message of the text (so Evans). Even so, they would belong in the broad category of “hellenistic
biography” (Evans and Strauss would also agree), but materially they are “sui genera”,7 or a
“literary novum”.8
lxv.
1
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 65. Some how related, Evans sees some merit in “Collins’s suggestion that Mark is a blend of
historical writing and apocalyptic”; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, lxv.
2
3
Strauss believes that “there is a great deal in Mark’s gospel that implies an ‘insiders’s’ view and familiarity with the
story of Jesus”; Strauss, Mark, 42.
4
5
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xix.
6
Strauss would agree that the message, the content of the Gospels superseded but aren’t disconnected to existing
genres; Strauss, Mark, 27, 28.
7
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxi. Strauss thinks that to treat the gospels as sui generis (without literary precedent) is an
inappropriate extreme; Strauss, Mark, 26.
8
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, lxv.
13
Style
“Mark writes with a fast-moving, dramatic style”.1 The use of the adverb εὐθὺς
“immediately” is used 41 times and establishes a rapid pace. He also uses the historical present
tense (x151) to describe past actions; though “characteristic of a less-refined Greek style, it also
gives the narrative a vivid style, like a on-the-spot report”.2 He has retained several Aramaic
words and phrases and he writes with a Semitic style through parataxis (coordinate clauses
connected by καὶ). Mark tends to expand the details in his narrative, as well as the use of
repetition and dual expressions (cf. 1:32, 35; 2:20; 4:35; 10:30; 13:29).3 He also uses
intercalation, where episodes are “sandwiched” or “bookended” with other accounts that are
somehow related or mutually interpreted. One final pattern is the presentation of events in triads,
or groups of three.4
Mark and Christian thought

With regard to Mark’s eschatology, he’s compared to other Jewish apocalyptic writings
that saw the OT prophecies being fulfilled in their own day. Also, due to the fact that the Gospel
message points to the end of the world and the establishment of Christ’s dominion: the salvation
he brings is already present during his ministry and will unfold during that last generation.5
In Marks apocalypticism salvation is the liberation of humanity of a cosmic power that
oppresses it (helpless). That’s why after his baptism, Jesus goes to the desert to struggle with
Satan, and later Exrcism are highlighted and signaled as apostolic authority. This conflict with
demonic power ends at the Cross. The Jewish leaders wanted to destroy (ἀπόλλυµι) Jesus, which
is what the demons feared that Jesus would do to them (1:24; 3:6; 11:18). The cosmic element is
present at that occasion in the darkness that covered ὅλην τὴν γῆν, “the whole land” (15:33). In
his loud cry, he defeated Satan. Marcus states that this apocalypticism came form Jesus, Paul and
other first generation Christians; Mark received this notion when he followed them.6 Can’t it be
that those were simply the proper teachings of Jesus?
The influence of Paul on Mark would be obvious if one takes the NT testimony at face
value. But since Marcus is agnostic on this aspect he can simply state that there are similarities
between their theologies. They both emphasize the notion of Gospel and that of the Cross as a
turning point (as well as the resurrection). Jesus’ power over Satan and his care for sinners are
also a main theme in both, as well as their view on the Law. Although Marcus points to Werner’s
monograph as allegedly “conclusive” against Paul’s influence, he insists that we cant brush away
the idea of Pauline influence. The dissimilar contexts can simply account for the differences (e.g.
“being in Christ”). Thus, Marcus can say that “the theology of the cross, then, including the role
1
Strauss, Mark, 46.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid., 47.
4
Ibid., 48.
5
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 71, 72.
6
Ibid., 72, 73.
14
of evil cosmic powers in Jesus’ death, is a similarity between Mark and Paul, and there are many
others”.1
The main difference between Mark and Paul is the importance they give (or not) to Jesus’
earthly career. Some even see Mark’s purpose as a historic grounding line for Paul’s kerygma as
a means to respond to a docetist threat in some Pauline communities. If this was the case, Mark
is influenced by Paul.2 Others see that influence or dependence in a reading of the Gospel that
continues Paul’s agenda against a “Law-observant Jerusalem Christian community”, a
continuation of Paul’s battles, so to speak. Marcus calls this idea that Mark is responding to
distortions regarding Jesus and his teaching is called “corrective Christology”.3 He finds that the
evidence to support this reading of the Gospel is anachronistic or it exaggerates some aspects
while diminishing others. That said, one can’t negate that Jesus is corrective toward certain ideas
and attitudes of his disciples and of what could happen with the Christian community in the
future (e.g. chap. 13, or the attitudes of Peter), but not in the “radical sense” presented by some
authors. According to Marcus, Mark corrects wavering faith due to a present state of tribulation
with “the massive change that Jesus’ death and resurrection have brought about”; recalling “his
audience to Christological memory—in other words, to faith”.4
The theology and purpose of Mark

Some see an eschatological approach to the book’s message. However, the authors
mentioned by Guelich have a clear tendency to place that eschatology in the framework of AD
70, and to argue between Jerusalem or Galilee as the place where the Kingdom might be
fulfilled. The “community” understands that its vindication is in the near future. For another, the
kingdom is inaugurated by Jesus’ ministry, but remains “hidden” although God works in the
community.5 (As a personal impression, they’re quite esoteric descriptions or readings.)
From an Christological point of view, the basic idea of the “messianic secret” (Wrede6)
has remained almost unchanged; although there’s been a shift form messiah to divine sonship as
the issue of secrecy.7 Bultmann’s introduced a notion of a mythical background; and others
propose that the narrative of the book is structured by the hymn in Phil 2:6-11. As we have
already seen, another christological reading is that of correcting influences from gnosticism that
would’ve rendered Jesus as a “divine-man”, something that isn’t obvious in the text but must be
1
Ibid., 75.
2
Cf. Strauss, Mark, 40.
3
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 75, 76. Evans also doesn’t agree with this idea, where gnosticism is seen as what needed to be
corrected. He affirms that Mark was “attempting to convince Christians in a Roman society that Jesus, rejected by
the religious authorities of Jerusalem and executed by Pilate, was nevertheless Israel’s Messiah and the world’s
Savior”; see Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, lxvi.
4
5
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxxviii, xxxix.
6
Allegedly, Jesus didn’t understand himself to be the Messiah, but his followers thought he was after his
resurrection. Others have elaborated different nuances to this idea. See a very brief overview in Witte, Brendon R.
“Messianic Secret”, Eds. John D. Barry, et al. The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press,
2016).
7
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, lxxi. However, “Wrede’s perspective of the gospel as an essentially theological rather
than historical work has had a profound impact on scholarship ever since”; Strauss, Mark, 22.
15
read in from other traditions.1 Some have moved away from the “secret” and have affirmed that
Mark focuses on “Messiah Son of God” which is always a known issue for Jesus;2 the rest can
come to that understanding when they are able to think “the thoughts of God” (8:33).3 According
to Evans, the “most important testimony to Jesus’ divine sonship comes from God”4 at his
baptism and transfiguration. In this sense, Christology must be considered primary to Mark’s
theological purpose. He presents a suffering Messiah that dies as a ransom for sin as was God’s
plan all along.5 Regarding the expression “son of man”, Evans, although acknowledging that it
could have Messianic overtones in the way Jesus used it, and that the Danielic background is
plausible, he’s not prepared to affirm that it was a common or developed Messianic title in the
first century AD.6
Another understanding to this gospel is discipleship, given the prominence of the
disciples in the book’s structure. Naturally for some, the “community” is reflected in the
disciples which need to understand what it is to follow Jesus (the way of the cross, 8:27-10:52).
However, Strauss opines that it’s not the disciples who model true discipleship since their role is
ambiguious and ambivalent7, but Jesus himself, since he “alone remains faithful to God’s
purpose”.8
Evans mentions an “anti-temple motif” in the second half of the Gospel. The temple is
where those who seek Jesus death face him, and it’s the same place where Jesus speaks about his
the wrongs in the established religious leadership. He guides his argument to the point in which
the veil of the temple is torn: “But Jesus appears to get in the last word, for at the moment of his
death the ‘veil of the temple was torn in two’ (15:38). For Mark this probably signifies the first
step in the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction and the removal of the
ruling priests”.9
Purpose
All in all, these three (eschatology, christology and discipleship) must be understood
together in order to grasp the whole Gospel.10 The starting point has to be 1:1, “he beginning of
the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. This is what the text is: the Gospel. In it, Guelich
argues that Mark intends to present a correct understanding of what the kingdom is in order to
1
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, lxxii.
2
Strauss wold seem to balance these two: “Everything Jesus says and does in the first half of the gospel confirms the
author’s initial claim: Jesus is indeed the mighty Messiah and Son of God (1:1)...Yet he is also secretive and
circumspect about his identity”; Strauss, Mark, 18.
3
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xxxix-xl.
4
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, lxxix.
5
Strauss, Mark, 41.
6
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, lxxiii-lxxviii.
7
See the several examples in Strauss, Mark, 42, 43.
8
Ibid., 42.
9
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, lxxix.
10
As a matter of fact, Strauss’ opening words already highlight these three ideas; Strauss, Mark, 17. He also writes,
“Mark likely had a variety of purposes in writing, and it is more profitable to seek his general theological goals
rather than a single or specific occasion or crisis in the church”; Ibid., 41.
16
address fear and confusion in the “community”. This was necessary, in order to also preserve
Jesus’ identity as Messiah. This message concerning Jesus and kingdom would trickle down into
a “discipleship paraenesis”; there is a “cost” for the disciple: a right thinking, faith and living.
This would be the pastoral aim of the Gospel.1
Evans argues that the purpose of this Gospel can only be appreciated by knowing the
“political and social reality of the first-century Greco-Roman world”. He proposes to use the
crucifixion and how it was understood to work our way “back to the beginning, looking for
material that is consistent with this ending”. This would be the template to approach the purpose
of the Gospel, since the words of the centurion are so similar to Marks opening statement (1:1;
15:39).2 Since “Son of God” was a title given to the emperor,3 Jesus would be a “rival” to Caesar,
a theme that is played out in several components in the gospel: (1) the good news about his
victories of his reign, (2) prophecies concerning his accession or his death, (3) the triumph as
reaffirmation of divine status, (4) hailing in divine terms, (5) confession os Caesar as lord, (6)
capacity to heal, (7) seated at the right hand of God, (8) libations in their honor in what would be
similar to the Lords Supper, (9) the parousia as a promise of a new order, and (10) a post-mortem
deification.4 Some of these Evans identifies in the Gospel, in other NT texts, or in both. In this
way, Mark would’ve wanted to show that “Jesus was indeed the Son of God, humanity’s true
Savior and Lord. Mark’s purpose is to narrate the story of Jesus in such a way that such a
confession will appear compelling and plausible to Jews and Romans alike”. Mark would be
inviting his readers to embrace the rule of Jesus.5 In a somewhat related manner, Strauss speaks
of the conquest of Jesus over “humanities ultimate enemies: Satan, sin, and death”, a theme
which “the rest of the gospel plays out”.6
Commentary on the text
Matthew 5-7; 13, 14; 23-28

Matthew 5-7
The Sermon on the Mount occurs at a time when Jesus’ preaching in Galilee is already
attracting large crowds (4:23-25), and so the evangelist now turns to his “authoritative
1
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, xl-xliii.
2
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, lxxxi, lxxxii.
3
The imperial cult has more affinities (points of comparison) than those of epic heroes. Ibid., xciii.
4
Ibid., lxxxiii-xciii.
5
Ibid., xciii.
6
Strauss, Mark, 19.
17
teaching”,1 it’s “the first extensive proclamation of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew”.2 France sees
a clear focus on “the narrower circle of his committed disciples”, so he calls this section a
“Discourse on Discipleship” rather than a “general code of ethics”, since the “discourse is indeed
intended as a guide to life, but only for those who are committed to the kingdom of heaven, and
even they will always find that its reach exceeds their grasp”.3 Turner also believes that the ethics
of this Sermon is “for followers of Jesus”.4
A basic outline of this discourse (chaps. 5 and 6) could be:5
5:3-16 The distinctiveness of disciples
5:17-48 Fulfilling the law
6:1-18 Piety, true and false
6:19-34 The priority of trust in God over material security
Turner sees an inclusio that spans 5:17 and 7:12 (“law and the prophets”), which would
make up the “body” of the Sermon:6
5:1-2 Introductory narrative framework
5:3-16 Introduction to the sermon (beatitudes - divinely approved lifestyle; manifestation
of those values as salt and light).
5:17-7:12 Body of the Sermon (Jesus’ relation to the law by means of six contrasts
[5:17-48]; hypocritical v/s genuine religious practice [6:1-18]; materialism and
anxiety [6:19-34]; spiritual discernment and prayer [7:1-11]).
7:13-27 Conclusion to the sermon (three contrasts - ways, fruits, foundations).
7:28, 29 Concluding narrative framework
Luz proposes a “ring-shaped” inclusion centered on the
Lord’s Prayer (6:9-13). He explains this structure: “The kingdom of
heaven promised for the future stands over the entire Sermon on the
Mount. The true meaning of “law and prophets” revealed by Jesus
is the leitmotif of the main section. The Lord’s Prayer is its central
text. Thus the Sermon on the Mount takes its readers along a way
that leads them from God’s radical demands into the “interior” of
1
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 153. Turner calls it “the representative ethical teaching of Jesus”; Turner, Matthew,
142.
2
Luz, Matthew 1–7, 176, 183.
3
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 153, 154. Luz highlights how the reformers bias regarding “law” emphasized the
“impossibility of fulfilling the Sermon on the Mount”, which led to not “insisting that Sermon on the Mount be
practiced but to its internalization”. Also, its focus was the individual Christian so it remained “without consequence
for the shape of the Church”; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 179-181.
4
Turner, Matthew, 144.
5
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 155. He finds that the structure of 7:1-12 is “less clearly coherent”.
6
18
faith where they experience the Father’s nearness in prayer. Then it leads them back into the
praxis of renouncing possessions and of love”.1
5:1-16
The beatitudes have the disciples as the main audience. The crowds mentioned are the
reason why Jesus “went up the mountain”, occasion in which “his disciples came to him” (5:1,
ESV). However, the final word in 7:28, 29 would indicate that the crowds did participate in his
teaching.2
Although the beatitude form occurs “in both pagan and Judeo-Christian literature”, there
is no close parallel to what Matthew has done in this passage.3 In Jewish contexts they belonged
in wisdom literature but slowly were introduced into apocalyptic as they connected the persons
deeds with what would result in the eschaton.4 Already in the OT, there are Psms that present this
theme, as well as the know passage of Isa 61:1-3 that Jesus applies to his own ministry.
Matthew has eight statements in which “the first and last of the group both have the same
second clause, ‘for it is to them that the kingdom of heaven belongs’, thus forming a framework
which sets the tone for the promises which come between”.5 In Matthew, “all [beatitudes] but the
first and last are expressed as promises for the future”. But, how the kingdom has already
arrived, “the advantages of being God’s people can then be expected to accrue already in this
life, even though the full consummation of their blessedness remains for the future”.6
The first beatitude (v. 3) concerns “authentic spirituality”, writes Turner.7 In the Psms, the
poor/meek, though can be materially poor, are above all Gods faithful people that depend on his
protection and have a correct relationship with God; they have a “positive spiritual orientation”.8
The same kind of attitude can be found in the third beatitude with the meek (v. 5), “those whose
attitude is not arrogant and oppressive”,9 or that have even “bent over by the injustice of the
ungodly”.10 Fit between these two beatitudes are those who mourn (v. 4), possibly due to the
reasons described in vv. 3 and 5 due to “their allegiance to the kingdom”.11 They might also
mourn due to their sins or those of others, and idea that fits Matthews teaching about repentance
1
Luz, Matthew 1–7, 172, 173.
2
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 156; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 182; Turner, Matthew, 149.
3
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 159. Although he does mention two passages in Sirach that are the somehow
resemble Matthew.
4
Luz however links Matthews beatitudes with wisdom in a parenesis Sitz im Leben; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 187, 188;
5
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 161; Turner, Matthew, 150.
6
7
8
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 165. Luz also suggests this metaphorical understanding and writes that is refers to
“the ethical attitude of humility”, a sense that was thus understood by the ancient church. With time it even
interpreted the monastic ideal of voluntary material poverty; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 192, 193.
9
10
Turner, quoting Hagner; Turner, Matthew, 151.
11
Ibid., 150.
19
(3:2; 4:17).1 Which ever the case, there will be a reversal of fortunes for them.2 The fourth
beatitude follows a natural progression, since the ones that “hunger and thirst for righteousness”
(v. 6) expect God’s intervention and vindication, i.e. “his exercise of ‘justice’ in the world,
especially as his intervention on their behalf, or as his saving gift of ‘justification’ in the Pauline
sense”.3 However, Luz favors Δικαιοσύνη as a human attitude/action, in the line of the catholic
interpretation.4
The fifth beatitude (v. 7) follows the principle of reciprocity, which will appear in 7:2 and
7:12. Mercy also occurs in other Matthean passages (9:13; 12:7), since its part of the “heavier
things of the law” (23:23).5 The idea of mercy (as complementary to justice) is appropriate as the
first of the second set of beatitudes (v. 7-10) that “describe the pattern of divine approval in
relating to people”.6 The “pure in heart” (v. 8) have an internal integrity that shows,7 just like
mercy ought to do so. The “heart” is the center of human “wanting, thinking and feeling”8, so the
pure in heart (cf. Ps 24) yearn a clear vision of God and so live their lives, like in his presence.9
The next beatitude follows a similar idea, in that peacemakers (v. 9) go “beyond a merely
peaceful disposition to an active attempt to ‘make’ peace”.10 The fact that they will be called sons
of God reflects the fact that they share the same character and authentic members of God’s
family. Longing for righteousness, already present in v. 6, can cause persecution. However, only
righteous acts (cf. v. 16, “good works”) can be identified and persecuted,11 and as such, they must
occur in a social context and not in a hermit type of isolation.12 “This beatitude is expanded in
Matt. 5:11–12, where persecution for righteousness is explained as persecution because of the
disciples’ affiliation with Jesus”.13 However, the life example of the disciples amidst/during
persecution will have an impact on the whole community.14 In this sense, vv. 11, 12 naturally
connect with vv. 13-1615 with their call to distinctiveness and to positively affect the community
1
Ibid.; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 194.
2
3
Ibid., 167. Though Turner states that the forensic sense is not a Matthean nuance, but he agrees that only God can
achieve full and proper justice; Turner, Matthew, 151.
4
Luz, Matthew 1–7, 195. Where “‘hungering and thirsting’ describes not those who have reached the goal of
righteousness but those who are on the way toward it and who are making an effort to achieve it” (p. 196).
5
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 168; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 196.
6
7
Ibid.
8
9
cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 168, 169.
10
Luz, Matthew 1–7, 198; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 169; Turner, Matthew, 152, 153. Mostly in the context of
interpersonal relations. After 1945 this text started to have a political dimension.
11
12
13
Turner, Matthew, 153. France also considers these texts as a “repetition and expansion of v. 10” and “outside the
tightly-structured unit of eight beatitudes”; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 171.
14
Turner, Matthew, 154-156.
15
Luz asserts that “this section is linked to vv. 11-12 with the emphatic ‘you’ (ὑµεῖς). Thus again the subject is
especially the disciples”. But he also writes that “it is the entire community that is addressed here, not merely the
20
being true to their identity (“raison d’être”).1 “As salt, Jesus’s disciples must engage the world,
but as light, they must never allow their engagement to lead to the compromise of kingdom
values and their assimilation to the world. Jesus perfectly and harmoniously models both
images”.2
5:17-48
Although this section is subdivided to order its contents, “it is important to recognize its
coherence as a concentrated section of teaching on a single theme, the fulfillment of the law”.3
France proposes:
5:17-20 Fulfilling the law: general principles
5:21-47 Fulfilling the law: six examples
5:48 Fulfilling the law: summary (to be reinforced later by a further summary of the
law and the prophets in 7:12)4.
Luz explains how v. 20 and its expression λέγω ὑµῖν, with serve as a link to vv. 22, 28,
32, 34, 39 and 44. However, v. 20 is still connected to v. 19 by means of the conjunction γὰρ,
although he recognizes that these grammatical and syntactical links are weak and a “logical
relationship of the logia [vv. 17-20] to one another” can only be made once they are interpreted.5
Turner proposes that these initial verses establish Jesus’ general relationship the the law.
He proposes an analysis that clarifies the basic idea that Jesus hasn’t come to abolish the law, but
to fulfill a still valid law even in its smallest part; one that relates to our spiritual status, one that
must be greater than that of the religious leaders in oder to enter the kingdom.6
With regard to the Law, France sees a tension between these initial declarations and what
Jesus himself says afterward (in the Sermon of the Mount; cf. 15:11), where he allegedly does
away with the “whole complex of levitical laws”, but he also sees tension within this initial
verses (e.g. vv. 19, 20). In similar fashion, he reckons that it also stands in tension with Paul’s
and Peter’s teaching regarding the several Jewish laws. However, before jumping to conclusions
about a supposed contradiction, he asserts that the key is in the meaning of Jesus fulfilling the
law and the prophets.7 In Matthew, plēroō has the sense of “the coming into being of that to
which Scripture pointed forward (whether by direct prediction or understood typologically)”.8
With this understanding “it will be the authoritative teaching of Jesus which must govern his
disciples’ understanding and practical application of the law”.9 In a similar manner, Luz writes:
apostles or the proclaimers”; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 203, 205.

1
2
3
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 177. Turner proposes a similar outline; Turner, Matthew, 160.
4
Luz agrees that 5:17 and 7:12 form and inclusion; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 210.
5
Ibid., 211.
6
7
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 180, 181.
8
Ibid., 182. Though Luz wouldn’t agree with a prophetic or salvation-history perspective; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 213,
214.
9
21
“What this verse thus means is that Jesus ‘fulfills’ the instructions or directions of the law and
prophets”. He also understands that it could mean that Jesus would (1) in teaching, emphasize its
true meaning, add or complement it; or (2) in his activity, of his obedience that fulfill the
requirements of the law, or that in his death and resurrection he brought the law to its goal.1
Turner states: “Jesus is the end or goal of the law, and therefore he is its ultimate, definitive
interpreter. He alone is the authoritative eschatological teacher of the law and the prophets. The
life and teaching of Jesus fulfill the law just as NT events fulfill biblical predictions and patterns.
On the one hand, Jesus does not contradict the law, but on the other hand, he does not preserve it
unchanged”.2 Independent of the different nuances, these verses establish that law and Jesus
aren’t contradictory and that Jesus intends to validate it in his ministry and project it even to the
future (vv. 18, 19). The righteousness that will find its place in the kingdom is one that is in
agreement with the law, and however, goes beyond a “literal observation of rules” and embraces
Christ as the standard for the ethics in the kingdom (v. 20). This higher righteousness will be
developed in the six examples of vv. 21-47.3
The examples as presented in two sets of three, and follow a basic structure: (1)
traditional teaching, (2) Jesus’ teaching, and (3) a concrete application for that teaching.4
Although varied in topic, they “illustrate the concept of a righteousness which goes beyond the
legal correctness of the scribes and Pharisees”.5 The expression “it was said” could point to “the
Mosaic law, as it would be heard in the synagogues”, since they contain “a supplementary clause
which the pentateuch passage does not contain”.6 “In other words the dialog partner is not the OT
law as such but the OT law as currently (and sometimes misleadingly) understood and applied”,7
and thus Jesus is not contradicting OT divine law. If this is the case, then it’s not correct to call
these examples as antithesis, since that term implies a contradiction.8 At the end, the somewhat
different views on this matter can arrive at an exegetical solution in the fact that love (vv. 43, 44;
cf. 22:40) is the hermeneutic key for each of the examples/antithesis.9 It is this final example
1
Luz, Matthew 1–7, 214, 215.
2
3
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 189, 190; Turner, Matthew, 163, 164.
4
5
6
Ibid., 195.
7
France also summarizes: “While the first two are straightforward quotations of two of the ten commandments (in
the first case supplemented by an additional pentateuchal principle), the third is significantly different from the text
of Deut 24:1 and is angled in a different direction from the Deuteronomy text, the fourth merely summarizes
pentateuchal guidelines on oaths and vows, the fifth quotes the text exactly but the discussion suggests that it was
being quoted for a purpose other than that of the original in context, and the non-pentateuchal addition to the sixth
places a negative “spin” on the commandment of Lev 19:18 which that passage in no way supports”; Ibid., 195, 196.
See also Turner, Matthew, 166, 167.
8
Turner writes: “If Jesus had intended to teach antithetically to the law and the prophets, he would have come to
abolish the law and the prophets”; Ibid., 165, 166. Luz prefers to consider them as antithesis and, after some
analysis, he writes: “Thus the antithesis formulas pit Jesus’ word against that of the Bible itself”. He sees Jesus’
words as an expression of his authority, since the antithesis don’t interpret the Bible, “they extend and surpass it”;
Luz, Matthew 1–7, 221, 222, 230. With respect to Jesus’ authority, Tuner and France would agree; Turner, Matthew,
166; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 198, 199.
9
22
which reveals the greater righteousness to which this section points to, which is to be perfect in
the representation of God’s character (vv. 45, 48).1
6:1-18
All three consulted commentaries agree with these verses as a clear subdivision in the
text. Luz sees it as an extension of what is meant by “better righteousness”2; Turner sees the
underlying idea of the intentions by which righteous religious duties are performed.3 France
seem to blend both ideas.4
The initial exhortation (v. 1) is illustrated by three contrasts in the form of strophes (vv.
2-4, 5-6, 16-18). The middle one about prayer is extended (the Lord’s Prayer) by “means of what
is in effect a literary digression”, says France.5 Whether it be giving to the needy, praying or
fasting, they should stem from a correct motivation and done in a correct manner (v. 1). The
“secret” nature of these actions mustn’t be seen as a contradiction with 5:16, since a life-style
can’t be hidden, while these religious “duties” can be acted out hypocritically (v. 2, 5, 16)
without true love to serve God.6
Possible connections to the Lord’s Prayer have been made to different Jewish writings,
but it differs “from typical Jewish prayers in its simplicity, brevity, and eschatological
orientation”.7 Luz, however, finds that its characteristics fit well with those of known
contemporary Jewish prayers.8 The prayer is introduced by a brief mention about the right and
wrong way of praying (vv. 7, 8), where gentiles are prototypical of those outside the community
of believers: the latter have come to trust in him as Father.9 “Many words” aren’t necessary when
trust is forefront. The prayer is structured by three “you/r” petitions (vv. 9, 10) and three longer
two-part “we” petitions (vv. 11-13).10 Service and worship to God appear to be the main idea in
1
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 224, 226, 228, 229; Turner, Matthew, 177, 178.
2
Luz, Matthew 1–7, 295, 297, 299.
3
4
5
Ibid., 233. We have already mentioned how Luz considers the Lord’s Prayer as central to the Sermon on the Mount:
“In this way the Lord’s Prayer is the center of the section and thus of the entire Sermon on the Mount”; Luz,
Matthew 1–7, 295. Turner also agrees that Jesus’ teaching on prayer is central to this section and “perhaps” to the
Sermon as a whole; Turner, Matthew, 184.
6
cf. Ibid., 183.
7
Ibid., 186. France and Luz, for example, points out that the three initial clauses are reminiscent of the Aramaic
Qaddish of the synagogue; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 243; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 317. Luz mentions that even in
hellenistic writings one can find the notion of being brief and succinct as an ideal in order to not fatigue the gods
(fatigare Deos). Length of prayer may not be the issue, rather it being understood as a mean to gain divine favor;
Luz, Matthew 1–7, 305, 306.
8
Though certainly speculative, it (1) was Aramaic, (2) it’s short and simple and (3) it’s individual in nature; Ibid.,
324.
9
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 240, 241. The notion of God as Father was an important analogy in the Synagogue
at that time; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 315, 316.
10
Ibid., 309.
23
these clauses, a reality that can be present now (earth) and as an eschatological anticipation.1
This eschatological sense is clearest in v. 10a: “Your kingdom come”.
While the first three petitions where theocentric, vv. 11-13 focus on the disciples’ needs:
daily sustenance, forgiveness and the avoidance of sin.2 The forgiveness was ask is for our debts;
the forgiveness that we give is for the debtors (v. 12; cf. vv. 14, 15); this could mean that personal
relationships must take precedence over the debt itself. Clearly, that is what God does in his
dealings with us.3 The expression “lead us not into temptation” (v. 13) doesn’t mean that that is
what God intends. At the same time, one must understand that πειρασµός can’t be understood
immediately as something bad, since God’s testing of his people is a biblical notion. Jesus would
again invite his disciples to pray for deliverance of πειρασµός (26:41).4 Also, this apparent
“negative” expression is coupled with “but deliver us from evil”; all in all, the idea seems to be
“for the disciple to be delivered from Satan so as not to yield to temptation”.5 The closing
parenetic comment to the prayer (vv. 14, 15) are certainly a challenge, since, in context of an
other Matthean passage (cf. 18:23-35) “there is to be no limit to disciples’ willingness to forgive
those who offend against them”.6 “God’s initiative in graciously forgiving us should motivate us
to forgive others”.7 Thus, prayer and concrete action are linked.8
6:19-7:11
We agree with Luz in his identification of these passages as a unit. They span several
topics, but all deal with communal issues9 that are expected from those who would belong to the
Kingdom of God. In 6:19-34, Turner identifies three types of statements that appear
repetitively10, as well as contrasting categories (earth/heaven, temporal/enduring, etc). In his
opinion, in vv. 19-34 Matthew is addressing “covetous anxiety”.11
The first pericope of this section (vv. 19-24) opens with a prohibition: “Do not lay for
yourselves treasures on earth” (v. 19). The contrasting notion of treasures in heaven (probably
1
Through the expression “on earth as it is in heaven” applied to all three clauses; Turner, Matthew, 187; France, The
Gospel of Matthew, 247.
2
Turner, Matthew, 188. The uncommon adjective ἐπιούσιος regarding bread could point to (whatever the precise
meaning) day-to-day realities. Luz also wrestles with five interpretations and settles for a similar approach; Luz,
Matthew 1–7, 319-321. cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 248.
3
cf. Ibid., 250. Luz references a couple of examples where divine forgiveness is associated with human forgiveness,
while mentioning that the human element can’t be found as a central feature in other prayers; Luz, Matthew 1–7,
322.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Luz’s ides ends here; the rest is my understanding; Ibid., 328. cf. Turner that sees vv. 19-34 as “Kingdom values”;
Turner, Matthew, 193. I think that idea extends beyond v. 34.
10
(1) Prohibitions of materialistic activities and anxious thoughts [6:19, 25, 31, 34a], (2) exhortations towards
kingdom priorities [6:20, 33], and (3) motivations in the form of proverbs, illustrations, that move disciples to
obedience [6:21–24, 26–30, 32, 34b–c]; Ibid.
11
Ibid., 194.
24
metonymy for treasure with God1) follow the logic of the heavenly reward presented in vv. 1-6.
The expression “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (v. 20) should not be understood as
merits that make us deserve salvation; rather, it describes the priorities and life orientation,2 “if
kingdom values (cf. 5:3–10) are the priority, we are indeed laying up treasure in heaven”.3 ¿Hay
can we know where our priorities stand? France writes regarding v. 21: “the valuing of the
treasure both follows from and reveals the orientation of the heart”;4 Luz adds: “‘treasure’ shows
where people live in their center [heart] and what is most important to them”.5 It’s possible that
the metaphor in vv. 22, 23 highlights the need to be attentive and keenly perceptive in order to
see/identify where our treasure really is.6 Finally, v. 24 defines a clear-cut contrast that impels us
to decide who we’ll serve (δουλεύειν): God or money7. These are the only options and they are
exclusive in matters of discipleship.8
There’s a shift from greed to anxiety (vv. 25-34), or rather, the fact that we can dismiss
anxiety and trust God. As with the previous section, this one begins with another prohibition: “do
not be anxious about your life” (v. 25). Then, the following verses present the material goods that
support life in general: food, drink and clothes (vv. 25-32).9 Anxiety is of no use when “the God
who gives life can easily supply the means to sustain it”.10 France points to the fact that what is
described in this section doesn’t necessarily correlate with reality. Maybe the text presents “the
world as it should be rather than the world as it is”. Even theodicy appears as a necessary
backdrop when we think of the implications when even devout people do hunger, thirst and even
die. However, even in face of this reality, we’re called to trust our heavenly Father.11 At present,
we’re used to having our basic needs easily attended, and we suffer and grieve over loftier
expectations, this text once again draws us to the essentials, what is really necessary. We live, not
1
2
3
Turner, Matthew, 196. Luz believes that heavenly treasure are “primarily acts of charity and almsgiving”; Luz,
Matthew 1–7, 332.
4
5
6
France concludes: “this rather obscure little saying seems to be using a word-play which the English translator
cannot reproduce without extensive paraphrase in order to commend either single-mindedness (in pursuing the
values of the kingdom of heaven) or generosity, or more likely both, as a key to the effective life of a disciple. The
final comment then underlines how spiritually disoriented is a life which is not governed by those principles, but
rather aims to amass and hold on to ‘treasure on earth’”; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 262.
7
µαµωνᾶς while not having an intrinsic pejorative connotation, is rendered positively as a mean to express our love
or express honor to God (Targ Ps-J and Neofiti I Deut 6:5; Prov 3:9); Ibid., 262, 263.
8
9
Ibid., 198.
10
Ibid., 199.
11
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 265, 266. As an example of these notions, Luz writes: “Few Gospel texts have
evoked such harsh criticism. It is said that every ‘starving sparrow’ contradicts Jesus, not to mention every famine
and every war; that the text gives the appearance of being extremely simpleminded; that it acts as if there were no
economic problems, only ethical ones, and that it is a good symbol of the economic naïveté that has characterized
Christianity in the course of its history; that it is applicable only in the special situation of the unmarried Jesus living
with friends in sunny Galilee; that it is also ethically problematic, since it speaks of work ‘in the most disdainful
terms’ and appears to encourage laziness”; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 341.
25
thanks to food, drink and clothing, but by God’s grace, mercy and love. Little is our faith (v. 30)
when we place it on our capacity to fulfill daily needs, when in God’s Kingdom He is the
provider and sustainer of all (v. 32, 33). True discipleship and anxiety are incompatible (v.
31-34).1 Through the repetition of the prohibition in v. 25, vv. 31-34 draw what must be the
conclusion (οὖν, therefore) for what must be the attitude of the disciple: “But seek first the
kingdom of God” (v. 33). Disciples don’t seek what gentiles seek, i.e. to worry about things that
God will provide (v. 32). This verse echos what Jesus said regarding prayer (6:7, 8), where the
communication of mere information is trumped by the notion of trust. With regard to v. 34,
clearly there is a tension with v. 33 where “all these things will be added”, and the “pessimistic
(or at least realistic)”2 portrayal of tomorrow being “anxious for itself” (v. 34). Current earthly
life is complex and the inaugurated/consummated tension is real. France summarizes: “God’s
care and provision are assured, but that does not mean that the disciple life is to be one long
picnic. Each day will still have its ‘troubles’; the preceding verses simply provide the assurance
that by the grace of God they can be survived”.3
The verse where the Golden Rule rule is presented (7:12) is perceived as a summary,
making 7:1-11 a division in the discourse with sub-sections.4 These verses’ connection to the
previous section is only by means of conjecture by the commentators, but I agree with the fact
that Jesus is presenting an universal principal5 that can articulate very well with what he has said
previously about love for our enemy and forgiveness in chap. 6. The ideas in 7:1-5 have the well
being of the community in mind; every individual (σύ) in relation to its brother (ἀδελφός).6 One
cannot un-authorize any kind of situation where morality is questioned in a social and
interpersonal context (cf. 7:1). The previous passages in this Sermon are clear evidence of virtues
that characterize God’s Kingdom. However, these virtues and moral standards are valid for all; if
I judge according to that standard, most certainly I’ll be judged by it also (v. 2). Best remove the
log now and discern clearly before removing the speck on my brothers eye (vv. 3-5). The idea of
dogs/pigs and holy/pearls (v. 6) could point the needed discernment in order to speak or remain
silent when presenting the standards of the Kingdom. Matthew’s notion on mission eventually is
broad and open to all; however, one must discern when the ethics of the Gospel will be
appreciated, and if not, await an advantageous time for then to be presented.7
The ideas presented in vv. 7-11 echo the previous vv. 31-33, as well as 6:7, 8. The image
of “son” (v. 9) and “Father” (v. 11) reference what Jesus has already said about trusting a good
and loving God: he knows our needs (6:32). Even so, we are invited to pray, i.e. ask, seek and
knock.8 With that said, it’s correct to not misunderstand vv. 7-11 as a carte blanche.9 However,
1
2
3
4
Ibid., 273.
5
Ibid., 273, 274; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 351.
6
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 276; Turner, Matthew, 206; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 352, 353.
7
cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 276-278; Turner, Matthew, 206, 207. Luz avoids any interpretation altogether,
considering this saying “anchored in the Matthean context”; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 356.
8
Turner, Matthew, 209. Turner also states that vv. 7-11 are a “postscript to the model prayer”; Ibid., 210.
9
26
our confidence lies in the expression “how much more” (πόσῳ µᾶλλον): God’s love goes beyond
our own measure or standard for good.1
7:12-29
Matthew 7:12 can be understood as the “conclusion to every thing said since 5:17”.2
When Jesus is asked latter on about a similar topic (22:34-40), his answer singled “out two OT
texts to summarize the law, but the summary he offers here is of the spirit rather than the actual
words of the law”.3 The law in a “nutshell” is seen as possible for Jesus, as well as Hillel; his
rendering is similar, though negative in its proposal (b. Šabb. 31a), something that also occurs in
the Didache (1:2). Probably, most important in Jesus, is the context of the Kingdom of God in
which he states theses words.4 When considering this aspect, as well as others, Luz writes:
“Finally, the golden rule indicates that the horizon of Christian action is universal. Human beings
are partners. Thus by no means do we have in the Sermon on the Mount an ethic that is to be
practiced only in the protected inner sanctuary of the Christian community”.5
The next four warnings (vv. 13-17; wide/narrow gate; false prophets known by their
fruits; exclaim Lord/do the will of the Father; wise/foolish builders6) concern how to respond to
Jesus’ words in order to live by them (an existential response,7 or obedience8). The first, third and
fourth passages highlight stark contrasts between life/salvation and destruction/darkness.9 The
second might point to the ongoing possibility of being led astray by false teaching in practical
life scenarios.10 There’s an implicit notion that the way to life is more strenuous (vv. 14, 15, 24,
25; cf. v. 21). This is why many prefer the wide gate, the seduction of deceit and the politically
correct pious affirmations.11 Which ever hinders our salvation, the result is the same: destruction
and ruin. Not even those already in the Christian community are exempt of falling away.12 There
is a day (v. 22; unknown to us, cf. Mat 24:36) where the qualitative nature of our relationship
1
cf. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 359.
2
3
4
Ibid., 283, 284; Turner, Matthew, 211, 212.
5
6
Luz only sees three sections since he unites vv. 15-23 under the image of false prophets, as does Turner; Ibid., 369;
7
8
9
An “ethical dualism”; Ibid., 213. The dual ethical options in life already stems from the OT (Deut 30:19; Jer 21:8);
10
cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 291.
11
Pious religious affirmations don’t counterweight “lawlessness” (ἀνοµία). Since Jesus has affirmed the law and
fulfills it, these deceitful attitudes are in direct opposition to the criteria that define a true disciple; Turner, Matthew,
217, 220.
12
27
with Jesus will be revealed; to be known (v. 23, γινώσκω) by him.1 In v. 23,2 we’re presented
with what’s required for a correct relationship with Jesus: a natural correlation between what we
hear and what we do.3 Anyone can hear, but genuine hearing occurs when it’s lived out and put
in practice.4
The mention of the crowds (7:28) completes the frame that was set in 5:1, 2. Though his
words were meant for his disciples (5:1), the crowds have been deeply stirred and can be
considered “potential disciples”.5 One could argue that the Sermon is already bearing fruits as it
calls the crowds to a deeper understanding of Scripture, but also to a necessary confrontation
with the question: Who is Jesus?
Matthew 13, 14
The parables of the Kingdom in chapter 13 are a unit (vv. 1-53).6 This discourse is unique
in the sense that it’s not a monologue, since the disciples ask twice (vv. 10, 11, 36, 37), they also
comment (vv. 51, 52) and Jesus takes time to explain himself. These elements may serve to
highlight “the distinction between the disciples as privileged recipients of revelation and the
crowds who receive ‘nothing without parables’ (v. 34), which is one of the main messages the
discourse itself is designed to convey”.7 This notion is reinforced when we see a change in
audience (vv. 3-33, 36-52).8
Turner follows Wenham’s structure of the text (only to v. 52), which is really most useful.
A Parable of the sower: Hearing the word of the kingdom (13:1–9)
B Disciples’ question and Jesus’s answer: Interpretation of the sower (13:10–23)
C Parable of the weeds: Good and evil (13:24–30)
D Parables of the mustard seed and leaven: Growth (13:31–33)
E Explanation of parables and interpretation of the weeds (13:34–43)
Dʹ Parables of treasure and pearl: Sacrifice (13:44–46)
Cʹ Parable of the net: Good and evil (13:47–50)
Bʹ Jesus’s question and disciples’ answer: Understanding parables (13:51)
Aʹ Parable of the homeowner: Trained for the kingdom (13:52)
This structure is further evidence of the two halves, one for a public audience and the
second for a private and intimate setting with the disciples.9
1
A profound relationship will Jesus as the supreme “law-giver” must not be replaced with a simple ethical code; cf.
Ibid., 388.
2
By means of the coordinating conjunction οὖν; cf. Turner, Matthew, 222.
3
4
Turner, Matthew, 222; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 296.
5
6
So France and Luz; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 498; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20: A Commentary on Matthew
8–20, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia–a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg, 2001), 228. Or only to v. 52 if one considers the transition to narrative in v. 53; so Turner; Turner,
Matthew, 332, 356.
7
8
9
Ibid., 332, 333.
28
The risk with parables is the old tendency to atomize its narrative elements by means of
allegory. One can’t ignore that Jesus gives corresponding meaning for the parable of the Sower, a
parable that is very paradigmatic in nature. However, the notion that the parables emphasize or
really posses one main point has tended to pass the test of time... in theory (in practice, many
pulpits say otherwise). The best approach is to evaluate each, case by case. The evidence for the
correct interpretation must emerge from the text itself.1
The parables discourse occurs by the sea. Jesus has just left “the house”, the same one
implicit in 12:46-50.2 There he spoke to those willing to listen and, for that reason, called them
his “brother and sister and mother” (family). This idea contrasts with that of the crowds that
gather to hear but of which we know little of their response. The text states that Jesus spoke to
the crowds in parables, but no to his inner circle of disciples (13:3, 10, 34).3
The “primary background for the parables of Matt. 13 is the increasing opposition,
narrated in Matt. 11–12, to Jesus and his message. The parables originally helped Jesus’s
disciples understand the opposition to themselves and later, as narrated by Matthew, similarly
enabled his community to grasp its own identity and struggles”.4
The first parable of this series is that of the sower (vv. 3-9), which receives its name from
v. 18. Some have said that it’s better to call it “of the four types of ground”, but I’d prefer to keep
close to Jesus’ title of choice; even more so since Jesus himself explains its meaning (vv. 18-23).5
The analysis regarding if the expression “some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (v. 8)6 is
plausible (or verosimile) to Palestine harvests at the time seems secondary to the point of the
parable.
The section contained in vv. 10-16 explains the reason for using parables with the
crowds. Jesus’ first word, however, are directed to his disciples and the reason why he doesn’t
speak to them in parables: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of
heaven” (v. 11; cf. v. 16). To know the secrets (µυστήριον) implies that they’re no longer hidden
to the disciples. That’s why Jesus goes on to explain the parable (vv. 18-23).7 Jesus’ willingness
to share the mysteries of the kingdom go in hand with the disposition of the Father revealed
previously in the text (cf. 11:26; 16:17). Jesus is also fulfilling what the prophets had anticipated
in plain sight of his disciples and of anyone willing to truly see.8 Although Jesus cites Isaiah 6:9,
10, we must read it without imposing a “distinction between divine and human causation which
we find so necessary seems to have been less clear to the biblical writers”.9 The parable itself
1
cf. Ibid., 333, 334.
2
Luz, Matthew 8–20, 233; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 501.
3
cf. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 234; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 502.
4
Turner, Matthew, 334. Similarly, France; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 499, 518.
5
Turner, Matthew, 337; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 503; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 235.
6
cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 505, 506; Turner, Matthew, 338; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 241.
7
France points to a Danielic background and also to Pauline parallels. “Mystery” of something that can be known
only by divine revelation, not by natural insight; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 511.
8
cf. Turner, Matthew, 340, 341; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 247.
9
29
clearly states that the seed was sowed on all four soils; one responded fully and adequately,
others did not. Finally, the four are really two (In anticipation to the wheat and the tares?). In our
previous look into the Sermon on the Mount, we saw the hear/do pair of terms. Now, in the
explanation of this parable, we find a similar pair in hear/understand (v. 23). Some would se in
this the expression of true discipleship.1
France identifies vv. 24-33 as “three further parables of growth”.2 Since the audience
apparently hasn’t changed since v. 10 (although, one must consider v. 36), the idea in these texts
could be complementary to what has already been said to them (the use of ἄλλος in vv. 24, 31, 33
would follow the initial parable explained in vv. 18-23). The parable of the wheat and the tares
follows the common theme of sowing and the expected harvest, as in the parable of the sower.
However, the plot is nuanced by the actions of an enemy (vv. 25, 28). This parable in particular is
also interpreted directly by Jesus (vv. 36-43) with clear a eschatological understanding (v.
40-43). With the backdrop of chaps. 11 and 12, one can understand that the opposition to Jesus
and his message is portrayed through these parables as having eternal consequences. Though at
present, some have understood that the parable identifies a “mixed church”,3 Jesus’ interpretation
doesn’t focus on that idea, but rather on a clear division between the saved and the lost in the
context of the world, not the church.4 In this world scenario, the image of the “Son of man” is in
concordance with its Danielic background and its context of judgement (Dan 7:10, 13, 14, 22).
The parable of the net (vv. 47-50) points back to these same notions, as the Jesus’ immediate
explanation shows.
With regards to the mustard and the leaven, the common idea is the relative contrast
between the initial stage and its final one. “The kingdom of heaven may be initially insignificant,
but it is pervasive”.5 “Followers of Jesus should be encouraged that despite frequent fruitless
responses to the kingdom message, it does indeed bear much fruit in many cases (cf. Matt.
13:23). Even John the Baptist may doubt its advance, but it is advancing just the same (11:1–6).
The strong man is being bound, and his goods are being plundered (12:29)”.6
In the following tow parables, the main point is the extreme and incomparable value of
the Kingdom; such a value brings forth commitment from those who wish to enter.7 To find a
treasure in a field was a popular and desirable idea; pearls were a common way to show ones
wealth due to their value.8 Jesus chooses a common aspiration and a well know icon of value.9
The repetition of the verb “find” (εὑρίσκω) would indicate the invitation to have a positive
1
Turner, Matthew, 341. cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 521, 522; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 250.
2
3
And the theme could occur elsewhere in Matthew (7:15-23; 13:49; 21:28-32; 22:10-13; 25:1-12); Ibid., 532.
4
Luz, Matthew 8–20, 268; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 533.
5
6
7
Ibid., 352; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 539, 540.
8
It could also bring to mind certain religious ideas such as the value and worth of “the Torah, for Israel, for an
appropriate thought, or, much like the treasure, as an expression of God’s abundant reward for the pious”; Luz,
Matthew 8–20, 278.
9
cf. Ibid., 276, 277; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 540-542.
30
response to the Kingdom in the form of a purchase (ἀγοράζω). However, in the parable of the
pearl, it’s not “just found”, but actually sought after (ζητέω).
Since the disciples had asked twice about the meaning of the parables (vv. 10, 36), Jesus
now asks them if they “understood all these things” (v. 51). They answer affirmatively. So Jesus
compares their ability to understand with a scribe that, as a master of the house, brings out of his
treasure what is new and what is old. It’s not clear why Jesus would use a scribe, since its a
group portrayed in Matthew as his opposition.1 Whichever the case, the word scribe
(γραµµατεύς) must be linked with Scripture or the Law. This could point to the main issues in the
Sermon fo the Mount, where Jesus upholds the Law while positioning himself as its supreme
interpreter and Giver (i.e. new and old; v. 52). When the Scriptures are understood
christologically, then that scribe has been discipled (µαθητεύω) for the Kingdom.2 “The “old” is
not to be ‘abolished’ (5:17), but to be judiciously integrated into the new perspective of the
kingdom of heaven”.3
The parables hav come to an end, and thus the narrative continues. The conflict and
opposition presented in chaps. 11, 12, and characterized in the eschatological tenor in some of
the parables, are now presented in a local flavor in vv. 53-58. Why the opposition? It was
because of his teaching (διδάσκω, v. 54). As a response they weren’t skeptical or uncertain, but
rather unbelieving (ἀπιστία, v. 58). They chose unbelief when being offended (σκανδαλίζω) at
him; John the baptist had almost stumbled (11:6) but had embraced the beatitude of belief. The
people of Nazareth chose otherwise and disregarded his “mighty works”. This rejection and the
death of John the baptist in the next passage (14:1-12) anticipate the fate of Jesus as prophet.
Both die due to the authorities fear of the crowd.4
Matthew presents the death of John as a flashback (as does Mark); if Herod Antipas is
regarding Jesus as John resurrected, clearly he had already been put to death a short time before
this passage in chap. 14 (cf. 11:1-18). Leaving the gruesome details aside, v. 12 presents a
reversal of what happened in chap. 11, where Johns disciples return to him after consulting Jesus.
Now the return to Jesus, to inform him about the decease of John.5
The news of John’s death prompt Jesus to retreat. The interaction with the boat and the
crowds is interesting. Jesus had used a boat to address them (13:2), now it was his means to be
alone. However, they follow on foot, i.e. they went round the lake. Jesus is moved to compassion
(σπλαγχνίζοµαι); the disciples are absent in the narrative and only show initiative in order to
suggest that Jesus send the people away at the end of the day (14:15). However, Jesus’
compassion is enough to justify the miracle.6 The numbers involved in the bread and the fish
1
cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 545; Turner, Matthew, 355; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 286, 287. However, there
seems to be a positive or an understanding that’s compatible with Jesus’ mission regarding scribes in 23:34.
2
cf. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 287; Turner, Matthew, 355.
3
4
There are also other similarities; cf. Turner, Matthew, 361-365; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 552.
5
France, while pointing to disciples of John that might have remained “for a considerable time after John’s death
distinct from the disciples of Jesus” (cf. Acts 18:25; 19:3), he finds that it’s “not surprising that on John’s death some
of his followers should look to Jesus as the natural successor to their leader; hence Matthew’s statement that they
reported to Jesus”. Luz thinks similarly; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 556; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 307.
6
31
have been interpreted, as well as the number of baskets, by means of allegory as an exposition of
salvation history: a retelling though Christ of Israel’s history. Others read and eucharistic, moral
or ecclesiological meanings.1 However, the narrative doesn’t give clues toward those readings
and as such, is pretty quick and straightforward. Even so, it’s valid to ask How the crowds
would’ve understood it and certainly these possible explanations cannot be ignored altogether.
But once again, the narrative is silent regarding their response. Personally, the narrative would
suggest that Jesus wished to be alone (just with the twelve, v. 13). It would appear that the
disciples also longe for some kind of rest. When confronted with the reality of the crowd’s
necessities the difference between the disciples and Jesus is obvious. The key word is
compassion. This key word is best linked to a salvation history reading or a moral one, as
described by Luz.
The next episode presents the fist confession of the disciples, namely Peter, about Jesus
as the Son of God (v. 33). The whole narrative build up to that confession. Jesus was finally
alone after dismissing the crowds, so he could pray (v. 23). His disciples were busy crossing the
lake as instructed or even commanded2 (ἀναγκάζω, v. 22), but progress was slow due to the wind
and the waves. In the fourth watch he “came to them walking on the sea” (v. 25); it’s the time of
“God’s helpful intervention”.3 Why they thought Jesus was a φάντασµα could point to popular
belief, more so when expressed in pressing circumstances. However, that shout is met by Jesus’
words: “Take heart; it is I (Ἐγώ εἰµι). Do not be afraid” (v. 27).4 The immediate events that led to
that confession include Jesus walking on water, his rescue of Peter (in spite of his doubt)5 and, of
course, the fact that the winds cease when they got into the boat. Could it be that these pressing
circumstances, once passed, bring forth a spontaneous confession by the group regarding Jesus
as Son of God? Does it contrast with the more thoughtful and intentional confession in chap. 16,
for which Peter is commended? France reasoning appear to follow this train of thought.6 The fact
that this is the first time that the disciples worship (προσκυνέω) Jesus could also serve as
evidence in this direction.7 They are beginning to sense “What sort of man” Jesus is (8:27).
1
See Luz and his brief summary, as well as his inclination towards a eucharistic reading; Ibid., 312-315. Also
Turner’s overview; Turner, Matthew, 369, 370. France sees some validity in most; France, The Gospel of Matthew,
558-560.
2
France calls to our attention what we could read between the lines if we use the information given to us by John
(16:14, 15). This might explain why Jesus sends off his disciples so they don’t participate in the popular attempt;
Ibid., 568.
3
Luz points to Ex 14:24; Ps 46:6; Isa 17:14; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 319.
4
Turner writes: “Jesus’s words ἐγώ εἰµι... may allude to... the revelation formula ‫( ֲאנִ ֙י ֔הוּא‬Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4;
43:10, 13; 46:4; 52:6), which is rendered by ἐγώ εἰµι in the LXX. Isaiah 43:1–13 is particularly interesting because
the statement occurs in a context where God rescues from water and tells Israel not to fear (43:1–2, 5); Turner,
Matthew, 372, 373.
5
“That ‘doubt’ is part of faith is important to him, as the repetition of the word in his last text in 28:17 shows. That
is not to say that Matthew declared doubt to be an essential characteristic of faith, but neither does he condemn it.
What the believer obviously experiences is that it is precisely one’s doubt that the Lord receives and overcomes”;
6
7
cf. Turner, Matthew, 375, 376. He writes: “Looking back on Matt. 14, one can conclude that in the midst of
growing opposition, the authority of the kingdom is also growing through the miracles and through the weak but
genuine and maturing faith of the disciples”.
32
Matthew 23-28
These chapters cover the last days of Jesus in Jerusalem prior to the crucifixion. The
conflict and tension that has built up is coming to a close. Matthew 12:46 states that no more
debates with religious authorities, or anyone for that matter, occurred from this point forward.
“Jesus, the unquestioned victor in the debate with the Jerusalem authorities, now uses his
dominant position to spell out in painful detail some of the failings of the current religious
leadership, both in their personal obedience to the will of God and in their responsibility as the
leaders of God’s people”.1 We can agree with France when he writes that “the focus of this
chapter is not so much on individual scribes and Pharisees as on the nature of the movement they
represented”.2
23:1-24:2
Chapter 23 contains three sections: (1) vv. 1-12, (2) vv. 13-36 and (3) vv. 37-39 (-24:2?).3
When talking to the crowds, Jesus separates what is taught by the scribes and Pharisees and their
life example. The reason to “do and observe” what they teach is that they sit “on Moses’ seat”; by
the authority derived from Moses. Since Jesus has spoken against their teaching (cf. 15:1-14;
16:12; and even in 23:8-10; 16-22), How are we to understand this indication in v. 3? Some see it
as ironical or sarcastic.4 It could be possible that Jesus points to the motivations by which even
the most scrupulous law observer can honor the intention of the law given to Moses: by being
consistent in word and practice. That is the problem with these teachers, “they preach, but do not
practice”. Every affirmation from the law is correct, the problem is what these teacher negate
with regards to the spirit of the law in word and practice. The charges made by Jesus in his woes
against them show a general tendency to focus on “matters of the law” in a inappropriate way
and devoid of “mercy and faithfulness”.5 Their focus is on the law, which is correct, but their
inconsistency should not be followed by those taught by them. Jesus expects very differently
from his disciples: “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all
brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you
shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself
will be exalted” (vv. 8–12). “Matthew resists the love of titles and the need for worldly prestige
in the church as a matter of principle—that is, on christological grounds”.6
The seven woes are directed to the scribes and pharisees, which are identified as
hypocrites, a noun repeated in six of the seven woes (only in vv. 16-22 the word is absent).7
1
2
Ibid., 855.
3
Ibid., 856.
4
cf. Turner, Matthew, 546.
5
cf. Ibid., 546, 547; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 872-874; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28: A Commentary on
Matthew 21–28, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia–a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis,
MN: Augsburg, 2005), 101.
6
7
Turner points to Isaiah 29 as the OT background for the use of the word in Matthew 23. “Israel’s charismatic
leaders, the prophets, are mute (29:10–12) and its judges are corrupt (29:20–21). In spite of this, Israel’s outward
religious observances go on (29:1)”; Turner, Matthew, 554.
33
Their actions are contradictory in themselves and in relation to Scripture, and even to common
sense (cf. vv. 17, 19). The fourth and central woe probably states the main issue: that they “have
neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness” (v. 23). This woe
refers to tithe, an issue that had economic as well as moral nuances. It sustained the temple
service, but it also provided at specific times for the poor (Deut 14:28, 29; 26:12, 13). This and
other laws (e.g. purity laws in the next woe) never should have replaced mercy, love or
faithfulness (cf. Hos 6:6; Mic 6:8), nor ritual should have replaced obedience (cf. 1 Sam 15:22).
Observance, ritual, and a pious life cannot be separated if understood correctly. Justice, mercy
and faithfulness don’t replace the law, rather they encompass it and are reciprocal to it as its
central values.1 But that is not the case with the scribes and Pharisees (v. 3); they have neglected
“one” for the “other”. The sixth woe finally reveals that to live this way, i.e. as a hypocrite, is to
live lawlessly (v. 28): “In that sense, for all their law-keeping, they do not live according to the
law”.2 The final woe puts the scribes and Pharisees in the same line as those who killed the
prophets in the past, “scribes and Pharisees have not themselves killed prophets and righteous
people, but their rejection of God’s true messengers, notably John the Baptist and now Jesus
himself, puts them in the same camp”;3 note the expression “whom you murdered, in v. 35. We
have already seen how the death of John the baptist anticipates what the rejection and opposition
to Jesus will lead to: his death4 (see above, p. 31). Thus, they’ll fill “the measure” of their fathers
(v. 32). Their current actions reveal what they would have done with the prophets of old, and
eventually will do (vv. 31, 32) to those that will be sent (v. 34), Jesus and his martyrdom
included.5 Jesus then, “speaks of his impending crucifixion as the culmination of Israel’s
historical pattern of rejecting its own prophets”.6 Those sent (ἀποστέλλω) must be understood as
Jesus’ disciples (cf. 10:16).7 So, although scribes and Pharisees can be the focus of this
proclamation, it necessarily expands to all Israel that must decide on the basis of the prophetic
message sent to them.8 This expansion to all Israel/Jerusalem follows through in the mention of
“righteous blood” (v. 35), that will resurface in the cry of “all the people... ‘His blood be on us
and on our children!’” (27:25). In the past, calamities and exile occurred because the prophets
and their words were rejected. History will repeat itself with “this generation” (v. 36; cf. 24:34).
“ ‘This generation,’ which Jesus has already condemned repeatedly in 11:16; 12:39; 41–42, 45;
16:7; 17:17, is the generation which is about to reject the Messiah, God’s final messenger. God’s
judgment on his rebellious people can no longer be delayed”.9
Matthew 23:37-24:2 is what remains of this section. Jesus laments over Jerusalem and its
fate. The cause is simple: they kill “the prophets and [stone] those who are sent to it”; God was
1
Ibid., 556.
2
3
Ibid., 877.
4
5
6
7
France believes that “Jesus speaks of his own mission and that of his disciples”, although the disciples will start to
fulfill their mission after the resurrection; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 878.
8
9
34
willing, but they “were not willing” (v. 37). Their “house” (probably the temple1) will be left
desolate until a condition is met, until they say: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the
Lord” (v. 39). However, this expectation and condition is rendered in the NT as an eschatological
possibility open to all.2
The idea of the Temple being desolate, coupled with the Jesus’ action of leaving
(ἐξέρχοµαι) and going away (πορεύοµαι) from the Temple toward the Mount of Olives (24:1),
could have an interesting OT background. Luz sees Ezekiel 9-11, and I tend to agree.3 God’s
presence left the temple and took a provisional residence on the Mount of Olives. When the exile
ended, Ezekiel speaks of God’s presence coming from the east (43:1). The Temple was destroyed
then and the same would occur now. It’s pretty clear that this was fulfilled in AD 70.4
24:3-25:46
Except for the small difference regarding the initial verse in this section, the three
commentaries agree with the fact that it ends in 25:46.
Once they sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples asked “privately” (ESV, NASB; κατ̓
ἰδίαν). This is the last time this expression occurs in Matthew.5 Could we understand this
prophetic discourse as his final words in the form of the “mysteries of the kingdom”?6
The question of the disciples is twofold, since there’s two interrogative markers, (1)
“when [these] things” (πότε ταῦτα) and (2) “what sign” (τί τὸ σηµεῖον); the sign is of the
“coming and of the end of the age” (v. 3).7 The reason the disciples link the “things” concerning
the destruction of the Temple with the parousia and the end of the age in a compound question
isn’t as clear as one would think. France reckons that an “undefined sense that so cataclysmic an
event as the destruction of the temple must usher in the end of the present world order”.8 From
the standpoint of the modern interpreter, Luz asks: “More concretely: What is the relationship
between the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, of which 23:37–24:2 spoke, and the end of
the world and the return of the Son of Man, Jesus?”.9
He then explores the history of interpretation of this discourse; a summary that reveals that we have
“inherited” different aspects from some. (1) The eschatological interpretation, the oldest one,
interpreted the text in relation the events that would happen at the end of the world, “when the
termination of the Roman Empire and the end of the world are imminent”.10 Its main problem was
1
Luz, Matthew 21–28, 162; Turner, Matthew, 562; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 883.
2
cf. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 162, 163.
3
Ibid., 162. See also France, The Gospel of Matthew, 887; Turner, Matthew, 568.
4
“The Roman destruction of Herod’s temple in AD 70 was so complete that all that now remains is part of the
substructure of the temple precincts not of the temple buildings themselves; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 888.
See also Luz, Matthew 21–28, 166.
5
Previous uses relate to Jesus looking for a place to withdraw (14:13, 23) or moments where Jesus sought time with
his disciples or they consult him privately (17:1, 19; 20:17).
6
cf. Ibid., 189.
7
A question “which reflects a conventional Jewish ‘two-age’ eschatology”; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 896.
8
Ibid., 895.
9
10
Luz, citing Cyril of Jerusalem; Ibid., 185.
35
that it didn’t explain events clearly related to Jerusalem and Judea (vv. 16, 20). (2) The historical
interpretation basically sees the fulfillment of the discourse in the years leading to the destruction
of Jerusalem; the great tribulation would be exactly the catastrophic years of AD 66-70. (3) A mixed
type of interpretation had become dominant in the Middle Ages, but the post-reformation era gave
importance to the historical interpretation due to the increased interest in history. The mixed
interpretation had to explain when the discourse goes beyond the events affecting Judea, a
transition proposed in vv. 22, 23 or vv. 28, 29. In this view, the symbols or realities described would
have a meaning that was pertinent to the destruction of Jerusalem and also to the end of the world;
i.e. the past events become types of the future ones, “the destruction of Jerusalem was the type of
the universal destruction that is ordained for the entire world”.1 (4) The church or world history is a
variation or combination of the previous. Wether historical of eschatological, the images or “types”
are applied to the present state of affairs of the church of the world; eschatologically speaking, the
present is our end time. (5) A spiritual interpretation introduced by Origen made everything revolve
“an individual, spiritual understanding of the parousia”, a sort of allegorical fulfillment in the
Christian experience.2
The disciples question and Jesus’ answer favor an interpretation that integrates the fall of
Jerusalem and the occasion of the parousia. We would agree with Turner when he writes that
Jesus “first speaks in general terms about events that will likely characterize the entire period
before his coming (24:4–14)”. However, to follow his general reasoning from there is difficult,
since vv. 15ff still mention Judea and Jerusalem; we can’t leap to what will “immediately
precede his coming (24:15–28)”.3 France proposes that v. 36 starts to answer the second question
of the disciples. Before that, the text is “structured around a series of time-indicators which lead
up to the climax of the destruction of the temple within the current generation”. Starting with v.
36 “there are no specific time-indicators, and indeed the starting-point for the whole section is
that the day and hour of the parousia cannot be predicted, and that it will come without any ‘sign’
or prior warning, so that one must always be ready for it”.4 This does make a lot of sense. Luz
favors this same approach, but places the transition in verse 23, 27 or 29; although he feels that
Jesus didn’t really answer the disciples question.5
France would argue that the end of which Jesus speaks about in vv. 6, 13 and 14 is the
destruction of the Temple. In those verses “end” (τέλος) wouldn’t be the same as “end
(συντέλεια) of the age” (v. 3). This would allow the meaning of vv. 33, 34 to make the most
natural sense: that “all these things” (πάντα ταῦτα, v. 33; v. 3 renders only ταῦτα) will take place
before this generation passes away, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem. Verse 14 could also be
explained in terms of greco-roman terminology for the inhabited and/or administrative unit of the
Roman Empire (οἰκουµένη);6 the preaching of the “gospel of the kingdom” before the fall of
Jerusalem (Acts and Paul would point to that reality; cf. Acts 17:6; 24:5; Rom 16:26; Col 1:6,
23). Since vv. 15-28 begin with the coordinating conjunction οὖν, this section (that deals with the
1
Ibid., 187.
2
Ibid., 189.
3
4
5
cf. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 190, 191.
6
36
destruction of the Temple)1 is tied to the previous verses. This is further evidence that the “end”
in vv. 13, 14 relates to the Temple and not to the “end of the age”. France summarizes: “All this,
says Jesus, will be so terrible for those involved that it may look like the end of everything. But it
is not. ‘Those days’ will be cut short, so that God’s people can survive. By contrast, the parousia
of the Son of Man, when it comes, will be on a different scale altogether, as universal and
unmistakable as a flash of lightning (vv. 27–28). The siege will mark ‘the end (telos)’ for
Jerusalem, but it will not be the time of the parousia and the ‘end (synteleia) of the age’.”2 The
great tribulation in v. 21 (the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple) is presented
as a historical reality that will not occur again.3 And rightly so, we don’t foresee another
destruction of Jerusalem in our prophetic interpretation. Finally, as France already anticipated, v.
27 “draws a sharp distinction between the events during the siege and the still future parousia.
The real parousia, when it comes, will not be like the claims of impostors during the siege”.4
What to do with vv. 29-31? France suggests we understand the time reference at face
value, namely, what will occur immediately after the tribulation (destruction of the Temple, or in
consonance with it). He argues that since the language used to describe the cosmic signs is used
in the OT as imagery for the destruction of great cities by God’s judgement, this should be the
case with reference to Jerusalem. And the coming (not παρουσία, but ἐρχόµενον) of the Son of
Man must be understood as Christ’s enthronement, as it is consistently interpreted in 16:28 and
26:64.5 The gathering of the elect from the four winds should also be understood in its OT
context (cf. Deut 30:4; Isa 27:13; Zech 2:6), now applied to the (new) people of the Son of Man,
“a new community out of all nations (28:19)”.6 This reading makes best sense of what Jesus later
says: “this generation7 will not pass away until all these things take place” (v. 34).8 Reading
another commentary, Hagner (WBC) suggests we understand the “the tribulation of those days”
of v. 29 as a “yet future experience of great suffering”, since Matthews use of εὐθέως,
“immediately”, should be understood in light of the tension imminence/delay. Thus, he suggests
that vv. 29-31 must be understood as the future parousia (i.e. the Second Coming). What to do
with v. 34? Hagner suggests that the expression “all these things” in v. 33 points back to vv. 4-28,
and so the meaning of v. 34 is essentially the same as we saw in France and doesn’t conflict with
Hagner’s understanding of vv. 29-31.9
1
cf. Ibid., 910; Turner, Matthew, 577, 578.
2
3
cf. Ibid., 915. Turner sees it as a “reference to the catastrophe of 70 CE but literally true of the eschatological
horrors”; Turner, Matthew, 578.
4
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 917. cf. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 199.
5
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 920-924.
6
Ibid., 927, 928.
7
As in Jesus’ contemporaries, which is the natural use elsewhere in Matthew (cf. Matt 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45;
16:4; 17:17; 23:36); so France and Turner.
8
Ibid., 930.
9
Donald A. Hagner, “Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary 33B, (1995), 710-715. Luz, after briefly
surveying different interpretations, concludes (in line with Reimarus) that Jesus was simply wrong; Luz, Matthew
21–28, 209.
37
Personally, I think we’re witnessing some kind of recapitulation in this chapter. Verses
1-14 present a broad depiction of situations that will span form the first century AD until the end.
1
Then Matthew presents the situations that lead to the destruction of the Temple and contrasts
those circumstances with the global nature of the parousia (vv. 15-28). The evangelist then
expands the notions of the parousia itself in vv. 29-31, to finally backtrack to the present
scenario (vv. 32-35).
The final portion of the chapter and extending beyond (24:36-25:46) would then answer
about the parousia and the end of the age.2 The emphasis is that the when of the parousia cannot
be know, so we must by always ready. Turner titles this whole section as “an exhortation to
alertness”.3
Now Jesus speaks of a “day and hour”, opposed to “those days”; he also uses παρουσία
(vv. 3, 27, 36, 39), which would indicate that he is now answering the second part of the
disciple’s question.4 First of all, the time of the παρουσία is know only to the Father (cf. Acts
1:7). The manuscript evidence in favor of the longer reading, “not even the angels of heaven no
the Son” is convincing.5 The most natural implication is that the incarnated Son voluntarily put
aside omniscience (as well as other divine attributes)6, or in parallel, this verse describes the
1
The SDA Commentary states, commenting on “end” in v. 6, that in this discourse, Jesus is anticipating the end of
the Jewish nation and the end of the world; with regard to “end” in v. 13, it’s ambivalent between “patient residence/
perseverance and the end fo the world; it applies the same meaning to “end” in v. 14 and understands that the
preaching of the gospel by the apostles didn’t fulfill the “global” sense of this prediction; Francis D. Nichol,
Raymond F. Cottrel, and Don F. Neuffer, S. Mateo a S. Juan, trans. Victor Ampuero Matta and Nancy Weber de
Vyhmeister, 7 vols., Comentario Biblico Adventista Del Septimo Dia, vol. 5 (Florida: Asociación Casa Editora
Sudamericana, 1995), 485-487.
2
3
4
5
The omission os more probable than the addition; Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation
Commentary (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 73; Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek
New Testament (Stuttgart: United Biblie Societies, 1998), 51, 52.
6
Luz phrases one modern consensus: This verse has been able to achieve the “positive meaning when the Son’s
38
intimate and coordinated relationship of the Father and the Son. The fact that the time for us is
unknown is emphasized (or explained, γάρ, v. 37) with the comparison to the days of Noah. The
fact that they were marrying “unaware until the flood” stresses the fact that they were going on
with life as usual, en focused on their future. The same notion is presented in vv. 40-44; ordinary
life activities have the potential of making us ignore the reality en irruptive nature of the
parousia: he is indeed “coming at an hour [we] do not expect” (v. 44).
In these daily live examples (tow in the field; two grinding in the mill; vv. 40-44) a clear
cut separation is introduced; one that will continue in the four parable narratives of 24:45-25:46.1
At the same time, Jesus’ brief metaphor of the burglar “a model for the unexpected time of the
parousia made a strong impression on the early church: cf. Luke 12:39; 1 Thes 5:2, 4; 2 Peter
3:10; Rev 3:3; 16:15; Gos. Thom. 21,103”.2 This introduces a theme (watchfulness, “stay
awake”, γρηγορέω) that will run through 24:42-25:13 (explicitly in 24:42 and 25:13),3 and by
extension 25:14-30, due to the relation between vv. 13, 14 (γάρ).
It’s wise to recognize that this is the explicit focus of the parable of the ten virgins:
“Watch therefore” (25:13). The previous words are next in clarity: “I do not know you” (v. 12).
These are the highlights of the parable. It can also be easily inferred that Jesus in his coming is
the bridegroom (v. 13, “day nor the hour”, cf. 24:36, 44).4 “But the point is simply that readiness,
whatever form it takes, is not something that can be achieved by a last-minute adjustment. It
depends on long-term provision, and if that has been made, the wise disciple can sleep secure in
the knowledge that everything is ready”.5
The parable of the talents might build upon the idea of what it means to have a “long-
term provision”, or what it means to be alert: faithful stewardship of the opportunities given.6
What the salves do is similar in nature (ὥσπερ) to being watchful, or not, in the context of a
delay in the master’s return (similar to that of the groom in v. 5). As a side note, Jesus has used
contrast to portray aspects of the Kingdom; here, the contrast between “little” and “much” (vv.
21, 23) could also point in that direction. Even though the quantities were different, both are
rewarded “much”, and their earnings were both considered “little”.
ignorance was understood as part of Jesus’ solidarity with human impotence”; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 214. cf. Turner,
Matthew, 589; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 939, 940.
1
Faithful/wise and wicked servant (vv. 45-51); wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13); good/faithful servants and the
wicked/slothful servant (vv. 14-30); sheep from the goats (vv. 31-46).
2
3
Luz understands that the call to watch expands to also include the ethical dimension: responsibility, obedience and
love (24:45.51; 25:15-23; 25:31-40, respectively). “ ‘To watch, to be awake’ includes a relationship to the living
Christ, who will come again as the judge of the world and will summon all people to his judgment. Finally, in the
Gethsemane story the readers would be reminded that watching also includes the willingness to suffer”; Luz,
Matthew 21–28, 219. cf. Turner, Matthew, 593.
4
cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 947; Turner, Matthew, 594. For a survey of the different interpretations in
church history, see Luz, Matthew 21–28, 235-244. Once again, I feel we have been influenced by many of these in
our pulpits.
5
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 947. cf. “The problem is not so much that the virgins slept when the groom’s
arrival was delayed but that the foolish virgins were not ready when he eventually did come. They expected the
bridegroom to come on their schedule, not his”; Turner, Matthew, 597.
6
Ibid., 598, 601; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 951, 952.
39
The last parable (or simile, vv. 32, 33) in chapter 25 is no longer concerned of readiness,
for the coming has occurred. Now we are presented with a judgement scene that is fitting as the
ending for the eschatological discourse.1 This text that explains the basis for the separation
between eternal punishment and eternal life: “as you did/didn’t do it to one of the least of these,
you did/didn’t do it to me” (vv. 40, 45). But, What dos that mean? Some see a direct conflict with
Paul’s message of salvation by grace, whereas Matthew is presenting salvation by works for all.
In systematic theology this can be resolved,2 but the question is still valid in the context of
Matthew’s text. “The identity of “the least of my brothers and sisters” is the watershed of the
entire discussion”.3 One explanation is that acknowledging Jesus is the issue, since he is
represented in “the least of these”. However, neither saved of condemned were aware of this fact
until the judgment itself (vv. 38, 44). Another option could be that it refers to Christians that are
measured by their works of compassion towards other poor and needy Christians. Finally, in
recent times, some have read it as the pagans (all nations) that will be judged by their attitude
towards Christians (the least of these), the latter not being judged but standing next to the judge.
Since the comparison with the days of Noah, the coming of the Son of Man is presented as
affecting everyone. The parable of the virgins nor the parable of the talents suggest that the
division is drawn from an exclusive group, as opposed to all humanity. This should be the more
sensible reading here also, since the “eschatological tone of the whole pericope indicates that this
judgment is universal, including both professing disciples and other people without distinction”.4
Also, the hardships experienced by “the least of these” aren’t exclusive of any people group in
any time of history; the implications are global.5 In the text, however, the highlight isn’t
judgment per se, but vv. 40, 45, where solidarity (even with Jesus) is the principle and obedience
to the love command with our neighbor is the result. Those who introduced to the kingdom (life)
have aligned their lives with Jesus own entire life experience.6
26:1-28:20
Trying to subdivide this section is difficult, and probably unnecessary. Apart from 26:1, 2
as a transition marker, the rest must be considered as a whole, even if the titles “passion,
resurrection and commission” can describe the narrative’s main themes,7 and certain
geographical and chronological markers can serve as evidence of a change of scene.8 Turner lists
24 aspects of the narrative that are unique to Matthew; he suggests that these features might be
responding to questions that might have appeared in earlier stages of the narrative.9
1
Turner, Matthew, 603; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 957.
2
“A systematic theologian can devise a scheme whereby justification by grace through faith and judgment according
to works are together parts of a greater whole...”; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 959.
3
4
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 961. cf. Turner, Matthew, 608; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 282.
5
6
cf. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 283; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 964, 965.
7
cf. Turner, Matthew, 612, 613.
8
cf. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 299, 300.
9
40
Although the plot to kill Jesus is mentioned in vv. 3-5, it’s only possible because Jesus
knows his time has come. He speaks of the inevitable events that will occur in two days (v. 2);
“Jesus himself sets in motion the narrative of his own suffering and death”,1 and established the
chronological frame for these passages (two days).2 “Ironically, the very religious leaders who
seek to destroy Jesus become unwitting instruments used by God to fulfill his plan to exalt
Jesus”.3 Matthew’s use of παραδίδοσθαι (v. 2) doesn’t point to Jesus’ atoning death (as in Paul),
buy to the shared fate of John de baptist, Jesus and his disciples (cf. 4:12; 10:4, 17-21; 24:9, 10).4
Jesus’ anointment in Bethany presents us with several misreadings by the disciples. They
focus on the “waste” while Jesus calls it a “beautiful thing” done to Him; the fret about giving to
the poor (Judas), but don’t realize that Jesus will soon no longer be with them.5 Finally, she is
preparing Jesus for his burial, something probably no one had in mind at that time. There is talk
of Jesu’s burial, and yet, there will be good news! (v. 13). This woman in someway anticipates
the key role of women in the rest of the narrative6 (they follow Jesus to the cross and are present
in his burial, and are the first witnesses of the resurrection). I think that the best way to interpret
what this woman is only possible listening to what Jesus said: “She has done it to prepare me for
burial”; nothing more, nothing less.
In contrast with the woman, Judas springs into action preparing the betrayal; something
that should surprise the reader (cf. 10:4). His intent of seeking an “opportunity” to betray Jesus is
conveniently compatible with the worries of the chief priests (v. 5). This opportunity would
present itself not by some direct action of Judas, but because Jesus’ time (καιρός) had come (v.
18).7 The passover dinner in Matthew is first the scenario for Judas’ plot to develop (vv. 17-25);
while Jesus “directs” (συντάσσω) his disciples, Judas is running a parallel scheme... or so he
thinks, since “the Son of Man goes as it is written of him...” (v. 24). The Scriptures have
exposed Judas,8 as has also Jesus action of dipping his hand in the dish (v. 23). However, Judas
choses to follow through and marginalizes himself from Jesus and the disciples (cf. “Rabbi”, v.
25).9 The same idea follows through in Judas’ words to Jesus in Gethsemane (v. 49).10
Jesus has already mentioned his burial, but there is still good news (vv. 12, 13). In similar
fashion, though the bread and the wine point to his death “for many for the forgiveness of sins”
1
Ibid., 612. cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 970.
2
Luz, Matthew 21–28, 329, 330.
3
4
5
“Nothing in Jesus’ words detracts from that ethical and social demand, which in our global economy is more
pressing now even than it was then. But in contrast with this permanent obligation, the opportunity to care for Jesus
in his time of need will be very brief”; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 975. France and Turner point to Deut 15 as
the OT background concerning the poor; Ibid.; Turner, Matthew, 619, 620.
6
cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 973.
7
There is still debate regarding what specific date of Nisan is referred to in these passages. See Ibid., 981-983; Luz,
Matthew 21–28, 353. But the main point is that it “is the time for the fulfillment of a predetermined plan”; France,
The Gospel of Matthew, 986.
8
Ibid., 990.
9
Luz, Matthew 21–28, 360, 361.
10
41
(v. 28),1 he looks beyond death to the time when he will “drink it new with you in my Father’s
kingdom” (v. 29).2 Jesus’ words allude to many OT passages (Ex 24:8; Jer 31:31-34; Isa 53:11,
12) and constitutes “the most comprehensive statement in Matthew’s gospel of the redemptive
purpose and achievement of Jesus’ death”.3 I can agree with Turner when he highlights that the
Lord’s Supper “is not the Passover but is founded on the Passover”.4 As Christians, we’re not
only looking back (like in passover), but also forward. A clear difference with Jewish passover
customs should be made in order to honor the new anticipation introduced by Jesus.5
Verse 30 presents us with a topographical shift or transition; Jesus and the remaining
disciples go to the Mount of Olives after singing, probably, the latter part of the Hallel (Ps
113-118).6 Just as Jesus had told Judas the reality of his betrayal according to the Scriptures, he
now cites Zechariah,7 who had anticipated their scattering; even so, Jesus couples the prophets
words with his own, assuring them that He will go before them into Galilee8 (i.e. they would
meet again; repeated in 28:7, 10), after his resurrection. However, the disciples, and firstly Peter,
resist the idea, not even keen on understanding what Jesus has just said about his resurrection.
Jesus knows what will happen to Him; the disciples however, ignore what they’re capable or
incapable of doing the the situation that is imminent.9 However, all state that death is preferable
rather than falling away, being scattered or denying Jesus... they all failed miserably. However,
the promise of their encounter in Galilee would stand firmer than their failure, “they will
eventually be restored to effective discipleship”,10 and that region will be “the place for a new
beginning which will spread out to ‘all the nations’ ”.11
Jesus now moves with his disciples to Gethsemane, where he would pray with the near
company of Peter and the sons of Zebedee (James and John). The narrative is one or repetition
and contrast.12 Jesus repeatedly dedicates himself to his Father’s will, while the disciples
persistently fall asleep, oblivious that the “hour is at hand”; not only for Jesus, but with regard to
what Jesus had said concerning them (v. 4513; cf. v. 4114). Even the “cup” that James and John
1
Jesus says these words in relation to his blood, but his body (bread) and his blood (wine) are intimately linked;
“The Passover bread did not directly symbolize the killing of the lamb, but when Jesus identifies it as his body21 the
symbolism of death is clearly intended, and the shedding of blood in v. 28 will confirm this”; Ibid., 991, 992.
2
cf. Ibid., 988, 995; Turner, Matthew, 625; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 382.
3
4
5
cf. Ibid., 626, 627.
6
7
A passage (chaps. 9-14) that is messianic and thus quoted several times by Matthew (cf. 21:4–5; 24:30; 27:3–10);
8
Maybe as a shepherd in front of his flock; Turner, Matthew, 629. Although Luz isn’t sure of this interpretation;
9
Note the response to Peter’s “never”: this night, three times (vv. 33, 34); Ibid., 389.
10
11
Ibid., 999.
12
Ibid., 1001; Turner, Matthew, 631.
13
14
“Peter’s problem is not lack of enthusiasm for Jesus, but lack of the moral stamina to face up to what it will mean
42
declared to be willing to drink (20:22; 26:35), is now totally obscured by their dreariness.1 Jesus’
emotions are patent: sorrowful (λυπέω, περίλυπος) and troubled (ἀδηµονέω); and yet his prayer
reveals that his conviction and faith are firm. He begins his prayer with “Father”, affirming his
unique relationship, just as it was affirmed by the Father at the beginning of his public ministry.2
His prayer transitions “from the request for removal of the cup if possible in the first prayer to
the acceptance that it may not be possible in the second, with the clear conclusion, ‘Let your will
be done’ ”.3 The expression “into the hands of sinners” is particular to Matthew. Previously,
Matthew uses this adjective to describe those who Jesus would like to reach with the Gospel, and
thus, even spends time with them (9:10, 11, 13; 11:19). Now Jesus uses it to describe all those
who would instigate and participate in his death, wether individually or collectively, Roman or
Jew, in the rest of the narrative.4 “At any rate, it soon became clear from Jesus’ demeanor in the
face of the arresting party that his earlier emotional turmoil had been resolved as he had faced
and overcome it through his prayer”.5 “Rise, let us be going; se, my betrayer is at hand” (v. 46).
“The narrator wants to portray the maiestas, the providential, and the potestas of Jesus, who, far
from being overwhelmed by the following events, majestically goes forth to meet them”.6
The verses that describe Jesus’ arrest present a degree of tension, up until v. 56. In Jesus’
own words, Judas, the crowd with swords and clubs coming in the cover of darkness, “all this
has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled” (v. 56).7 Jesus isn’t
surprised with the events; rather he calls out to the leaders who had ample opportunity to seize
him in the Temple, the most logical place which presented many opportunities. But it is this way
to fulfill the Scriptures. Even Peter’s (John 18:10) futile and unnecessary “good intentions” are
met with the same idea, “But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” (v.
54). Jesus’ words “make it clear that it is not that he cannot resist but that he will not. In
Gethsemane he has accepted his Father’s will”.8 So if Jesus offers no resistance at his arrest, he
also forbids the same to his disciples.9 However, not only Scriptures are being fulfilled, but also
Jesus words regarding what his disciples would do. Judas is actually doing what Jesus said;
something that France wishes to portray in his translation, “Judas, one of the Twelve, did indeed
(ἰδού) arrive, bringing a large crowd”.10 Thus, v. 56 unlocks the actions that follow and describes
in practice”; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1006. cf. Turner, Matthew, 632. “That even he is sleeping shows how
far practice is removed from good intentions. ...The anthropology reflected in this logion contrasts human intention
(πνεῦµα) with its accomplishment (σάρξ) in a dualistic-sounding formulation”; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 396, 397.
1
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1003. cf. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 396.
2
3
Ibid., 1002. cf. Turner, Matthew, 632; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 397.
4
Luz, Matthew 21–28, 398. Previously, Jesus had stated that he would be “delivered over to the chief priests and
scribes” (20:18), now it’s to “sinners”.
5
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1003. cf. Turner, Matthew, 632; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 398.
6
7
cf. Ibid., 421.
8
9
10
43
them as results of the fulfillment of Scripture: then the disciples fled (v. 56); then “those who had
seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas...” (v. 57).1
The scene transfers to the courtyard (αὐλή, palace, cf. 26:3) of the high priest, “where the
scribes and the elders had gathered” (v. 57, 58).2 Peter was following “at a distance” and
manages to sit with the guards in order to “see the end” (ἰδεῖν τὸ τέλος, v. 58). This is interesting,
since Jesus had already stated what necessarily had to happen in order to fulfill the Scriptures.
Perhaps he still doubts that what was said about him will come to happen?3 All that has
transcurred according to the plot of the chief priests and elders has been maneuvered “by stealth”
(δόλος), i.e. deceit. Jesus trial is not the exception. The brought forth “false witnesses”
(ψευδόµαρτυς, v. 60), and yet, they needed to comply with at least an appearance of “due
process”, so they manage to find two (cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15) who came forward with the same(?)
false testimony. Even so, they misquote Jesus (cf. John 2:19).4 Jesus doesn’t answer in order to
clarify this deceitful statement. However, He breaks his silence when addressed by the high
priest: “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (v. 63).
Publicly, Jesus had previously hinted his status as the Messiah, Son of David in 22:42-45; also,
in the parable of the vineyard (21:37-39), he had done the same, pointing to his status as Son. His
recent entry to Jerusalem was further evidence to this implicit claim (Zech 9:9).5 Why does he
break his silence? Jesus, makes the high priest answer his own question under oath, “You have
said so”. There is nothing to discuss, since he is in fact “the Christ, the Son of the living God”
(16:16). However, the Christ must die and raise on the third day (16:21). So, Jesus “adds
something about which the high priest had not even asked, and that is what is decisive”.6 “But I
tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming
in the clouds of heaven” (v. 64). Jesus, as the accused, presents himself as the “coming Lord or
the universe and judge of the world, to his human judges”.7 “Jesus’s citation of Dan. 7:13 with
Ps. 110:1 shows that he understands his identity and future mission in terms of the glorious,
exalted Son of Man”.8 France true to his interpretation of chapter 24, sees Jesus’ words pointing
to his enthronement: “In the vindication of the repudiated Messiah and in the powerful growth of
the movement which they have attempted to suppress, they ‘will see’ that it is he who is now
1
2
“In any case this palace was not one of the official meeting places of the Sanhedrin that are known to us from
Josephus or the rabbinic literature. That may be an indication that in the older tradition this was not an official
meeting of the Sanhedrin. The scribes and the representatives of the Jerusalem aristocracy are gathered. When in v.
59 (= Mark 14:55) the evangelist also mentions the chief priests, he makes clear that he at least regards this
gathering as an official meeting of ‘the entire Sanhedrin’ ”; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 424.
3
“This sets the scene for the story of Peter’s three denials in 26:69–75”; Turner, Matthew, 639.
4
However, after considering the Matthean and the synoptic context, Luz writes: “Thus in my judgment the two who
came last are genuine witnesses to whom the chief priests have finally come contrary to their expectation and in
spite of their efforts to find false witnesses. However, the evangelist did not make this clear”; Luz, Matthew 21–28,
427.
5
6
Luz, Matthew 21–28, 428, 429.
7
Ibid., 430. cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1027.
8
44
seated on the heavenly throne”.1 Jesus words are considered blasphemy and enough to judge him
worthy of death. France mentions that a possible second charge that contributed to his death
sentence was “cultural blasphemy”, i.e. “speaking and acting not only against God but also
against his temple and his appointed leaders in Israel”.2 Whichever the case, “what the Jewish
leaders declare to be blaspheme is true!”3 Jesus is now slapped and spit upon by the men of the
council, probably as a way to dissociate themselves from the accused. These scorns have and OT
backdrop in Isaiah 50:6.4 They charge him to prophesy who struck him, but they don’t realize
that Jesus’ words about the very events being unfolded, are actually being fulfilled.5 These
actions anticipate what the soldiers (in ignorance and general spite) would do to Jesus (vv.
27-31).
The narrative changes perspective and places Peter outside the courtyard.6 He is living his
own parallel trial.7 Two servants and the bystanders corral Peter into denying Jesus, hardly the
same as the questioning of the whole Sanhedrin. The third time his denial is sputtered between
cursing and swearing (v. 74). To what lengths Peter is willing to go in fear of experiencing the
same fate as Jesus! Instead of following Jesus brave example, Peter follows a totally different
path. Matthew doesn’t narrate Peter’s rehabilitation, but we have v. 32, with Jesus’ promise of
meeting his disciples in Galilee (cf. 28:16, eleven disciples are mentioned). France refers to 2
Cor 7:10 for his comment on v. 75; “the ‘godly sorrow’ of repentance which leads to salvation
contrasted with the ‘worldly sorrow’ which ends in death; Peter and Judas may be seen as
examples of the two”.8
We find another transition with reference to time (morning) and place (27:1, 2). Jesus is
“delivered” (παραδίδωµι) to Pilate as a result the the formal decision of the Sanhedrin. He has
passed from Judas (26:48) to the Jewish leaders, and now to Pilate. However, the narrative is
stalled (or digressed)9 in order to present Judas’ gruesome death as a result of “hopeless despair,
not repentance”.10 Matthew probably places this pericope so the reader can compare Judas and
Peter.11 The chief priests were extremely scrupulous (and hypocritical)12 trying to be lawful (v. 6),
when really they had tainted their hands with “innocent blood” (v. 4) and were totally indifferent
to Judas’s “dilemma”. The way the blood money is used also fulfills Scripture, and is the last of
1
2
Ibid., 1029. Luz argues that its hard to find blasphemy in Jesus’ words if a “narrow definition” is applied. However,
the gospels register that many other actions were considered blasphemy by the religious leaders; Luz, Matthew 21–
28, 430-432.
3
Ibid., 436.
4
Ibid., 448.
5
6
7
8
Ibid., 1034.
9
Ibid., 1037.
10
Turner, Matthew, 650. Although Luz explores the severity of their guilt as the main issue, since he finds no major
difference between µεταµέλοµαι and µετανοέω; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 470, 471.
11
12
45
these fulfillment formulas in Matthew,1 and it refers to the priests, not to Judas; their actions are
singled out as the cause of the rest of the narrative.2 Buying a field for the proper burial of
strangers would have been considers a pious initiative;3 a stark contrast with their dealings even
with Judas, but mostly with Jesus. All in all “the entire story of Jesus, including his passion, is
part of God’s plan”.4
Jesus trial before Pilate is presented in vv. 11-26. “Now Jesus stood before the governor”,
and his only words are “You have said so” (v. 11). Jesus silence amazed (θαυµάζω) Pilate (v. 14);
previously, amazement is used primarily for the positive reaction of the disciples or of the
crowds with regard to Jesus (8:27; 9:33; 15:31; 21:20). This is the last time this word occurs in
Matthew; Pilate could have gone beyond amazement, but didn’t. Rather he prefered that the
crowd decide (Barabbas or Jesus5), although he knew better. Pilate had two reasons for wanting
to free Jesus: (1) he knew that it “was out of envy that they had delivered him up”6, and (2) the
word sent to him from his wife concerning her dream of Jesus as “that righteous man” (vv. 18,
19). “The intervention of Pilate’s wife serves only to deepen the guilt of the Jewish leaders: even
a Gentile woman can see that Jesus is innocent. But of course she knew this only because God
had told her, in the dream. It is God, rather than just Pilate’s wife, who thus testifies to Jesus’
righteousness, over against the accusations of the Jewish leaders”.7 Effective in their schemes,
“the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus8” (v.
20). The crowd about to riot finally convince Pilate; with the crowd as witness he washes his
hands, declares himself innocent of Jesus’ blood and frees Barabbas (vv. 24-26). Verse 25 is
complex, but in light of 23:37-39 one can avoid anti-semitic readings that span beyond the
intention of the text.9 Pilate finally “delivers” (παραδίδωµι) Jesus to be crucified.
1
Turner, Matthew, 649. A combination of Jer 19:1-13 and Zech 11:12, 13 occurs. See also Luz, Matthew 21–28, 467,
468.
2
cf. Ibid., 475.
3
4
5
“Many ancient MSS have Barabbas’s full name as Jesus Barabbas. This makes an explicit contrast between Jesus
Barabbas (which may mean ‘son of the father’ or ‘son of the teacher’) and Jesus who is called the Messiah”; Turner,
Matthew, 653, 654.
6
Namely, that “Jesus’ trial was not to punish a breach of the law but to get rid of a man whose claims threatened the
status and authority of the current Jewish leaders”; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1054.
7
Ibid. cf. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 498.
8
“Jesus’s popularity with the crowd has evaporated (21:9, 11, 26; 26:5), probably because the crowd’s hope that
Jesus was a political-military Messiah was dashed by his arrest”; Turner, Matthew, 654.
9
“The fact that this text (especially when translated as a wish rather than a statement) has been misused as an excuse
for Christian persecution of Jews through the centuries creates a natural embarrassment which makes it difficult for
us to hear what Matthew intended us to hear from it. We may assume that Matthew, as a Jew, was not condemning
all Jews for all time. But his choice of the phrase ‘all the laos’ and his inclusion of “our children” show that he was
thinking of more than the particular group who happened to be in front of the governor’s palace that morning. The
reference to ‘our children’ was probably prompted by Matthew’s reflection that it would be a new generation who
bore the brunt of the Roman onslaught on Jerusalem in AD 70”; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1057, 1058. cf.
Turner, Matthew, 654. Luz writes: “Matt 27:25 is already interpreted in terms of the destruction of Jerusalem in the
earliest Christian interpretation in T. Levi 16.3 (a Christian addition)”; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 503.
46
Matthew’s description of the scourging and mocking by the soldiers could serve various
purposes: “It may seem surprising that Matthew is willing to give so detailed a description of
what is to the Christian reader an extremely distasteful episode, but within the scheme of his
passion narrative it serves (a) to provide a Gentile counterpart to the Jewish mocking (26:67–68),
(b) to show the detailed fulfillment of Jesus’ own prediction in 20:19, (c) to depict Jesus once
more as the suffering servant of Isaiah (Isa 50:6), and (d) to allow the reader to reflect on the
reality of Jesus’ kingship which the soldiers can see only as a joke. In 28:18 we shall read of the
real enthronement”.1 Once again, even these sordid actions fulfill what Jesus had anticipated
(20:19), and even in their mocking, they speak more than they know: Jesus is the King.
Once Jesus is led away to be crucified (v. 31), a stranger is forced to help him with his
cross (v. 32). Jesus accepts this help, but refuses the wine that could have eased the pain(?).
“Jesus’ refusal of the laced wine might be simply because it was, as in the Psm, an unpleasant
drink offered in spite. But if, as is more likely, it was intended to dull the pain, Matthew may
have mentioned Jesus’ refusal in order to show his determination to go through the ordeal in full
consciousness. He has chosen to drink the cup which his Father has given him (26:39–42), and
will not be deflected by any human potion, however well-meaning”.2 The OT backdrop is
probably Ps 69:21, “They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to
drink”.
The charge put on the cross, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews”, wasn’t common
practice.3 Every mockery comes from mouths that say more than they know. “Matthew expects
his readers to catch the ironical truth of the honors heaped upon Jesus in jest and mockery: even
in a setting of public humiliation and torture, this really is the king of the Jews, the temple-
builder, the savior, the Son of God”.4 Turner states: “The mockery of the passage is palpably
ironic, since Jesus really is the Son of God. The temple will indeed be destroyed within a
generation. Jesus does in fact save others. He is the King of Israel who trusts in God, and God is
well pleased with him. He does not come down from the cross, but he does overcome death by
pouring out his own blood of the new covenant. Since every detail of the ridicule is eventually
shown to be true, the mockers are unwitting evangelists”.5 The OT image of the suffering
righteous is clearly present in Jesus experience.6 Jesus is righteous in fulfilling his Father’s will,
although three times he is invited by the mockers to save himself. There is a clear parallel with
Satan’s initial three temptations, “if you are the Son of God”.7 “Thus at the end of his journey
Jesus’ Jewish opponents take over Satan’s role, and Jesus experiences the last satanic temptation.
He withstands it and in so doing proves himself to be God’s Son. He is the one who even in
1
2
Ibid., 1067.
3
Luz, Matthew 21–28, 534. However, France point out that a written charge was common, maybe hung from the
neck of the criminal, “the subsequent fixing of the placard to the cross is not otherwise attested, but is not
improbable”; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1068.
4
Ibid., 1059.
5
6
cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1070, 1071; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 537.
7
Turner writes: “Both the devil and the mockers focus on his identity and mission as God’s Son. Both present Jesus
with the alternative of ruling without suffering. And both times Jesus will have none of it”; Turner, Matthew, 663.
47
dying obeys the will of God and who instead of saving himself leaves his salvation in God’s
hands. Thus the crucified Jesus has no need of responding to the ridicule of his enemies”.1 His
enemies, though religious, identify themselves with the godless in their choosing of the words
rendered in v. 43. It is the godless that utter “He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him; let him
rescue him, for he delights in him!” (Ps 22:8).
The text now introduces darkness. But at the same time, Matthew registers no speech
during that period from the sixth hour to the ninth (noon to 3 pm). The expression “darkness over
the land” is divided between referring to Judea or the whole earth2, and could express “God’s
displeasure as in Amos 8:9-10”.3 “This darkness is appropriate during Jesus’s unspeakable
suffering and divine abandonment”.4 At the same time, they announce “that something world-
shaking–literally–is about to happen”.5 Later, immediately after his death, an earthquake occurs
(v. 51). These events in nature bracket his death. Also, right after darkness and prior to his death
and the earthquake, Jesus cries out in a loud voice (φωνῇ µεγάλῃ, vv. 46, 50). Between the two
cries, people once again mock him. Solemn events are occurring, but apparently it’s easier to
laugh them off. Here is no longer an intelligible dialogue between Jesus and the crowds, not
since chapter 23, anyway; the events speak for themselves.
The centurion, and those with him “keeping watch over Jesus” (vv. 36, 54), are presented
as the keen observers of these events. “Matthew’s inclusion of the other soldiers with the
centurion provides a witness by “two or three” which is therefore valid”.6 Their conclusion is
extraordinary: “Truly this was the Son of God”. “That the Gentile soldiers take up the disciples’
confession of 14:33 and 16:16 is significant. It demonstrates for the readers what often had been
suggested in the Gospel and what the risen Jesus will command his disciples at the end: The
gospel will come to all nations (28:19–20)”.7 Several women are presented as witnesses, but
nothing is said about their convictions regarding Jesus (vv. 55, 56). Nonetheless, they are faithful
companions to Jesus, in contrast the “the shameful absence of the disciples”.8
The words with which Jesus breaks the silence are taken form Psalm 22, from where the
allusions in vv. 35, 36 have already been taken. “This ‘God-forsakenness’ rather than the
physical suffering is, perhaps, what he had most dreaded in Gethsemane, so that he begged for
1
2
cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1075; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 543.
3
4
5
6
France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1083. He also writes: “Divine or semi-divine properties could be credited to
prominent men, and the Roman emperors were officially entitled “son of God.” So to these soldiers the phrase need
mean no more than that Jesus was someone special though even that, spoken about a condemned man who has just
been shamefully executed, is remarkable enough. But as they stood on guard they have heard Jewish people, and
even their religious leaders, mocking Jesus for having claimed to be God’s son (vv. 40, 43), and while they may
have had little understanding of how momentous a claim this would be in a Jewish context, they have seen enough
now to conclude that the truth is on the side of Jesus rather than of his mockers. This declaration thus represents a
sharp volte-face: they recognize now that their own earlier mocking of the “king of the Jews” (vv. 27–31) was out of
place”.
7
8
48
the cup to be taken away. In giving his life as a ransom for many for the forgiveness of sins he
must, for the moment, be separated from his Father”.1 Yet, although part of the Psalm, Jesus can
still refer to his Father as my God. Although he phrases the initial lines of the Psalm, it’s safe to
say that Jesus could have draw the whole context of the Psalm, even though deliverance, at that
time, moment and manner (elude the cross), was freely not an option for Jesus. Luz wouldn’t
agree, since it’s not explicit in this passage. He has presented the options we have for the
interpretation of Jesus’ cry as an expression of despair or trust.2 But, the Psalm moves from the
former to the latter; as does the narrative of the remainder of the Gospel: it doesn’t end at the
cross. So why not both.3 Matthew might hint the idea that even after the cry of v. 46, Psalm 22 is
still present, since he uses κράζω for cry (v. 50), a word that is used three times in that Psalm
(LXX). Jesus final loud cry conveys the idea that, until the end, Jesus is aware, “in full
possession of his senses”,4 and, due to the links with v. 46, it is, in essence “a reminder of Psalm
22”.5
The immediate effects of Jesus’ death are three: (1) the veil of the temple was torn, (2)
the earth shook, and (3) the rocks were split (v. 51). The “also” (καί) in v. 52 has this meaning
due to the expression “after the resurrection” in v. 53, points to those who resurrected and
appeared to many; a four sign. This event, only mentioned in Matthew is significant. Only a
historical and physical resurrection is considered as an anchor for our faith (cf. 1 Cor 15:16-19).6
With regard the the veil (καταπέτασµα), France believes that it must refer to the one
covering the entrance to the Sanctuary, for it to be seen by everybody; he thinks that it’s a
“symbol of what Jesus’ death signifies or accomplishes”.7 Turner feels it could be either the outer
veil or the inner one that separated the Holy place from the Holy of Holies.8 Luz also considers
that any of the two are suitable, since this action they foreshadow the destruction of the temple,
i.e. the end of the cult.9 Whichever the case, it’s rendered as a “divine passive” and should be
understood as an act of God; in this, Luz and France agree.10 Considering the options, I think that
the Adventist “consensus” portrayed in the SDA Commentary, that καταπέτασµα points to the
inner veil is in greater agreement with the greater OT and NT theological context (e.g. the many
sacrifices and rituals that included only the inner veil [Lev 4:5-6, 16-17; 16:15] that are now
fulfilled in Jesus’ sacrifice [cf. Heb. 6:19; 9:3; 10:19–20]).
Turner identifies a quiastic structure based on the content of 27:57-28:20. Its center piece
is the narrative of the empty tomb (28:1-10):
1
2
3
cf. Turner, Matthew, 669. France isn’t as clear to acknowledge both senses, but he doesn’t categorically rule the
second on out; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1076, 1077.
4
Ibid., 1078.
5
6
7
8
9
Luz, Matthew 21–28, 565, 566.
10
Ibid., 566; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1080.
49
A The crucified Jesus is buried (27:57–61)
B The religious leaders post the guards (27:62–66)
C The empty tomb, the angel, and the risen Jesus (28:1–10)
Bʹ The guards report to the religious leaders (28:11–15)
Aʹ The exalted Jesus commissions the disciples (28:16–20)1
When evening came, a “rich man form Arimathea, named Joseph” went to Pilate and
asked for the body of Jesus. The fact that he was rich may allude to Isa 53:9; it also shows that
for God it is possible that a rich man can be saved (cf. 19:22-26).2 With the authorization
(order, ), he took the body and laid it in his own new cut tomb in the rock. The tomb would be
presumable for his whole family, and being it a new one, Jesus was the first one to use it. Once
again, the women (now just two of them) were there as witnesses, and apparently remained a
short while after Joseph left. They are the last to leave the tomb and will be the first to discover it
empty.
Matthew doesn’t write sabbath, but that is the day, “the next day, that is after the day of
Preparation” (v. 62).3 Even then, the chief priests and Pharisees continue their schemes against
Jesus, even after his death. They fear the disciples would steal the body of the “imposter”
(πλάνος) and that “the last fraud (πλάνη) will be worse than the first” (cf. the same root in 24:4,
5, 11, 24). Pilate ignores their petition to establish a guard, and sends them away with the clear
indication to use their own temple guards.4 They also seal the tomb, but nothing could stop what
was about to happen.
After the sabbath, on “the first day of the week”, the two women go to the tomb. The
earthquake announces that God is beginning to act, it’s a theophany and so the “angel of the
Lord” is suitable in this scenario.5 In fear, the guards fall as dead men, but the angel speaks to the
women. Their perseverant presence at the cross, the burial, and now early at the tomb is
rewarded: “Do not be afraid” (v. 5). They are the first witnesses fo the resurrection; “Jesus who
was crucified... has risen” (v. 5, 6). The resurrection is not described, and apparently, Jesus had
already risen before the angel rolled the stone away. The removal of the stone allows the women
to see: “Come se the place where he lay” (v. 6).6 Now, having seen, that are sent as messengers to
the disciples. Jesus has risen and is going before you to Galilee. When they departed, Jesus met
them and greeted them (χαίρετε). The narration is simple and understated (only the καὶ ἰδοὺ
gives some drama), but the fact is that Jesus is (physically) alive, they could touch him and they
worshiped him at his feet (v. 9). The fact that Jesus repeats the words of the angel highlight the
importance of the meeting in Galilee with his disciples (v. 10). They had all abandoned Jesus, but
1
2
3
“In this year, therefore, the Friday was the day of preparation not only for the sabbath but also for the chief day of
the festival, so that the phrase ‘the Preparation’ does double duty”; Ibid., 1093.
4
Ibid., 1094, 1095. Turner and Luz think they were roman soldiers dispatched by Pilate; Turner, Matthew, 677; Luz,
Matthew 21–28, 588.
5
Luz, Matthew 21–28, 596; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1100, 1101.
6
Luz, Matthew 21–28, 596; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1097, 1098, 1100; Turner, Matthew, 681.
50
now the second part of Jesus prediction was imminent.1 “The power of the resurrection will
transform the deserters back into disciples”.2
While the women go and report the resurrection, the guards “went into the city and told
the chief priests all that had taken place” (v. 11). Once again, money and deceit are involved:
they must say that Jesus’ body was stolen by his disciples. The guards “take the money and
spawn a hoax that continues until Matthew’s Gospel is written. Such stories were still circulating
in the days of Justin Martyr” (cf. v. 15).3 This is a final glance into Jerusalem, before the
narrative moves north to Galilee. This final glimpse portrays a city willing to be deceived and not
believe in Jesus as Messiah. “So the last view we have of Jerusalem is of its leaders engaged in a
sordid face-saving exercise, while the women are summoning Jesus’ disciples to meet their risen
Lord back in the home territory of Galilee. Jerusalem, which has throughout the gospel been a
symbol of opposition to God’s purpose and of judgment to come, can be left to wallow in its own
discomfiture, while the reader turns with relief to Galilee, the place where once again light is
dawning”.4
Matthew gives no details regarding when, how of the occasion of the women's testimony,
but all eleven arrive in Galilee to the “mountain to which Jesus had directed them” (v. 16). The
narrative ends where all began, in the hills of Galilee. They worshiped Jesus, but some doubted
os hesitated. The context would indicate that “some” refer to the some within the eleven. It’s
probably a doubt connected to the new circumstances, and to their fresh memories of how they
had abandoned Jesus.5 “The ambivalence of the disciples in v. 17 is part of the Matthean concept
of ‘little faith.’ With Matthew the disciples’ faith is not a certainty elevated beyond all
conflictedness; it lives between trust and despondency, between certainty and faith”.6
The hesitation of the disciples is met by Jesus’ concrete actions (v. 18): he came
(προσέρχοµαι) and spoke (λαλέω), saying (λέγω). France understands this as a way of reassuring
his disciples. “The disciples themselves speak no words in this final scene, where the focus falls
fully on Jesus himself; their role is to listen, to understand and to obey”.7 Jesus words and
allusions in vv. 18-20 point to Daniel 7:14.8 All authority in heaven and earth refer to his
kingship, a theme that began in the genealogy, continued in the search of the magi, and even in
the several mockery in the passion. “But now the true nature of that kingship is revealed. It
stands far above local politics and extends far beyond the people of Israel. It is the universal
kingship of the Son of Man, which has emerged as a distinctive feature of Matthew’s
presentation of Jesus: 13:41; 16:28; 19:28; 20:21; 25:31–34”.9 This universal authority translates
1
2
Turner, Matthew, 681. Turner enumerates several important and valuable theological themes that would have been
truncated without the resurrection; Ibid., 683, 684.
3
Ibid., 686.
4
5
Ibid., 1111, 1112. “The Greek word occurred in 14:31 to describe Peter’s wavering faith as he walked on the water
and saw the wind. It connotes uncertainty or hesitation”; Turner, Matthew, 688.
6
7
8
Turner, Matthew, 689; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1112; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 623.
9
51
in an universal mission; before the resurrection that mission was limited tho Israel, but now it
spans to the nations (cf. 24:31); it supplements the mission to Israel, it doesn’t substitute it,
neither should one assume that refers to “only” gentiles.1
Verses 19 and 20 have a structure made of “a main verb in the imperative, ‘make
disciples,’ followed by two uncoordinated participles, ‘baptizing,’ ‘teaching,’ which spell out the
process of making disciples”.2 “Jesus’ discipleship occurs at every place where his power
becomes operative among people (v. 18b; cf. 9:8; 10:1) and his commandments are kept (v.
20a)”.3 The origin of the baptismal formula could distract us from the main theological point; “he
fact that the three divine persons are spoken of as having a single ‘name’ is a significant pointer
toward the trinitarian doctrine of three persons in one God”.4 France expands this essential idea:
“Teaching derives from the authority of the risen Lord (v. 18). So they are to teach not their own
ideas, but what Jesus has ‘commanded,’ entellomai, a term which hitherto has been especially
associated with the ‘commandments’ (the cognate noun entolē, cf. 5:19; 15:3; 19:17; 22:36–40)
given by God through Moses. The basis of living as the people of God will henceforth be the
new ‘commandments’ given by Jesus. Not that these are necessarily opposed to the
commandments of the OT, but as we have seen in 5:17–48 Jesus’ teaching has given a new
interpretation to the old law, and it is by obedience to his words that salvation is henceforth to be
found (7:24–27). To be a disciple is to obey Jesus’ teaching”.5 However, it’s not a formal
obedience or observance. The teaching and observance occur in a relationship with Gos who is
with us to the end of the age (v. 20); he is Immanuel (1:23), the great inclusion of this gospel.
Mark 8-16
8:1-21
This section is united by the concept of bread. Naturally it occurs in the feeding of the
4000, but it later takes on a figurative meaning in the context of the leaven of the Pharisees and
of Herod (vv. 14-21). This literary unit begins with “In those days”.6 Strauss and Marcus see a
close thematic parallel with the previous literary unit, that begins with the feeding of the 5000.
With the repetition of the miracle, the signs and miracles, as well as Jesus’ teaching, “enough
light begins to dawn that, in 8:29, Peter will acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah”.7
1
Turner, Matthew, 689; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1114, 1115.
2
3
Luz, Matthew 21–28, 625, 626.
4
5
Ibid., 1118, 1119.
6
7
Strauss, Mark, 327; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 486. Guelich, though recognizing that some have seen a doublet, reckons
that “this hypothesis has not held up” since the allusions don’t represent it as such; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 402.
Marcus explains the doublet based on the similar language with exodus typology, mostly with Exodus 16; Marcus,
Mark 1–8, 483-485. Strauss also believes that this second feeding is more orientated to Gentiles (as per the early
Church), while the first was to Israel, but Guelich, based on 7:27 would disagree, and Marcus is not convinced of the
idea; Strauss, Mark, 327, 330, 331; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 403; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 489, 492.
52
The crowds have gathered again (to be taught as in 6:34?), and they have nothing to eat
having spent three days with Jesus. In this feeding, Jesus brings up the issue, not the disciples.
The physical need of the crowd rises Jesus compassion (σπλαγχνίζοµαι). In chap. 6 Jesus is
moved by the fact that they were like sheep without a pastor (spiritual, more than physical). In
chap 6 the bread and the fish are presented together before Jesus. Now, however, the seven loves
of bread are presented, then also “a few small fish”.1 Seven baskets full of broken pieces left
over was the result (v. 8); the use of seven is seen as one, though weak, evidence for a Gentile
group.2 The people are sent away after they ate, and immediately (εὐθύς3) Jesus left with his
disciples to the district of Dalmanutha, probably a location in the western shore of the lake.4 This
verse both concludes and transitions to the next scene.
It’s quite a cryptic scene, little is actually said and nothing is done (vv. 11-13). Apart from
the Pharisees discussion (συζητέω) in order to test Jesus, no other reason is stated as to why
Jesus crossed in the first place, only to go back to “the other side” (v. 13). However, Jesus
question is important for the rest of this section: “Why does this generation seek a sign?” Equally
relevant is Jesus emotion, “deep frustration”. They want evidence (a sign, σηµεῖον5) that Jesus
authority comes from God (heaven), that he is truthful,6 yet they already have ample evidence in
Jesus ministry to this point.7 One could understand the desire to honestly test those who might
aspire to Messianic claims, but later in the Gospel there is a clear shift “from legitimate inquiry
to harassment” (10:2; 12:15).8 Jesus doesn’t hide the fact that the Pharisees attitude trouble him.
ἀναστενάξας expresses “a deep emotional reaction to pain”; though in this case it could convey
the idea of a prophet moved deeply before delivering his message.9 The fact that no sign is given,
and that Jesus leaves immediately can be considered in itself as communicating judgment.10
When they left, the disciples “had forgotten to bring bread, and they had only one loaf
with them in the boat” (v. 14).11 This introductory information opens the rest of the scene; one
that has the disciples for the third and last time in the boat where their lack of faith or
1
The fish, in both cases, however, seem to be pushed to the background. Some have argued that it’s because of the
eucharistic reading, and fish have no place in the Lord’s Supper; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 406; Strauss, Mark, 333.
2
Strauss, Mark, 331; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 407, 408; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 489.
3
This adverb is used 41 times in the Gospel (Mark 1:10, 12, 18, 20–21, 23, 28–30, 42–43; 2:8, 12; 3:6; 4:5, 15–17,
29; 5:2, 29–30, 42; 6:25, 27, 45, 50, 54; 7:25; 8:10; 9:15, 20, 24; 10:52; 11:2–3; 14:43, 45, 72–15:1). It’s as if every
thing, whether Jesus’ actions or other actions towards his, as well as the things he speaks about or describes in his
teachings happen quickly.
4
Strauss, Mark, 334.
5
“Yet in Mark and the synoptics, nowhere “does ‘sign’ refer to a ‘miracle’ or is a miraculous event called a ‘sign’ ”;
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 413.
6
7
Strauss, Mark, 338; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 413.
8
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 414. cf. Strauss, Mark, 340.
9
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 414; Strauss, Mark, 339.
10
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 415. cf. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 504-506.
11
All the commentaries pick up on the fact that many have tried to see Jesus as the “one loaf”. However, this
symbolic meaning, though theologically correct in the Gospels, contrasts with the very literal use for bread in this
passage.
53
comprehension is revealed.1 In rabbinic texts, leaven is associated with evil inclination.2 In
Matthew, leaven is used as a symbol for “unholiness, sin or evil”, and specifically as the teaching
of the Pharisees and Sadducees.3 The fact that Mark registers Herod with the Pharisees leads to
one common denominator: “blindness to Jesus’ identity and opposition to the kingdom of God”,4
whether through “nationalism that hoped for a unified nation under a revolutionary messiah
(Pharisees) or consolidation of power (Herod Antipas)”.5 So here, Jesus warns them of the
danger to think and reason as the Pharisees and Herod; the Pharisees have just proven their
inability or unwillingness to to discern the presence of God and his kingdom in the ministry of
Jesus. But the disciples think the problem is the shortage of bread. How could that be a problem?
Hasn’t Jesus shown that provision for literal bread isn’t a problem? Weren’t 5000 and then 4000
fed, with ample leftovers each time? Jesus doesn’t charge his disciples for arguing amongst
themselves, but rather for their lack of discernment of the spiritual truths that he’s trying to
communicate to them. Verses 17 and 21 enclose Jesus’ questions, which begin and end with
emphasizing the need to perceive and understand. With a narrow mindset such a this (leaven-
like), they are in a similar danger as are the Pharisees with their progressive hardening of heart
towards the kingdom of God as revealed in Jesus the Christ.6 There is hope, even so; the
disciples do not yet understand. Although they are “blind” and “deaf” (v. 18; cf. Isa 6:9, 10), they
still have opportunity, just as the miracles of the deaf (7:31-37) and the blind (8:22-26) that
bracket this pericope.7
8:22-10:52
This major section begins and ends with the healing of blind men (8:22-26; 10:46-52),
which are the only two in Mark. Also, “throughout the section, the Markan disciples show
themselves to be ‘blind’—terribly imperceptive and in need of the illumination of Jesus’
teaching”. “Yet they also, through their representative Peter, display an insight about Jesus that
transcends human knowledge (8:28–29)—although Peter immediately, and almost predictably,
falls into a Satanic delusion about it (8:33)”.8
The healing of the blind man is, in a sense, a very typical healing narrative, except for the
fact that Jesus must touch the man twice for him to finally have proper vision.9 As the first scene
in this section, Strauss thinks of this two-stage healing as representing “the disciples’ gradual
progression toward spiritual understanding”.10
1
Strauss, Mark, 342; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 420, 426.
2
3
Matthew renders “Pharisees and Sadducees”, ignoring the mention of Herod (Mat 16:6), while Luke just mentions
the Pharisees (12:1).
4
Strauss, Mark, 345.
5
6
cf. Strauss, Mark, 346, 347.
7
8
Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 589.
9
This would point to the historicity of the event, “since the church is unlikely to have invented a story in which
Jesus’ [sic] has only limited success”; Strauss, Mark, 354.
10
Ibid., 351. Specifically, “Peter’s myopic understanding of Jesus’ messiahship, which will only be fully
54
The fact that the people beg Jesus to heal the blind man means that they considered it a
desperate need and acknowledged Jesus as a healer. To take him outside of the village (away
from the people) is in consonance with the proposed idea of the Messianic Secret characteristic
fo Mark.1 There is no consensus whether the man could see or not before, though ἀποκαθίστηµι
(v. 25) would suggest the former.
Peters confession and Jesus’ passion prediction should be considered together, since
Peter’s words would be incomplete without Jesus’ clarification of what is mean to be the
Messiah.2 Jesus identity has been a theme that has been building up to this moment, an “initial
climax”, according to Strauss.3 All the options that the people are considering regarding Jesus
identity don’t include “Messiah” (v. 28). They are all linked, however to the prophetic office,
which is relevant considering that Jesus will prophecy about his death and resurrection (vv. 31,
32).4 In Mark, Peter will be the first to proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah. “You are the Christ”
(v. 29). However, they were charged to not tell anyone. More than for the notion of the messianic
secret, I find this significant due to what follows; Jesus “began to teach them that the Son of Man
must suffer...” (v. 31). If they didn’t fully understand, best they remain silent.5 Jesus, as Messiah,
prefers the title “Son of Man”, of Danielic origin (7:13, 14). There is a thematic and lexical
coherence in the way Mark renders this title and its use in Daniel.6
The suffering role presented clearly (παρρησία, boldly) by Jesus produces the rebuke
(ἐπιτιµάω) of Peter; a response not surprising considering that a suffering messiah was an
inexistent notion in Judaism at Jesus time.7 Jesus then rebukes (ἐπιτιµάω) Peter, while looking at
the disciples (Peters must have spoken in representation of the twelve8, or way correcting Peter’s
idea for their sake). Jesus’ rebuke uses string words: “Get behind me, Satan!”. Some have tried to
soften “Satan” rendering “you who oppose me”, but since Peter wanted Jesus to avoid the cross,
comprehended by the disciples after the resurrection”; Ibid., 354. cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 601. Although Guelich
doesn’t agree that the disciples represent the deaf and blind in Mark; that is accomplished by the scribes, the
Pharisees and Herod, and “those outside”. The disciples “were almost as blind” and in need of a second touch which
came after Easter; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 434.
1
Strauss, Mark, 353.
2
cf. Ibid., 357.
3
Ibid., 360.
4
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 611. Prediction that will be repeated two more times in this section (9:31; 10:33, 34).
5
cf. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 15.
6
“In Mark 2:10 the ‘son of man’ has ‘authority [ἐξουσία] on earth’ to forgive sins. “On earth” presupposes its
opposite ‘in heaven,’ where Dan 7 locates the ‘son of man.’ Having received authority from heaven (Dan 7:14,
which reads ἐξουσία in some Greek MSS), the ‘son of man’ possesses authority on earth. The heavenly authority of
the ‘son of man’ is also implied by the dominical saying ‘the “son of man” is lord even of the sabbath’ (2:28). The
suffering of the “son of man,” the point that Jesus makes here in 8:31, also coheres with Dan 7’s depiction of the
great struggle between the saints and the forces of evil. Finally, the prize of the struggle is the kingdom (Dan 7:18,
22, 27), which God gives to the ‘son of man’ (Dan 7:14) and which Jesus now proclaims (Mark 1:15; 4:11; 9:1)”;
Ibid., 16.
7
Strauss, Mark, 364, 367. Marcus writes: “We shall never understand this passage rightly, however, if we do not
realize how natural Peter’s reaction is”; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 613.
8
“This awkward stage direction is probably meant to suggest that the misunderstanding of the divine purpose voiced
by Peter is one that is potentially or actually shared by the other disciples”; Ibid., 607.
55
he is in line with Satans temptations or delusions.1 He now must “get back in line” (ὕπαγε ὀπίσω
µου) with Jesus.2 Jesus is aware that he “will be killed, and after three days rise again”.3 How did
Jesus know?, is the question most commentators entertain. At most, they assert the saying is
historically valid. These arguments are sterile and unnecessary when one believes in the OT as
the result of divine inspiration as well as the unique nature of Jesus.
Peter’s confession, coupled with the fuller understanding in Jesus prediction of his death
must now be applied to all who follow Jesus: the crowds (v. 34). Where they came from or if
they were already present is a matter of debate, but I think the main idea is clear: Jesus invitation
to true discipleship isn’t restricted to the twelve.4 “Whoever wishes to be his disciple must
renounce their own ambitions and follow Jesus wholly, even to the point of death”.5 To follow
Jesus is some concrete as the three imperatives demonstrate: (1) deny himself, (2) take up his
cross, and (3) follow; that is, “If anyone would come after me” (v. 34). In those days, the cross
didn’t have the automatic metaphorical meaning we take for granted today. As a consequence, a
reversal in life priorities and ambitions will occur for the sake of Jesus and the gospel (vv. 35,
36). To put Jesus first, over personal gain and worldly glory is it not be ashamed of him. This has
eschatological consequences; whoever is ashamed, “the Son of Man [will] also be ashamed when
he comes in the glory of his Father with holy angels” (v. 38). This would be the Second Coming,
and the realties it will usher for the redeemed. This understanding is key for 9:1, since the
interpretation that best fits is that Jesus is pointing to the transfiguration (note the connection,
“After six days... [v. 2])6, that functions as a “preview and guarantee of the coming parousia”,7
where the presence of Moses and Elijah portray the redeemed.8
Strauss summarizes the basic meaning of the transfiguration: “The veil over Jesus’ divine
glory is lifted and the ‘inner circle’ of disciples –Peter, James, and John– are given a glimpse of
his true glory, glory that will be revealed after his resurrection and even more fully when he
returns to judge and to save”.9 It’s a theophany and shares several parallels with Moses’
experience in Sinai to receive the law.10 His transfiguration revealed either the glory of his future
resurrection (cf. 9:9), or the glory of his (also future) parousia; or both.11 Both Elijah and Moses
1
Ibid., 614.
2
Strauss, Mark, 365; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 607, 608.
3
The three days for the resurrection have the OT backdrop to Hosea 6:2; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 613; Evans, Mark
8:27–16:20, 18; Strauss, Mark, 363.
4
cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 624.
5
Strauss, Mark, 370.
6
cf. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 29.
7
Strauss, Mark, 375, 376. The transfiguration as an anticipation of a future event is summarized in Marcus’
statement (although I don’t agree with his idea that 9:1 is a “false prophecy”): “ ‘The dominion of God … come in
power,’ then, is not only a future to be hoped for but also a presence to be experienced now, and this combination of
present advent and hope for the future is more important than the question of the exact timing of the end”; Marcus,
Mark 8–16, 630.
8
cf. Ibid., 622.
9
Strauss, Mark, 379.
10
Ibid., 381; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 636, 637.
11
Strauss, Mark, 384. cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 635.
56
were key OT figures who acted throughout their ministries in agreement to the will of God; they
also participated in encounters with Gos that had “eschatological expectations”.1 They now stand
as witnesses of how Jesus will fulfill salvation as God’s self-revelation.2 Peter’s reaction is best
left alone, since Mark himself renders it as the result of not knowing what to say (v. 6). The voice
from heaven amidst the cloud must be God, the Father. His words repeat the identification of
Jesus as his Son, but now it’s spoken to the disciples, on their behalf; “...listen to him” (v. 7).
Peter’s confession is thus confirmed. “As at 1:11, the substantival adjective ‘the beloved’ (ὁ
ἀγαπητός), may allude to Gen 22:2 and a Jesus/Isaac typology, where Abraham’s willingness to
sacrifice his beloved son is analogous to God’s offering of his own Son. This would fit the
present scene, since Jesus has just been speaking of his suffering and death (Mark 8:31)”.3 Even
after these events, silence is paramount in order that the popular notions of the Messiah wouldn’t
interfere with Jesus’ suffering experience as Messiah (v. 9). This idea remains in vv. 11, 12, in the
sense that the restoration brought by Elijah would be fulfilled in the suffering of the Son of
Man;4 Elijah had come (John the baptist), and his fate was anticipatory of Jesus’ fate.5
The next section presents the rest of the disciples in a tough situation; they haven’t been
able to cast out a spirit from a boy. To make things worse, the scribes are present and are arguing
with them. The narrative states that the people were immediately amazed when they saw Jesus
arrive; this is considered as part of the Moses typology pointed out in the previous section.6 The
issue is with “someone from the crowd”, the father of the boy (v. 16).7 The inability to cast out
the spirit meant a hard rebuke to the disciples: “O faithless (ἄπιστος) generation, how long am I
to be with you” (v. 19). This “generation” can include the scribes in their allied role with the
Pharisees, but the most direct allusion is to the disciples; they were the ones incapable of casting
out the spirit. Clearly, the disciples were still in training and formation, but time was of the
essence,8 so Jesus includes them in what he will don in favor of the boy: “Bring him to me” (v.
19).9 At the same time, the crowd can’t be dismissed from belonging to this “generation”, as
1
Ibid., 632, 633.
2
Strauss, Mark, 384, 385. The order in which they are mentioned, to me, is irrelevant, since they leave and only
Jesus is left... alone (v. 8): he is the focus of this narrative.
3
Ibid., 386. cf. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 38.
4
If restoration meant a definitive restoration of the world, that would contradict the suffering of the Son of Man, and
vice-versa; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 644, 645. “If it were Elijah’s role to fix human society, bring peace, and even repair
the universe (‘all things’), there would be no need for his successor, the Messiah, to suffer and be rejected, as is also
prophesied in the scriptures—‘How then has it been written concerning the Son of Man that he is to suffer many
things and be treated with contempt?’ ”; Ibid., 649.
5
cf. Strauss, Mark, 388, 389; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 650; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 44.
6
7
“His anxiety overrides the details of the debate that occupy the attention of the scribes and Jesus’ disciples. The
father cares for none of the finer points of theology; he desperately seeks help for his son”; Evans, Mark 8:27–
16:20, 50.
8
“The disciples’ failure is made all the more serious by this reference to Jesus’ approaching departure from the
world, which is accentuated by the flanking references to his passion (9:9–13, 30–32). Time is running out for the
disciples to get on board”; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 659.
9
Ibid., 660.
57
neither can the father, who identifies his lack of belief.1 The father briefly explains the situation
to Jesus and then, incredulously utters: “But if you can do anything, have compassion
(σπλαγχνίζοµαι) on us and help us” (v. 22). We have already seen that compassion is very much
present in Jesus’ ministry to the needy, whether physical, spiritual or both. The challenge, really,
is for the father... if he can believe (πιστεύω).2 He immediately (εὐθύς) cried: “I believe; help my
unbelief!” (v. 24)3. When the ordeal was over with tho by heeled, the disciples asked privately
(cf. 4:34) why they were unable to “cast it out” (v. 28). Lack of prayer appears to be Jesus’
answer (v. 29); and yet, the narrative as a whole points the the need of faith.4 “The story also
underscores the importance of faith, for along with repentance it is the prerequisite for
unleashing the power of the kingdom of God. When faith is present, God works”.5
Jesus once again announces his death and resurrection (vv. 30-32), which once again
produces several reactions in his disciples that must be corrected. So in a certain way, the
following passages (vv. 33-50) are link by the concept of “authentic discipleship”.6 The last
scene in the previous section presented us an private conversation between Jesus and his
disciples. Now, even though they walked through Galilee, Jesus wanted to be unnoticed in order
to teach his disciples (v. 31). Though the words of the prediction of his death and resurrection are
relatively few, they are rendered with an imperfect verb (ἔλεγεν), so surely more was said about
this subject.7 But they did not understand (ἀγνοέω) and were afraid to ask, so they began
discussing among themselves who was greater. The fact that they don’t understand Jesus’
previous words about self-denial (8:34-38), nor Jesus’ own example of that teaching when
announcing his death for the second time is even more patent when they start arguing who of
then is greater.8 Now, at home in Capernaum, when asked by Jesus about the matter, they remain
silent (v. 34). Jesus now sits down (to teach)9 has a dialogue with his disciples (the twelve) that
extends to v. 50.
The fist of Jesus words spans vv. 35-37, where he precisely refers to the discussion of the
twelve about being the greatest (µέγας): to be first (πρῶτος) one must “be the last (ἔσχατος) and
servant (διάκονος) of all” (v. 35). He further illustrates what he means by taking a child (one of
Peter’s sons?) in his arms: whoever receives a child, receives Him and who sent him (the Father).
The way to the Father is through receiving and acquaintance with those that are willing to be
instructed (παιδίον, BDAG, 749); also, due to the children’s social standing, it also meant
“lowering oneself to accept another of lower status and thereby risking one’s own position of
1
2
Jesus could also be referring to himself as the one that actually believes and to whom, therefore, all things are
possible (cf. 10:27; 14:36, ascribed to God); Marcus, Mark 8–16, 661, 662.
3
“paradigmatic of the faithful–yet–faithless disciples” (?); Ibid., 657.
4
“Faith or faithlessness is mentioned four times: by Jesus concerning the present generation (v. 19), in Jesus’
exhortation to the man (v. 23), in the man’s response (v. 24), and implicitly in Jesus’ call for more prayer (v. 29)”;
Strauss, Mark, 394.
5
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 54.
6
Strauss, Mark, 405.
7
Some have suggested Jesus appealed to scripture, specifically Isa 53; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 57.
8
cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 680; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 60.
9
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 673; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 60.
58
power and prestige”.1 To receive “implies being welcome and being treated as a friend, even as
family”.2 The context would indicate that the “child” represents fellow followers of Jesus. What
John presents, regarding the anonymous exorciser, develops in a practical way what Jesus is
saying. As a fellow follower of Christ, the disciples should not hinder his ministry or feel
jealous,3 since they all want the advancement of the kingdom of God.4 Even a basic action in
favor of them as Jesus’ disciples (to be given a cup of water) is understood as coming from
someone that is not against them, but for them an in favor of the kingdom (v. 40, 41). So if that is
true, then How much more is this anonymous man in favor of Jesus, since he minister’s “in his
name” (v. 38)? The next verses start off with the idea of “these little ones”, that in context, would
have to be followers and disciples of Christ; even lowly ones or some that don’t follow “us” (v.
38). As followers of Christ, “we are vulnerable to spiritual failure”,5 since we act, move, and see
(hand, foot, eye, vv. 43-48) everything in a spiritual setting. The idea of salt/saltiness (v. 49, 50)
would point to the idea of sustaining an identity that fosters a saving and serving disposition with
others, since we know of the perils of “stumbling into Gehenna” and would rather enter the
kingdom of God (cf. vv. 42-47).6
Jesus now moves into “Judea and beyond the Jordan”. The crowds gather and so, “as was
his custom, he taught them” (10:1). The Pharisees show up again in order to test7 him (v. 2; cf.
8:11). The Pharisees asked about divorce, if it was lawful. Jesus doesn’t deny the existing legal
guidelines/concession due to human fallenness, but he pointed to a greater ethical reality:
creation order (vv. 7, 8).8 This encounter with the Pharisees gave the disciples the opportunity to
further enquire on this matter privately (vv. 10-12).
The passage regarding the children seems to relate with the previous talk about marriage.
The fact that it ends speaking of how one must enter the kingdom of God lays a foundation for
the next episode about the rich ruler (Evans sees vv. 13-31 as a whole).9 The disciples rebuke the
ones bringing their children and this makes Jesus indignant; this should not be, “for to such (to
ones like this) belongs the kingdom of God” (v. 15).10 “The kingdom of God belongs to those
who are childlike in their faith... those who come in complete dependance to God”.11 The idea
1
Strauss, Mark, 409. cf. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 61.
2
Ibid., 62.
3
The OT backdrop would be when Joshua objected the prophesying of Eldad and Modad (Num 11:26-30); Ibid., 65;
4
Strauss, Mark, 410, 411.
5
Ibid., 412.
6
7
“It is quite possible that the Pharisees’ question may have been occasioned by Jesus’ known association with John
and the assumption that he held to his views, views that may very well have been the same as those held by the
Essenes. Thus, the question may not have been so innocent; it may have been a question designed to draw Jesus out
and show that his view was the same as John’s and therefore just as politically dangerous as John’s had been”;
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 81.
8
Strauss, Mark, 424.
9
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 87ff.
10
Strauss, Mark, 431; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 94; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 715.
11
Strauss, Mark, 433. “The child is not being idealized (as is often thought in the Western world), for the child was
not held in high regard in late antiquity. Indeed, parents had the power of life and death over the very young (cf.
59
that one “receives” and then “enters” the kingdom can point to “both the present and future
dimensions of the kingdom”.1
The following verses (vv. 17-31) deal with what those willing to enter the kingdom2 must
face; aspects of the cost of discipleship will once again be presented by Jesus. As Marcus writes:
“The Gospel’s next two, closely related passages will stress that price, along with the
hundredfold blessing of those who are willing to pay it”.3 Jesus implicitly sets the example by
“setting out on his journey” (v. 17), to Jerusalem, his way to the cross.4
The man who “ran up and knelt before him” calls Jesus “Good Teacher”5, expressions
that point to his good intentions, just as perceived by Jesus (cf. v. 21). The mans question “What
must I do...?” is responded accordingly by Jesus: keep the law, sell everything and follow me (vv.
17-21). “So the point is not ‘faith versus works’ in a Pauline sense. It is rather the man’s love for
riches over his love for God, and his trust in those riches instead of his humble dependence on
God”.6 Jesus rhetorical question and answer “...except God alone” (v. 18), contrasts with
whatever “good” the man has done while observing the commandments; “in comparison to
God’s perfection, no one is good and worthy of eternal life... no one can merit God’s salvation”.7
However, the mans declaration in v. 20 must be understood as genuine, due to Jesus attitude in v.
21,8 but intentions and outward compliance to the law will not suffice, for “one thing” is lacking;
“to give up one’s own life to live wholly for God” (cf. 8:34):9 Who is he willing to love more?
The man is sincere, that why he leaves, although disheartened and sorrowful, for he knows what
he loves most (v. 22). Jesus now turns to his disciples, for they must learn from this. The
disciples are shocked to see that even the rich (allegedly favored by God) have difficulties
entering the kingdom, and Jesus’s statement, accordingly, must be understood as hyperbolic.10
The only solution for this hyperbolic impossibility is what God can make possible (v. 27; cf. Gen
P.Oxy. 744.8—10: ‘If you bear a child: if it is a boy, keep it; if it is a girl, throw it out’; though this is a pagan
practice, not a Jewish one). Rather, Jesus’ point is that one should accept the kingdom and be obedient to its
summons in the same way children will without question obey adults and do what they are told”; Evans, Mark 8:27–
16:20, 94.
1
Strauss, Mark, 433.
2
Ibid., 436.
3
4
Strauss, Mark, 439.
5
Not a common expression in first century judaism; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 95.
6
Strauss, Mark, 439, 440. Also, the idea of inheritance is well established in OT passages referring to the promise
made to the patriarchs concerning the inheritance of the land, that in latter times was interpreted eschatologically;
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 724. Evans points to Lev 18:5 as another OT theological background; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20,
95.
7
Strauss, Mark, 440; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 96.
8
Jesus’ gaze is followed by a spiritual diagnosis, and Jesus expresses a “fatherly” love; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 722,
727. “Jesus studied the man carefully for a moment (Swete, 225), and ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν, ‘loved him,’ may suggest
that Jesus actually hugged him or took him by the shoulders as a sign of affection (that is, the verb refers to overt
action, not simply to an inner emotion”; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 98.
9
Strauss, Mark, 441.
10
Ibid., 443, 444; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 101; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 736.
60
18:14; Job 42:2). “According to Jesus, people cannot save themselves; only God can”.1 Peter’s
response (“we have left everything”) isn’t refuted by Jesus, so it must mean that “everything”
stands for those things that “represent a roadblock to authentic faith and trust in God”.2 Even so,
there is, at the present age, a reward; or rather “nothing of consequence will be lost through
discipleship”3; but ultimately, eternal life is the goal (vv. 29-30). Jesus’ final words regarding the
first being last could be alluding what happened to the rich man, or even Peter and a possible
“apostolic arrogance”.4 It could also point to those who have a worldly “first place” now, since
they have not renounced their possessions; “believer is to know that many who are now first in
importance and power will someday be last, while those who lack wealth and standing in society
today will someday have it all”.5
Verse 32 connects naturally with v. 17;6 Jesus is now on the road to Jerusalem and takes a
substantial lead to his disciples; something that amazed them and made (some of) them afraid.
Their amazement is due to the fact that Jesus is no longer walking beside them, but fixed on
arriving to Jerusalem.7 Those who were afraid might have (wrongly) thought that the inevitable
clash with the Romans was now inevitable.8 In this context of expectation, Jesus presents for the
third time the reality of his death and resurrection: this is what it means to be the Messiah (vv.
33, 34),9 but resurrection has the final word, not death.10 Similar to what happened in the second
announcement of his death, another discussion about who might be the greatest amongst them
broke out, due to the petition of James and John, as well as Jesus’ answer that is poorly
understood by the rest (vv. 37-41). Jesus’ use of the metaphors of cup and baptism certainly point
to his death, and although later and in another sense, the two disciples did have to bear the cup
and the baptism they so eagerly wanted.11 This prompts Jesus into vv. 42-45, a somewhat more
intimate/private teaching (rebuke?) concerning the distinctive notion of greatness through service
(δοῦλος, διακονέω), with Jesus himself as the prime example (vv. 44, 45).12 “The ultimate act of
servant leadership is the Son of Man’s sacrificial death as a ransom payment for the sins of the
world”,13 a notion that clashes with the glory, power and authority associated with this title in
Daniel 7. In Jesus last words of v. 45, “to give his life as a ransom for many”, the ideas of Isa
1
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 102.
2
Strauss, Mark, 444. cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 728, 732.
3
Ibid., 737.
4
5
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 103.
6
Ibid., 107.
7
cf. Ibid., 109.
8
cf. Strauss, Mark, 452; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 744.
9
Of all three announcements of his death, this is the most detailed, which has led some to believe that it’s a
vaticinium ex eventu; cf. Strauss, Mark, 451; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 106. Evans writes: “The third prediction of
Jesus’ passion bears the most obvious marks of post-Easter editing”.
10
11
cf. Strauss, Mark, 456; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 117.
12
Marcus draws a parallel with Philippians 2:5-11; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 757.
13
Strauss, Mark, 458.
61
53:13 and Dan 7:13, 14 merge together.1 The idea of many shouldn’t be understood under an
universalistic interpretation; it rather can be compared with the idea of “one” and “many” as it
occurs in Rom 5:12, 15.2
This section ends with the healing of Bartimaeus (vv. 46-52). Verses 17 and 32 have
already stated that Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem; Jesus is on the road (ὁδός), and so will be
Bartimaeus after he is healed, he “followed him on the way (ὁδός)” (v. 52). Bartimaeus is clearly
the “least”3 compared to the disciples and the great crowd; and yet he’s crying out “Jesus, Son of
David, have mercy on me!” (v. 47); he stands “in contrast to the spiritual blindness of the
religious leaders and the blurred vision of the disciples”;4 “he shows remarkable spiritual insight
bay recognizing him as the coming Davidic king”.5 Similar to the rebuke received by the parents
taking their children to Jesus,6 the blind man is told to be quiet (both socially insignificant); but
he cries even louder (v. 48). Jesus stops and asks that he is brought to him. Now Bartimaeus calls
Jesus Rabbi7, however, his petition informs us that he saw Jesus as more than that; he is surely
the “Son of David”. Jesus grants him his sight and the ability to go “his way” (v. 52), however,
for Bartimaeus, his way is Jesus’ way. Bartimaeus’ response is the appropriate one: discipleship.8
11:1-13:37
Marcus suggests this division as one of Jesus’ final teaching in Jerusalem, whether to his
disciples or in the public space, such as the temple. It is “the vestibule to the passion narrative”.9
Evans also ends this main section in 13:37, but starts it at 10:46, since Bartimaeus anticipates the
cry of the crowds (Jesus son of David) in the triumphal entry of Jesus.10
In Mark’s narrative, probably the most important issue is what Jesus is announcing with
his arrival to Jerusalem. The cry of the crowds is briefly stated (11:9, 10), and nothing is
registered concerning Jesus’ words or actions in the temple the day of his triumphal entry. It is
certainly “anticlimactic”,11 and Mark doesn’t even highlight it as the fulfillment of Zechariah
9:912 (cf. Ps 118:22-29). It appears that to Mark, it’s suffice to state that everything is going
according to plan. However, the episode of the fig tree (vv. 12-14; 20:25)13, divided by the
1
cf. Ibid., 458-461; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 120-124; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 753.
2
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 750; Strauss, Mark, 459.
3
cf. Strauss’ excursus, “The humble recipients of God’s grace; Strauss, Mark, 473.
4
Ibid., 465; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 763.
5
Strauss, Mark, 469.
6
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 132, 133.
7
Though this word, ραββουνι, is “a heightened form of ‘Rabbi (‘my lord/master’; 9:5; 11:21; 14:45)”; Strauss,
Mark, 472. cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 761.
8
Ibid., 761, 765; Strauss, Mark, 472; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 134.
9
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 767. cf. Strauss, Mark, 475.
10
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 126.
11
Strauss, Mark, 478, 483. Royal implications have to read in, since their not explicit by Mark; Ibid., 479. cf.
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 778-780. Had it been a legend, the ending certainly would have been different; cf. Evans, Mark
8:27–16:20, 138.
12
cf. Ibid., 147.
13
“This is the only miracle of destruction in the Gospels. Miracles of judgement and destruction do appear in the OT
62
cleansing of the temple (vv. 15-19), both serve as a clear message of judgement over Jerusalem
and it’s spiritual leadership.1 This is the perspective from which one must understand Jesus’
dealing with the tree.2 “Jesus actions are neither petty nor vindictive if he is intentionally action
out a parable symbolizing the unfruitfulness of Israel and the nation’s coming judgment...” it’s
“an object lesson for the benefit of the disciples”.3 The cleansing of the temple is also best
understood as a prophetic action that pointed to the judgement and destruction of the temple.4 “If
the temple establishment cannot, or will not, do better, then it too will fall under judgment. How
serious this judgment would be is addressed in the parable of the Vineyard Tenants (Mark 12:1–
11) and Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the temple (Mark 13:1–2)”.5 Thus, the fig tree and
the cleansing of the temple go hand in hand.6
The notions of prayed and faith (vv. 22-25) might be the necessary corollaries of the
destruction of the temple: “faith and prayer that bypass the sacrificial system of the ‘den of
brigands’ and appeal directly to the heavenly Father for mercy”. If the reference to the mountain
also points to the destruction of Jerusalem, then these passages of prayer and faith would’ve had
a special meaning to those who, without the temple, should understand themselves as not
abandoned by God.7
The “chief priests and the scribes and the elders” (v. 27) question his authority, but are
forced to retreat and are even exposed as wicked tenant farmers over God’s vineyard, i.e., Israel
(12:1-12). This is the most allegorical of Jesus’ parables, since “the vineyard and each of the
characters having counterparts in the context of Jesus’s ministry”.8 For those who find it
and some in the NT, but always directed to people; Strauss, Mark, 489. cf. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 150.
1
Strauss, Mark, 476, 487. cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 790.
2
Although the issue with the leaves and the fruit to be found is matter of debate. Evans summarizes: “Therefore,
Jesus’ going to a fig tree with leaves in mid-April, hoping to find something edible, does not strain the credulity of
the story (cf. Haenchen, 380–81). Even if the narrative is fictive in its origin, Mark’s reader would have found it
plausible”; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 155.
3
Strauss, Mark, 492-494. Evans is not convinced that the story of the fig tree, devoid of a literary context, should
“be taken as an acted parable or a symbolic action and certainly not with reference to Israel”, specially considering
Jesus’ word concerning faith and prayer (vv. 22-25); Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 158. By means of the narrative
intercalation done in Mark, Evans thinks that “the fig-tree story presents a curse miracle that is a symbolic or
prophetic action pointing to the coming destruction of the temple”; Ibid., 160.
4
Strauss, Mark, 496; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 791. Curiously, the Davidic Messiah “was expected to purge them of
ungodliness and thereby inaugurate God’s dominion on earth”, but the ungodliness was found within their own
temple!; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 776. Following Sanders, Marcus point out that the issue itself might not have been the
animals or the exchange, but that Jesus performed a “parabolic action typical of prophets” that pointed to the
destruction and imminent demise of the Sanctuary; Ibid., 782. Evans comments: “In view of this evidence, it is quite
possible that Jesus entered the temple precincts and acted with messianic authority. He alluded to prophetic
traditions that had earlier alluded to Solomon’s famous prayer of dedication. These prophetic traditions may have
regarded the ruling priests of the first temple as failing to live up to the requirements of the implied temple covenant
between God and Israel”; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 179.
5
Ibid., 182.
6
“Mark, however, has made good use of this story, which frames the temple demonstration (11:15–19). Unlike the
Matthean evangelist, the Markan evangelist is comfortable with the intercalation. In this presentation each story
provides an interpretation for the other”; Ibid., 158.
7
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 788, 794-796. cf. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 195.
8
Strauss, Mark, 511.
63
unrealistic (so many servants sent; finally sending his son), I would agree with Stein: “What
some criticize as absurd and unrealistic is in reality the unconceivable ‘amazing grace’ of God!”1
The wicked tenants (Jewish religious leadership over Israel2), would pass to Jesus and the
messianic community3; the leaders knew they had been exposed and would now look for a way
to arrest Jesus.4 Jesus is aware of their plots and will still “pursue his mission, even at the cost of
his life”.5
Four short dialogues follow with the Pharisees and Herodians, the Sadducees, a scribe
and, finally, “the great throng” (vv. 18-37). The first two would like to hinder his authority.
Apparently they deal with potentially doctrinal or practical matters, however, the Pharisees and
Herodians wished to trap (ἀγρεύω) him in his words, since their inquiry dealt with taxes and was
not only a Jewish affair or related exclusively with Scripture.6 “A false step here and Jesus could
find himself in the hands of the Roman authorities before completing his ministry in Jerusalem”.7
The Sadducees’s issue is “milder”, apparently there is no trap involved since it dealt with
resurrection, an idea “most Jews of Jesus’ day would have affirmed”.8 Maybe their intention was
that Jesus lost “credibility in the eyes of the crowd with which he is so popular”.9 Finally they are
proven “quite wrong” in two areas: the power of God and the statement of Scripture (vv. 24, 27).
At the end, one of the scribes, impressed by his answers asked him about a matter in which they
agreed: the most important commandment10, although Jesus refers to the second as well;11 in both
cases they agree: “The highest ethic of the Law is not sacrifice or other cultic activity; it is
loyalty to God and compassion for human beings”.12 There is no trick question in this case. Their
dialogue developed with great mutual respect and Jesus would finally answer: “You are not far
from the kingdom of God” (v. 34). The narrative is left open, as is the invitation to the kingdom
of God. After those words, “no one dared to ask him any more questions”. So there’s a clear
decline in open opposition toward Jesus. Form here on, all schemes against Jesus are in secret
and furtive (14:1, 2; cf. 11:18; 12:12).
1
Quoted by Strauss; Ibid., 516.
2
But could also be extensive to the crowd that reject Jesus; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 805, 806.
3
The fact that the stone the builders rejected points to Jesus strengthens this argument; cf. Ibid., 809, 813, 814;
Strauss, Mark, 517. We wouldn’t agree, however, with Marcus’ assertion in favor of supersessionism. cf. Evans,
Mark 8:27–16:20, 237.
4
5
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 239.
6
It’s a strange partnership, since the Pharisees are anti-Roman and the Herodians were pro-Romans; whichever the
case, any of them could benefit depending on how Jesus answered their question. “The dilemma is that if Jesus
answers yes, he will anger the people, who despise Roman oppression and taxes; but if he says no, he will be guilty
of sedition and liable to arrest and crucifixion”; Strauss, Mark, 524. cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 822; Evans, Mark 8:27–
16:20, 244.
7
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 248.
8
Strauss, Mark, 531.
9
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 257.
10
“...an issue that was vigorously debated among Jesus’ contemporaries”; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 842.
11
Ibid., 843; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 264.
12
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 267.
64
Jesus’ monologue to the crowd about the true meaning1 of Christ as the Son of David (vv.
35-37) are considered as part of his teaching, but we’re note informed about concrete decisions
of actions on their behalf. Maybe Jesus was somehow making them think further on what many
of them had cried out the day of his entry, “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David”
(11:9).2 However they’re glad (ἡδέως)3 to listen, as probably were those who cheered in his prior
entry to Jerusalem. Evans summarizes: “Evidently Jesus held to a higher view of the Messiah.
This figure was so exalted that even the great David, the archetype of the Messiah, had ‘in the
Holy Spirit’ addressed him as ‘lord.’ On what basis does Jesus in Mark hold to such a lofty view
of the Messiah? Probably because the Messiah is viewed as ‘son of God’ who as the ‘son of man’
figure of Dan 7:9–14 has received his kingdom and authority directly from God himself (and not
from the line of David). Jesus’ stunning teaching, as well as his interpretation of Ps 110:1, will
come to the fore in the subsequent hearing before the high priest and the Sanhedrin. There Jesus
will once again allude to Ps 110:1, only this time expressly in conjunction with Dan 7:13. At that
time Jesus’ understanding of Ps 110:1 and the reason why he regards “son of David” as an
inadequate messianic epithet will become clear, but the ruling priests will not on that occasion
hear his words ‘with pleasure’ ”.4
Also, as part of his teaching, he has a final word concerning the scribes (vv. 38-40). This
observation concerning their false piety seem odd after the positive dialogue in vv. 28-34; but
clearly Jesus spoke about what would have been the norm and not about that particular case.5 At
the end, Jesus draws his disciples attention to someone unnoticed by the rest: a poor widow.
Children, a blind man, and now a widow would stand as hallmarks of what is deemed good and
desirable before God. It’s in theses “little ones” that the essence os the kingdom is being
portrayed to the disciples: “she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to
live on” (v. 44). She could be an example of the “piety of the simple souls who devote
themselves to it in innocence and faith”.6 “She serves as an example of fulfilling the greatest
commandment, loving God with one’s whole self”.7 Contrary to this opinion, are those who see
1
cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 851. “Jesus’ identity is not defined so much by his relationship to David as by his
relationship to God. It is revealing that when the Markan Jesus uses Ps 110:1 to establish David’s inferiority to the
Messiah, he quotes more of the psalm than he needs to for that purpose, citing the picture of ‘the Lord’ telling ‘my
lord’ to sit on his right until he has subdued his enemies (12:36bc)”. Also, as Evan’s writes: “In Scripture there is the
anticipation that the Messiah will be recognized as God’s son, not David’s son. One immediately thinks of Ps 2:2, 7,
where it is said of the Lord’s ‘anointed [ ‫ משיח‬māšı̂ aḥ]’ (v. 2), “You are my son, today I have begotten you” (v. 7), as
well as 2 Sam 7:14, where God promises David, ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son’ ”. “...In the Gospel of
Mark, of course, the divine sonship, not Davidic sonship, of Jesus is emphasized”; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 274,
275.
2
“Lührmann (189) rightly remarks that the “kingdom of our father David” was never part of Jesus’ proclamation.
This is true, but it is the crowd that is shouting these words, not Jesus”; Ibid., 145. The idea of the Messiah as “son
of David” could have come from and idea that rendered Solomon as a healer or an exorcist of sort; Ibid., 275.
3
The only other occurrence of this adverb is to describe Herod that listened to John the Baptist “gladly”. It’s not a
good backdrop, since his hearing John didn’t change his actions or convictions (cf. 6:20). This could be another
slight parallel between Jesus and John de Baptist, as we saw in Matthew.
4
Ibid., 276.
5
Strauss, Mark, 554; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 856; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 279.
6
7
Strauss, Mark, 559.
65
Jesus’ portrayal of the widow as “not one of praise but one of lament”. Jesus would be, in the
light of his recent condemnation of the scribal attitudes and actions, condemning “the value
system that motivates her action”.1 From and Adventist perspective, both readings hold true and
are not incompatible in light of each other (cf. Ellen White, DA, 615, 616).
13:1-37
The remarks of the disciples concerning the temple are more embellished than those
presented in Matthew. They speak of ποταποὶ λίθοι καὶ ποταπαὶ οἰκοδοµαί (v. 1); with ποταπός
denoting admiration. Jesus doesn’t deny that they a “great” (µέγας), but he bluntly states that
they will be thrown down (v. 2). Mark has the closest three disciples (Peter, James and John),
privately” (cf. 4:34; 6:31–32; 7:33; 9:2, 28), ask the composite question in v. 4. “These things”
would point to the destruction of Jerusalem; while “all these things” refer to the eschaton.2 The
major difference is that Mark simply states “all these things” that will be preceded by “the sign”
(v. 4); as opposed to Matthew that renders “your coming and the end of the age”. The initial part
of the discourse is quite similar (vv. 5-8).
Mark presents “But be on your guard” (v. 9; cf. v. 23), as an alert before he mentions the
hardships faced when giving testimony to the gospel. In this process of hardships, “the gospel
must first be proclaimed to all nations” (v. 10); so finally “the end” (τέλος) appears in v. 13, as a
result of endurance/perseverance (ὑποµένω) in spite of the hatred of all, so it’s not the
eschatological end, but a final or complete endurance.3 Also, and above all, the preaching of the
gospel is a matter of the Spirit (v. 11); it is He who speaks ate the appointed hour (ὥρα).
The events occurring in Judea and are presented in vv. 14-23, and are united with the
necessary preaching before the “end” by the expression to be on guard (Βλέπετε δὲ ὑµεῖς
ἑαυτούς, ὑµεῖς δὲ βλέπετε, vv. 9, 23, an inclusio). The “abomination of desolation” must refer to
the events that occurred in the destruction of Jerusalem and the actions that directly affected the
temple;4 maybe Titus (as and extension, his armies, cf. Lk 21:20) himself of the occupation of the
temple by Zealots.5 The mention of false Messiahs is rooted in OT typologies (cf. Deut 13:1-3)
and is historically accurate regarding the events leading to the destruction of Jerusalem.6
The Son of Man coming (ἔρχοµαι) in the clouds with his angels is now portrayed (vv.
24-27). The cosmic manifestations present an eschatological scene7, and the scope is no longer
Judea but “the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven” (v. 27); this is a eschatological gathering,
1
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 282.
2
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 874. Evans divides the reasoning of the question based on the emphasis of when and what
sign; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 304.
3
Ibid., 313.
4
Strauss finds that this is the best explanation; Strauss, Mark, 578, 579.
5
cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 890. “The unveiling of the ‘abomination,’ Jesus goes on to say, is to be a signal for the
Christian community’s flight to the mountains (13:14c)—likely a reference to the Jerusalem church’s escape to Pella
in the Transjordan during the early stages of the war”; Ibid., 895. Evans arrives at no conclusion regarding the
meaning of “the abomination of desolation” in the first century; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 318-320.
6
7
Strauss, Mark, 565; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 906; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 327.
66
a common theme in the OT.1 The “time leap” from AD 70 to the eschatological time frame can
be explained as a “ ‘foreshortened’ or two-dimensional prophetic vision”.2 Matthew also doesn’t
use parousia in his equivalent passage (24:29-31).
Mark then points back to the events that will be witnessed by “this generation” (vv.
28-31), to once again advance to “that day or that hour” that no one knows (vv. 32-37).3 The
mention of “Son” and of the “angels” would link this event to the Son of Man coming in the
clouds and sending out his angels (v. 26, 27). The expression “that day” must be the
eschatological “day of the Lord”.4 Finally, the disciples are charged to keep awake in a
comparison to a man going on a journey that is quite simple (vv. 33-36). Only two mentions of
“coming” occur in this discourse, and they’re not parousia but erchomai (vv. 26, 36). Cleary,
Matthew has a more elaborate discourse.
14:1-15:47
An opening comment by Strauss is useful: “If one theme holds the narrative together, it
us the sovereign purpose of God, who is accomplishing his saving work through his servant,
Jesus the Messiah. Though Jesus is rejected, betrayed, abandoned, condemned, and crucified, he
remains in control, faithfully following God’s purpose. He will be vindicated in the end”.5
Mark has already presented how the plot against Jesus has intensified, leading to this
occasion (3:6; 11:18; 12:12), “two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread”
(14:1).6 This plot, renewed, frames the narrative of Jesus’ anointment in Bethany (vv. 3-9). The
woman is criticized for the cost of the perfume; even worse, they reckon it was wasted (on
Jesus!) One could speculate what they would have considered a worthy use for that money, and
maybe Evans has a point when he suggests that the expenses of a new earthy kingdom was the
1
cf. Strauss, Mark, 592.
2
Ibid., 590.
3
A “back-and-forth (A-B-A-B) pattern between the two events”. Strauss presents a structure suggested by Edwards
(See Ibid., 565, 566.):
A1 13:5-13 End of the temple and fall of Jerusalem
B1 13:14-27 Tribulation and parousia
2
A 13:28-31 End of the temple and fall of Jerusalem
B2 13:32-37 Paruosia and watchfulness
I would suggest that this pattern occurs but the sections are:
A1 13:5-23 End of the temple and fall of Jerusalem
B1 13:24-27 Tribulation and parousia
2
A 13:28-31 End of the temple and fall of Jersualem
B2 13:32-37 Paruosia and watchfulness
Marcus also states, while referring to another proposal: “This sort of structure is fairly common in apocalyptic
writings, which frequently do not proceed in a simple chronological sequence but go back over ground already
covered in a slightly different manner”; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 867.
4
Strauss, Mark, 595.
5
Ibid., 600.
6
“It was celebrated on 14 or 15 Nisan (April/May) and was followed by the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which was
celebrated on 15–21 Nisan. These holidays were usually thought of as the week of Passover”; Evans, Mark 8:27–
16:20, 354.
67
main concern for the disciples.1 Jesus responds: it is a beautiful (καλός) thing done to him (vv. 6,
7). She’s not being charitable to Jesus, but probably recognizing him as the Messiah.2 The plot to
kill him is in motion, and she’s the only one already anointing his body “beforehand for burial”
(v. 8); her actions and Jesus’ word would be a “fourth” passion prediction.3
On the first day of Unleavened Bread, the disciples ask Jesus where they should prepare
for Passover; Jesus already had made arrangements, there was a place “furnished”, they needed
only “prepare” (v. 15); “To some extent preparations have already been made … and the two
disciples are to complete them”.4 In this sense “again Jesus is portrayed as master of the
situation”.5 When they were eating, Jesus announces his betrayal. “One after another”, they ask
“Is it I?” The only clue is who was dipping bread into the dish with Jesus (v. 20). At least with
the information given by Mark, one can only be sure that it is on of the twelve.6 No more details
are necessary, “for the Son of Man goes as it is written of him” (v. 21). Mark doesn’t mention
when Judas leaves, he simply continues with the narrative.
Jesus and Mark present the occasion for the bread and wine as a “new Passover”; there
are several details in the place, time and rituals that point in that direction.7 It’s not a direct copy
or application of a typical Jewish passover feast, but Jesus clearly uses the elements in a new
way.8 No more will a lamb be the Passover sacrifice; now “Jesus’ body, like his blood, represents
his sacrificial death on the cross”.9
After they leave, the narrative is similar to what we saw in Matthew. The mention of
Jesus going before then to Galilee is interesting, since even in the longer ending the place of their
final meeting isn’t mentioned (cf. 16:14-20). The main difference in vv. 26-31 is that the rooster
would crow twice, but this hardly changes the fact that what Jesus said, quoting Scripture (v. 27),
will happen.
Jesus prayer in Gethsemane is worded different than in Matthew. The most distinct
feature is “Abba” (v. 36). “As far as we can tell, no one before had spoken of their relationship to
God in such intimate terms of used ‘Father’ as the standard way of addressing God in prayer”.10
Jesus knows “all thing are possible” to his Father (confession and request)11, maybe even
answering that the cup pass him by; but Jesus finds courage and strength to face his betrayer and
1
Ibid., 361.
2
Ibid.
3
Strauss, Mark, 609.
4
5
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 375.
6
Ibid., 377.
7
Strauss, Mark, 622. cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 957, 963.
8
cf. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 370-372.
9
Strauss, Mark, 624.
10
Ibid., 634. cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 978; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 412, 413.
11
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 413.
68
the crowd with swords and clubs. “Jesus willingly accepts God’s purpose for him”:1 “Yet not
what I will, but what you will” (v. 36).
Judas is back in the scene and apparently giving orders: “The one I will kiss is the man.
Seize him and lead him away under guard” (v. 44). A brief illusion of power; after kissing Jesus,
Judas disappears from the narrative altogether. Even Peter’s irrational act using his sword is only
registered,2 but Jesus moves on to see the irony of his captors swords when he was available in
the temple and yet they never seized him there (vv. 48, 49). Once Jesus states, “But let the
Scriptures be fulfilled”, the issue with his captors is over and his disciples flee (v. 50). Not only
Scripture is being fulfilled, but Jesus’ words concerning himself and his disciples as well.3
Apparently, Mark wished to leave his personal imprint in the Gospel in vv. 51, 52.4
Once again, only small differences appear the narrative compared to Matthew, until vv.
60-62. The high priest simply asks, without mention of adjuring by the living God (Mat 26:63).
The question is also different: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” (v. 61), i.e. the Son
of God,5 or “the anointed king”.6 “The high priest is not asking whether Jesus is claiming
divinity, but whether he is claiming to be the Messiah, with the special father-son relationship
with God that was predicted in Scripture. Mark’s readers, of course, would see deeper
significance in the Son of God title, which in many NT contexts carries divine connotations”.7
Jesus answer is also more direct: “I am” (i.e., “yes”), “the messianic secret is over and Jesus is
moving inexorably toward the cross”,8 but his judges will see, at the appointed time, Jesus
coming in glory (cf. Rev 1:7).
Peter’s denial is quite similar to what we have already seen in our notes on Matthew.
The details concerning the last decision of the council in the morning are quite similar,
except that Mark highlights that the “whole council” participated in the “consultation” (15:1), a
summary of the trial the night before9 or that “they were ready to act on this decision”10; though
clearly they didn’t have jurisdiction to sentence somebody to death. Thus the deliver
(παραδίδωµι; cf. 9:31; 10:33) to Pilate. The dialogue between Jesus and Pilate is brief; two
questions and just one answer are presented (vv. 2-5), “You have said so”, i.e. yes but in a
different way than you think.11 For the rest of the narrative, Jesus called king is part of the
1
Strauss, Mark, 637.
2
3
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 427.
4
cf. Ibid., 427, 428; Strauss, Mark, 645, 646.
5
6
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 448.
7
Strauss, Mark, 656.
8
Ibid. Marcus sees this otherwise, as the messianic secret is persevered; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1016. Evans also
explains why the shorter reading (I Am) is preferred over the variant “You have said that I am”; Evans, Mark 8:27–
16:20, 450.
9
10
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 475.
11
cf. Strauss, Mark, 675; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 478.
69
accusation or the content of the mocks against him; no one realizes the reality of Jesus true
kingship that lead him to the cross. A detail Matthew doesn’t mention is that the option presented
by Pilate to the crowd, included Barabbas, that had committed murder (v. 7).1 The fact that he
participated in an insurrection places him in the alleged accusation of Jesus before Pilate: in
opposition to the Roman authorities (“Are you king of the Jews?”, 15:22). Who would be
released? Jesus, the King of the Jews, or Barabbas, a murderer? The crowd, stirred by the chief
priests, forced3 Pilate to release Barabbas and deliver Jesus to be crucified, not before having
scourged him (v. 15). This could have been common practice before crucifixions.4
The mention of Simon of Cyrene as father of Alexander and Rufus (v. 21) is an
interesting detail in Marks narrative. However, opinions are divided when it comes to the
identification of these men. The main opinion is that his sons were know by the church at large,
or by the churches to which Mark initially wrote (cf. Rom 16:13).5
The inscription concerning Jesus charge is shorter than in Matthew, simply: “The King of
the Jews” (v. 26). Since it refers to Jews and not Israel, it should be understood as a Roman
formulation, and not a formulation of early Christians.6 The mocking, though briefer, follows the
same pattern as in Matthew.
The mention of the darkness and Jesus last words are followed by Matthew, as we have
seen. There could be a distinct detail in the fact that the centurion senses something special in
Jesus last cry or in all the events surrounding his death7: “that in this way he breathed his last, he
said, ‘Truly this man was the Son of God!’” (v. 39). Through Jesus’ suffering the centurion
recognized his divine sonship, a title that is introduced as vital from the beginning of the gospel
(cf. 1:1, 11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:6, 37; 14:61).8 Mark only mentions the rupture of the curtain of the
temple at the time of Jesus’ death. The women, as in Matthew, stand as witnesses9 and anticipate
what will happen in Galilee (cf. 16:7), since they have followed Jesus from that region (v. 41).
Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, “who was also himself looking
for the kingdom of God” (cf. 12:34), took courage (τολµάω, boldness in the face of danger10) and
1
“The text does not state explicitly that Barabbas was himself a murderer, though his being lumped with those who
had committed murder may imply it (Gundry, 926). However, Pilate’s willingness to release this man argues against
it, for surely the Roman governor would not have released a murderer (cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.9.5 §215), especially if
in the rebellion Roman soldiers had been killed”; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 481.
2
Strauss, Mark, 675. cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1029.
3
Strauss calls him as “ruthless pragmatist”; “The death of one Jewish eccentric is better than provoking the ire of the
religious establishment and perhaps a riot at his doorstep”; Strauss, Mark, 679.
4
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1031; Strauss, Mark, 679, 680.
5
6
Strauss, Mark, 693. cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1027. Evans thinks it derives from Christian confession, or Christian
mockery of Jewish people, though he agrees that this wording only occurs when Roman use it in the gospel ; Evans,
Mark 8:27–16:20, 503.
7
8
9
10
BDAG, 1010. “To identify so positively with a victim accused of both blasphemy and sedition could put him in
jeopardy with his own Jewish associates as well as the Roman authorities”; Strauss, Mark, 708. cf. Evans, Mark
70
asked for the body of Jesus (v. 43). Pilate’s amazement (θαυµάζω) in the trial now doubles with
surprise (θαυµάζω) when he learns of Jesus expedite death (v. 44). After confirmation from the
centurion, Jesus’ body was granted. The women once again were witnesses of where he was laid
(v. 47). Although socially unlikely witnesses,1 it was these women that didn’t abandon Jesus.
16:1-20
The women arrive at a tomb that had already been opened. When entering the tomb, they
saw a young man (the context would indicate he is an angel2) sitting on the right side who
informed them of Jesus resurrection and repeats, specially for Peter,3 that Jesus is going before
them to Galilee, where they will see him, just as he told them (v. 7).
The women fleeing from the tomb, afraid and not telling anyone due to their fear is the
shorter ending of this gospel (v. 8); certainly anticlimactic, as is the triumphal entry to Jerusalem.
Evidence for this short ending exist. However, some of the arguments are not decisive: (1) The
ending is grammatically odd, but there are other examples in Mark4; (2) The existence of a
longer ending, however, that doesn’t prove the short ending wasn’t intended; (3) More details of
his resurrection and appearing to people can’t speak against the shorter ending since vv. 1-8 state
the necessary information about the resurrection and the first witnesses; (4) An abrupt, cryptic or
anticlimactic ending, though strange for us, is quite compatible with Mark’s literary style; and so
an “open” ending calling to a response wouldn’t be strange either, as well as no mention of the
reunion in Galilee.5
The short ending, (1) fits well with the idea of mystery and awe that runs through the
gospel, (2) the way Mark’s narrator works allows for the narrative to cross into the readers need
to be a disciple, (3) the loss of the rest of the manuscript at such an early stage seem
inconceivable, (4) if a “page” is lost (though it was probably written on a scroll), how then is the
narrative of vv.1-8 complete. To this we must add the weight of the two oldest uncial
manuscripts and several translations as well as the evidence from church fathers and historians
that render or know only the shorter version.6 This short version leaves an powerful homiletic
resource: this is how the disciples and the women responded... How will you respond? If the idea
that Mark was meant to be read, this idea is stronger and pertinent.
The longer ending would include Jesus encounter with Mary Magdalene, two other
disciples, and finally with the eleven. Initially this meeting with the eleven is to rebuke them for
their unbelief of the testimony of those who had seen Jesus risen. Nothing is said (explicitly) of
this reunion having occurred in Galilee. Jesus commission to his disciples is certainly different to
8:27–16:20, 519.
1
Strauss, Mark, 711.
2
Ibid., 718; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1080; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 536.
3
Unlike Judas, Peter’s story isn’t over and he needs restoration; cf. Strauss, Mark, 720; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20,
537.
4
“Aland (‘Der Schluss,’ 461–64) has shown that γάρ, ‘for,’ can conclude a whole document, not just a sentence”;
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 538.
5
Strauss, Mark, 721, 722. cf. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 539.
6
Strauss, Mark, 723, 728. There, is of course an intermediate, less known ending; Ibid., 727. Similar arguments are
presented by Marcus; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1089-1096.
71
Matthew’s. All creation (κτίσις) and not all nations (ἔθνος); proclamation (κηρύσσω) but no
discipleship (µαθητεύω) is mentioned; belief and baptism are key to salvation as opposed to
condemnation, whereas in Matthew this “negative” aspect is omitted; and the signs that
accompany those who believe, as a whole, seem to follow certain narratives of Acts rather than
anything we can find in the gospel.1
The last two verses present Jesus enthroned (another feature similar to Acts), fulfilling
what he said to the high priest. At the same time, his disciples are fulfilling their commission,
while, from heaven, Jesus works with them (συνεργέω)2 confirming the message with the
accompanying signs.
1
Strauss, Mark, 731. cf. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 549.
2
A rather “pauline” word (cf. Rom 8:28; 1 Cor 16:16; 2 Cor 6:1).
72

Matthew and Mark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Matthew and Mark

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matthew and Mark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introductory Issues

Relation to the Synoptics (or sources)

Mark and Christian thought

The theology and purpose of Mark

Commentary on the text

Matthew 5-7; 13, 14; 23-28

apostles or the proclaimers”; Luz, Matthew 1–7, 203, 205.

You might also like