[JSNT 44 (1991) 3-18]

THE MATTHAEAN UNDERSTANDING OF THE SABBATH:

A RESPONSE TO G.N. STANTON

Eric Kun-Chun Wong

Pieter Vlaming Straat 58-1
NL-1093 AG Amsterdam, Holland

Professor G.N. Stanton1 has recently proposed two alternatives to

account for the Matthaean redactional addition 'on a Sabbath' beside
'your flight' in the verse 'pray that your flight may not be in winter or
on a Sabbath' (Mt. 24.20):
Perhaps members of the Matthean community who perceive that they are
in danger of persecution keep the Sabbath so strictly that they would not
attempt to escape and would therefore be in increased danger. Or perhaps
their dilemma is quite different: since they do not keep the Sabbath
strictly, they would not hesitate to escape on the Sabbath; however, they
know that in so doing they would antagonize still further some of their
persecutors.2

In other words, he takes the view that the members of the Matthaean
community (as a whole) either keep the Sabbath strictly or else do not
adhere to the Sabbath commandments. He rejects the former and
argues for the latter. By doing so, he has ignored some redactional
changes of the Matthaean text which should be regarded as important.
I shall first argue against his two options and then discuss briefly a
tentative alternative to account for the Matthaean redactional addition
'on a Sabbath' in Mt. 24.20.

1. G.N. Stanton, * "Pray that your Flight May Not Be in Winter or on a

Sabbath" (Matthew 24.20)', JSNT 37 (1989), pp. 17-30.
2. 'Pray', pp. 24-25.
4 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (1991)

I
In rejecting the first option, that the community of Matthew kept the
Sabbath strictly, Stanton refers to the pericope in Mt. 12.1-14. This is
probably the text that is most relevant to the issue in the Gospel of
Matthew. The text confirms, as Stanton notices, that temple duties take
precedence over Sabbath commandments, but that Jesus himself is
greater than the temple (Mt. 12.5-6). The Son of Man is therefore
Lord of the Sabbath (Mt. 12.8). Stanton then argues: 'If, as I have
argued elsewhere,1 Matthew's community has cut its ties completely
with Judaism, Mt. 12.1-14 could well have been taken to legitimate
abandonment of the Sabbath'.2 To put it another way, Stanton uses the
argument that the relation between Matthew's community and Judaism
has been broken completely (this issue is still open!) as the pre-
supposition for his position on the Sabbath text in Mt. 12.1-14.
However, the use of his presupposition to interpret the Sabbath text is
problematic. Moreover, if the Matthaean redaction is studied
carefully, this text cannot be regarded as a justification of the abolition
of the Sabbath.
In the article mentioned above in which Stanton has presented four
different positions about the relation between 'Matthew and
contemporary Judaism', he believes that 'Matthew's community is
Extra-Muros yet still defining itself over against Judaism'.3 But
Stanton's choice of position does not necessarily mean that the other
three positions are less valid. As a matter of fact, different Matthaean
scholars, based on the interpretation of different texts in the First
Gospel, have different opinions on the issue of whether Matthew's
community has cut its ties completely with Judaism. In this regard,
Günther Bornkamm's shift of position is illustrative.
In his 1956 article, 'Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäus-
evangelium', Bornkamm analysed the pericope of the temple tax (Mt.
17.24-27), which helped clarify how the evangelist Matthew
understands the relationship between the community and Judaism. He

1. Here Stanton refers to his article, 'The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's
Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980', in H. Temporini and W. Haase
(eds.), ANRW II.25.3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985), pp. 1889-1951 (1914-21).
2. Stanton, 'Pray', p. 25.
3. Stanton, 'Origin and Purpose', pp. 1914-21.
 WONG The Matthaean Understanding of the Sabbath 5

demonstrated that the community of Matthew is associated with

Judaism.1 This position was further supported by his study of the
pericope in Mt. 23.1-3.2 In 1964, he modified his opinion slightly and
ppinted out that the community of Matthew and Judaism are 'in enger
Beziehung' (in a close relation).3 The evangelist Matthew is personally
a 'hellenistisch jüdischer Christ' (Hellenized Jewish Christian), but not
a 'heidenchristlicher Redaktor' (Gentile Christian redactor).4 In 1971,
Bornkamm took a completely different position because of his study
of the pericope of the assembly of two or three in Mt. 18.19-20. The
Matthaean community and Judaism were separated from each other
('geschieden').5 This position was also supported by his observation of
Peter's teaching authority (Mt. 16.17-19).6 Bornkamm's shift of
position about the relationship between the two entities7 should not
merely be regarded as a chronological development of his thoughts. It
took place because different texts have different meanings and
implications for that issue in the Gospel of Matthew. At this point, it is
important to draw attention to Bornkamm's study on the double

1. G. Bornkamm, 'Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium', in

G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and HJ. Held, Überlieferung und Auslegung im
Matthäusevangelium (WMANT, 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 7th
edn, 1975), pp. 13-47: 'Daß die Gemeinde, die Matth. repräsentiert, noch im
Verbände des Judentums steht. .. ' (p. 17).
2. 'Enderwartung', p. 18: 'daß die Gemeinde sich selbst vom Verband des
Judentums noch nicht gelöst sieht (23,1-3)'.
3. G. Bornkamm, 'Der Auferstandene und der Irdische', in Überlieferung und
Auslegung, pp. 289-310 (306).
4. 'Auferstandene', pp. 298-99.
5. G. Bornkamm, 'Die Binde- und Lösegewalt in der Kirche des Matthäus', in
Geschichte und Glaube, II (Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1971), pp. 37-50. He thinks
that 'Hier freilich steht die wenn auch noch so kleine christliche Gemeinde im Blick,
die sich von der jüdischen geschieden weiß und sich nicht mehr um die Tora,
sondern um den Namen Jesu, im Glauben an ihn und im Bekenntnis zu ihm sammelt
und als solche seiner Gegenwart gewiß sein darf (p. 40).
6. 'Die Binde-', p. 48: 'Wohl erscheint Petrus hier formal in der Rolle eines
"supreme Rabbi", aber seine Funktion ist nicht mehr auf die Tora, sondern auf die
das Gesetz erfüllenden Gebote des Kyrios bezogen... '
7. This had been observed by some scholars, e.g., Stanton, Origin and
Purpose', pp. 1913-14; J.P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel (Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1976), pp. 9-10; S.H. Brooks, Matthew's Community: The
Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (JSNTSup, 16; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1987), p. 21.
6 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (1991)

commandments of love (Mt. 22.37-40), in which he previously

observed in 1957 that 'Das Doppelgebot Jesu eint ihn (Mt.) also nicht
mehr mit dem Judentum, sondern stellt ihn in radikalen Gegensatz zu
ihm'.1
The case of Bornkamm clearly demonstrates that different texts in
the Gospel of Matthew have different meanings and implications for
this issue. It should not be overlooked that the text itself (for example,
the Sabbath text, Mt. 12.1-14) is primary but the interpretation of the
text is secondary; the understanding of a certain issue (for example,
the relation between the community of Matthew and Judaism) is
derived from the interpretation of particular texts. Stanton's position
on the relation between Matthew's community and Judaism, which is
also inevitably based on the observation of certain texts in the First
Gospel, is but one of many possible understandings of this issue. The
practice of selecting a particular understanding as the basis for inter-
preting another text would probably lead to a distortion in the
meaning of this text. Here, the problem of Stanton's interpretation of
the Matthaean Sabbath text is further aggravated by the fact that the
presupposition, that is, that there is a particular relation between the
community of Matthew and Judaism, is derived from a context
different from that of the statement (i.e. abandonment of the Sabbath)
which is under consideration.
Next comes the issue of redactional change in the Gospel of
Matthew, to which Stanton has paid no attention. He ignores the
Matthaean omission of Mk 2.27: 'The Sabbath was made for man, and
not man for the Sabbath'. This verse says that man is more important
than the Sabbath. As a result, the Sabbath can be abolished. This
omission is crucial to the understanding of the Matthaean attitude to
the Sabbath, because it is in this verse that the radical position in the
Gospel of Mark with regard to the Sabbath, namely its abolition, is
contained. However, Matthew has not included this verse in the First
Gospel. Considering this redactional change in Matthew, which might
reflect Matthew's disagreement on the complete abolition of the
Sabbath, it is hardly justifiable to conclude that the Matthaean
community did not keep the Sabbath strictly. On the contrary, it could
be inferred that Matthew indirectly affirms the keeping of the Sabbath

1. G. Bornkamm, 'Doppelgebot der Liebe', in Neutestamentliche Studien für

Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (Berlin: Holten, 1957), pp. 85-93 (93).
 WONG The Matthaean Understanding of the Sabbath 7

commandments. On this point, it is difficult to agree with Stanton's

position that 'Mt. 12.1-14 could well have been taken to legitimate
abandonment of the Sabbath'.1
One may perhaps argue for Stanton's position by suggesting that Mk
2.27 did not exist in Ur-Mark because Luke also did not take over this
verse from Mark. This Ur-Mark might have been used by both the
evangelists Matthew and Luke as the source, but is not identical with
the Mark that exists today. The reason for asserting the Ur-Mark
hypothesis is simply because it is more convincing to assume that the
original Gospel of Mark did not have this verse than to assume that
both the evangelists Matthew and Luke have omitted the same verse in
the same pericope. But it has to be noticed that Matthew and Luke
have often omitted some texts in the Gospel of Mark or have cut them
short. So it is not impossible that this omission is just a coincidence,
especially for a short text like Mk 2.27? A further reason that Mk
2.27 has been omitted by both Matthew and Luke may be its extreme
anti-Jewish character, which they wanted to reduce in their Gospels.3
This Ur-Mark hypothesis is one of the hypotheses that aim at solving
this kind of pattern of similarities and differences between the
Synoptic Gospels.4

1. Stanton, 'Pray', p. 25. As Stanton has noticed, 'the Shammaites and the
zealots did permit armed attacks on Sabbath, although they kept the Sabbath
rigorously' (p. 26). Have the Shammaites and the Zealots kept the Sabbath strictly?
By concentrating on the first part of Stanton's statement, one might say that the
Shammaites and the Zealots did not keep the Sabbath strictly. But the case is
completely different when the second part of the statement is also taken into
consideration. Who then could be judged as keeping the Sabbath strictly? Those who
permitted armed attacks on the Sabbath or those who really kept the Sabbath in all
circumstances, such as the Qumran community (e.g. CD 10-11; 1QM 8-9; Jub.
50.12-13; cf. Stanton, 'Pray', p. 30 n. 37)? How strict is 'strictly'? Mt. 12.11
implies that the Jews were allowed to do certain things on a Sabbath day.
2. The texts in the Gospel of Mark which are omitted both by Matthew and by
Luke are: Mk 2.27; 3.20-21; 4.26-29; 7.31-37; 8.22-26; 9.29, 48-50; 12.32-34;
14.51-52; 15.21,44-45. Among these texts, Mk 2.27 is relatively short.
3. W. Schmithals, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: de Gruyter,
1985), pp. 211-12.
4. These so-called 'minor agreements' tell against the two-source hypothesis.
But their significance would be overemphasized if one decided to overthrow the two-
source hypothesis on the basis of the minor agreements (Schmithals, Einleitung,
p. 210). Another theory to explain the minor agreements would be to assume that
8 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (1991)

Even if this Ur-Mark hypothesis were accepted, the Matthaean

opposition to the proposal of a general abandonment of the Sabbath,
which derives from the Gospel of Mark, can still be confirmed by
observing another difference between the two Gospels (of Matthew
and Mark). The evangelist Mark gives no explanation for why the
disciples of Jesus plucked the ears of grain on the Sabbath (Mk 2.23).
He gives readers the impression that the breaking of the Sabbath
commandment does not need to have a reason but is nevertheless
legitimate. In other words, one may break the Sabbath commandment
if one wishes. This is because man is more important than the Sabbath
in the Gospel of Mark. By the redactional addition of the verb
έπείνασαν (Mt. 12.1), Matthew gives a reason for the behaviour of
Jesus' disciples on that Sabbath day. This reason is similar to that
given by David when he ate the consecrated bread. Referring to
Jewish tradition, Matthew adds in v. 5 that the priests break the
Sabbath commandments, but they are regarded as guiltless. Mt. 12.5
implies that the temple duty is more important than the Sabbath
commandments. So if David can break the temple duty because of
hunger, in the same way Jesus' disciples may break the less important
Sabbath commandments. But instead of thinking the Sabbath
commandments are to be kept in accordance with one's likes or
dislikes, the readers of the First Gospel would probably get the
message that the breaking of the Sabbath commandments is allowed
only under certain circumstances as implied in Mt. 12.1-8. Because of
the Matthaean omission of Mk 2.27 and the Matthaean redactional
addition of the reason why the disciples pick the ears of grain, I have
difficulties in agreeing with Stanton that Mt. 12.1-14 could well have
been taken to legitimate abolition of the Sabbath.

II
Stanton then turns to his second option after he has overruled the first
alternative: the Matthaean community 'knows that in so doing
[escaping on a Sabbath] it would antagonize still further some of its
[Jewish] persecutors'.1 To justify his choice of the second option,
Stanton suggests that the phrase 'your flight' in Mt. 24.20 is addressed

either Luke or Matthew knew the work of the other in composing their Gospels.
1. Stanton, 'Pray', p. 26.
 WONG The Matthaean Understanding of the Sabbath 9

to the readers of the First Gospel or the disciples in general. But the
same verse in Marie (13.18) and also Mk 13.14 were addressed only to
those in Judaea.1 From the context of Mt. 10.17-18, 23 and 23.34, the
flight of the disciples and the readers of the First Gospel resulted from
persecution,2 in which Jewish religious leaders also took part.3 Since
the phrase 'your flight' is addressed to the disciples in general (this
happens only in the Gospel of Matthew), and, in the mind of the
evangelist Matthew, the flight resulted from persecution by Jewish
religious leaders, to flee on a Sabbath, which would mean not keeping
the Sabbath, might further antagonize some of the Jewish persecutors.
This is, according to Stanton's interpretation, the Matthaean intention
in adding redactionally the phrase 'on a Sabbath' beside 'your flight'
in Mt. 24.20.4
A closer look at the above-mentioned texts themselves (Mt. 10.17-
18, 23 and 23.34) throws doubt on the validity of Stanton's
interpretation. To begin with, attention will be focused on the readers
of the two Gospels. As maintained by Stanton, there is no doubt that
the text in Mk 13.14-19 is addressed not only to the four disciples
named at the beginning of its context.5 Stanton thinks that, in the
Gospel of Mark, it was not the readers in general but merely the ones
who lived in Judaea who needed to flee. But in the Gospel of Matthew,
all the readers were directly addressed and were expected to flee
personally. He argues that 'those who are urged to pray, however, are
to be identified with the disciples to whom the whole discourse is
addressed—the implied readers of the Gospel (of Matthew)'.6 But the
context of Mk 13.14-19 indicates that its readers (like those of the
First Gospel) are also addressed through the two Greek verbs, ϊδητε
in v. 14 (cf. Mt. 24.15) and προσεύχεσθε in v. 18 (cf. Mt. 24.20),
and the phrase 'let the readers understand' in v. 14 (cf. Mt. 24.15).
The readers of the Gospel of Mark are no doubt addressed directly. If

1. 'Pray', p. 21.
2. 'Pray\ p. 22.
3. 'Pray', p. 24.
4. 'Pray', p. 22: 'Given the strong link between persecution of disciples and
their flight which is forged in Mt. 10.23 and 23.34, there can be little doubt that the
addition made by Matthew in 24.20, ή φυγή ύμων, refers to theflightof disciples in
the face offierceopposition'.
5. Stanton, 'Pray', pp. 22-23.
6. 'Pray', p. 23.
10 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (1991)

the flight were limited only to the ones in Judaea and did not affect the
readers of the Second Gospel (i.e. the readers who were not in
Judaea), what does it mean to say that the readers see the desolating
sacrilege set up in the holy place (Mt. 24.15) or in the place where it
should not stand (Mk 13.14)?1 If these two verbs were addressed only
to the ones in Judaea, the third person plural form of these verbs
(instead of the second person plural form in the two texts) should have
been used. Therefore, it appears that Stanton has ignored the function
of these two verbs and the phrase. It is justified to say that the readers
of the Gospel of Mark, not just the ones in Judaea, would also be
personally involved in the enormous flight originating from Judaea.2
From the above analysis, the use of these two verbs and the phrase
clearly refers to the readers in general in both Gospels. Even if the
phrase 'your flight' were not added to Mt. 24.20, the readers of the
First Gospel are still addressed.
I will now focus my attention on the relation between persecution
and flight in general. Two of the texts mentioned by Stanton
(Mt. 10.17-22; 23.34) actually show no general relation between these
two concepts: although the persecution of those who were sent is
mentioned in Mt. 23.34, no flight of any kind is implied in this verse.
This verse condemns only the sinful behaviour of the Jewish religious
leaders. Similarly, Mk 13.9-13 (cf. Mt. 10.17-22) gives no hints of
flight during the persecution. The persecution will inevitably give the
Christians an opportunity to bear testimony before governors and
kings (Mk 13.9). In facing persecution from their own family, the
Christians are urged to endure to the end (Mk 13.12-13; cf.
Mt. 10.21-22). The other text (Mt. 10.23), which is added at the end
of the eschatological section in Mk 13.9-13 (cf. Mt. 10.17-22), does

1. Probably in the temple of Jerusalem; see G. Theissen, Lokalkolorit und

Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 8;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), pp. 167-76, esp. 169-71. See also J.
Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, II (EKKNT, 2.2; Cologne: Benziger Verlag,
1979), p. 195.
2. The view that the readers in general would be involved is further reinforced
by observing that the scale of the tribulation is unprecedented (Mk 13.19;
Mt. 24.21). Gnilka (Evangelium, II, p. 195) takes it for granted that this text
(Mk 13.14ff.) is addressed to the readers of the Second Gospel: 'Die Flucht, zu der
das Ereignis die Leser zwingt. .. Die Flucht aus Judäa in die Berge warnte vor dem
Gedanken, in der befestigten Stadt Jerusalem Zuflucht zu finden.'
 WONG The Matthaean Understanding of the Sabbath 11

show a relation between persecution and flight, but Matthew has

relocated the entire pericope (Mt. 10.17-23) in the missionary context
of Matthew 10. By adding Mt. 10.23 redactionally, Matthew does call
for flight if the Christians, and more precisely the missionaries, are
persecuted. This seems to support Stanton's argument at first glance.
But Matthew did not let this discourse (Mt. 10.16-23) remain in its
original context of the eschatological speech of Matthew 24 (cf.
Mk 13); Matthew 10 is the chapter which deals with the sending of the
disciples systematically.1 The connection between persecution and
flight is therefore limited to the missionaries' activity in the Gospel of
Matthew. The relocation of the discourse Mt. 10.16-23 (cf. Mk 13.9-
13) out of the original eschatological speech (between Mt. 24.1-8 and
15-44; cf. Mk 13.1-8 and 14-37) reduces the likelihood that the
persecution could be related to the flight in Mt. 24.20. Indeed, the
very fact that the evangelist Matthew relocates Mt. 10.16-23 out of the
eschatological context into the missionary-sending context may well be
taken to indicate his intention to separate eschatological flight and the
flight of the missionary. With reference to the persons, it is difficult to
identify the missionaries in Mt. 10.23, whose persecution will lead to
their flight in the day of the evangelist Matthew, with the general
readers in Mt. 24.15, 20, whose flight will be due to the setting up of
the * desolating sacrilege' during the great tribulation (Mt. 24.21). It is
generally agreed that the community of Matthew experienced
persecution from both the Jews and the Gentiles. But the flight caused
by the desolating sacrilege in the discourse of Mt. 24.15-22 has
nothing to do with the persecution of the Christian missionaries in the
setting mentioned above (Mt. 10.16-23).
In order to examine further the validity of Stanton's suggestion
about the Matthaean phrase 'on a Sabbath', it is crucial to identify who
the persecutors in Mt. 24.15-22 could be. If the persecutors were
Jews, his suggestion would be acceptable. Because Mt. 24.15-22 is
redacted from Mk 13.14-20, it is worthwhile to draw attention also to

1. V. Taylor (The Original Order of Q\ in A.J.B. Higgins [ed.], New

Testament Essays—Studies in Memory of T.W. Mansο η [Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1959], pp. 246-69) believes that *Q may have suggested to
Matthew the use of Mark 13.9-13 in the Mission Charge rather than in the
Eschatological discourse in Matt. 24 where it is merely summarized (Matt. 24.9,13)'
(p. 256).
12 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (1991)

Mk 13.14-20. Mt. 24.15-22 and Mk 13.14-20 are descriptions

referring both to the two evangelists' past days and to the events
which were expected to happen in the near future. Indeed, the two
texts begin with the formulation δταν δε (ουν) ΐδητε... (Mk 13.14;
Mt. 24.15), which signifies a future action (eventualis) or an often
repeated action (iterativus)} It could be taken as an indication that the
two evangelists are using a text which originally referred to a past
event to prophesy an expected happening in the near future.
In the following section, I am going to put forward arguments to
demonstrate that the past and future persecutors according to Mark
and Matthew were all Romans, not Jews, although the situations in
which the two evangelists found themselves were different. According
to G. Theissen's recent analysis of the sociopolitical setting and the
formation of this eschatological discourse, Mark 13 was already
composed at about AD 40 because of the crisis arising from Caligula
(AD 36-41). When the evangelist Mark took over this traditional
discourse with the composition of the Second Gospel shortly before
AD 70, the crisis related to Caligula was already past history, but the
temple was not yet destroyed. Its destruction was seen as a threatening
event that was yet to come.2 In both events, Jews and Christians alike
were persecuted by the Romans. The Jews were by no means the
persecutors in Mk 13.14-20.
Matthew was confronted by similar situations when he wrote the
Gospel. It is generally agreed that the Gospel of Matthew was written
after the Jewish War, that is, after the destruction of the temple. Just
like Mark, who looked back on the crisis related to Caligula, Matthew,
when he redacted from Mk 13.14-20, looked back on the crisis in AD
70. By then, the destruction of the temple by the Romans was no
longer a future incident, but already history. It is thus highly possible
that the past event referred to by Matthew is the destruction of the
temple. This is supported by observing the Matthaean change of 'but
(5é)...set up where it ought not to be' in Mk 13.14 into 'now
(ουν). ..standing in the holy place' in Mt. 24.15.3 The redactional

1. F. Blass, A. Debrunner and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen

Griechisch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 17th edn, 1990), §382.3.
2. Theissen, Lokalkolorit, pp. 133-76.
3. W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT, 1; Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968), p. 506.
 WONG The Matthaean Understanding of the Sabbath 13

addition of 'the thing spoken through Daniel the prophet' (24.15)

reinforces the argument that the phrase 'in the holy place' is referring
to the temple, as Dan. 7.29 clearly states.1 Under the rule of Domitian
(AD 81-96), Christians faced serious persecutions from the Romans.
Like Caligula, Domitian wanted to deify himself by insisting on being
acknowledged as 'our Lord and God' by state officials.2 Although
there is no direct evidence, it could well be assumed that the Jews and
Christians were also threatened.3
In the light of the similar political situation in the time of Mark,
Matthew might adopt Mk 13.14-20 and modify it into Mt. 24.15-22.
In this regard, he might think that the end would come immediately
after the threat of Domitian, just as the description of the Gospel of
Mark expected the end to come after the destruction of the temple.
If the above tentative analysis is correct, the persecutors in Mt.
24.15-22 referred to the Romans in its original historical sense (the
destruction of the Jewish temple); the immediately forthcoming
persecutions are expected to be instigated by the Roman emperor
Domitian and hence signal the coming of the end of the world. The
expected persecutors in ML 24.15-22 are therefore not the Jews, but
rather the Gentile Romans.
Even if the above observation about Mt. 24.15-22 may not be
generally agreed, there are still two other reasons which make it
difficult to accept Stanton's suggestion. (1) The Jewish religious
leaders lost their political power after the Jewish War. Were they still

1. E. Klostermann, Das Matthäusevangelium (HNT, 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1927),

p. 194.
2. M. Kiddle, The Revelation of St John (The Moffatt New Testament; London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 5th edn, 1952), p. xxix; H. Bengtson, Grundriss der
römischen Geschichte mit Quellenkunde. I. Republik und Kaiserzeit bis 284 n. Chr.
(Munich: Beck, 3rd edn, 1982), p. 340.
3. Kiddle, Revelation, p. xl; M. Dibelius (Rom und die Christen im 1. Jahrh.,
Π [Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften-Philosophisch­
historische Klasse; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1941-42]) analyses the Christian
readiness for martyrdom (pp. 38-40) and he believes that the book of Revelation
reflects the persecution of the Christians under Domitian (p. 44). This tension was
released when Domitian was killed on 18 December 96. His successor Nerva, who
was already 65 years old at thattime,was successful in releasing the Jews from the
heavy tax caHedfiscusIudaicus for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome, which
had been levied on the Jews since Vespasian, although he ruled only 16 months; see
Bengtson, Grundriss, pp. 337, 346.
14 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (1991)

able to persecute others in the period between the end of the Jewish
War and the composition of the First Gospel? (2) No one, not even the
Jews, is to be exempted from the crisis preceding the coming of the
end of the world. How then can Jewish religious leaders be the
persecutors in Mt. 24.15-22? Would the readers of the Gospel of
Matthew, the Christians, be worried about whether their flight from
that enormous eschatological crisis would antagonize further their
Jewish persecutors (assuming there were any) if it occurred on a
Sabbath? It seems unlikely. Within Judaism, examples can be found in
which a flight in order to save life on a Sabbath did not antagonize the
Jewish leaders. For example, John of Gischala fled from his small city
of Gischala to Jerusalem with a few thousand persons (Josephus, War
4.97-1 ll). 1 The supporters of Mattathias decided to fight a war on the
Sabbath if it was necessary (Josephus, Ant. 12.277).2 At the time of
Pompey, the Jews would defend themselves if enemies attacked them
on the Sabbath day (Josephus, Ant. 14.63). In the above examples, the
persons involved fled or fought in order to save themselves, whereas
Jesus did not help himself but the other on the Sabbath (Mt. 12.9-14).

Ill
If my observations on Stanton's interpretation are correct, the reason
for the addition 'on a Sabbath' in Mt. 24.20 does not relate directly to
the Jewish religious leaders who might take part in the persecution of
the missionaries and might cause them to flee. On a Sabbath' may be
regarded as a parallel to 'in winter' in the sense that both of them are
describing difficult situations in which to flee for the members of the
Matthaean community. Of course, it is difficult to infer from Mt.
24.20 precisely how the community of Matthew kept the Sabbath. But
the redactional addition On a Sabbath' must imply a certain
understanding by the Matthaean community about the Sabbath.3 If the

1. But the others did not flee on so long a journey as he did. They were then
captured by the Roman soldiers on the following day. Here Josephus does not give a
clear reason why the multitude fled only twenty furlongs (War 4.107). One might
derive a reason from the context: the women and children were probably not able to
walk further in the night-time. The armed companies of John were likely to stay with
their families and let John flee alone further to Jerusalem.
2. According to 1 Mace. 2.41, they would fight if they were attacked.
3. This point is already implied by Stanton's two options accounting for the
 WONG The Matthaean Understanding of the Sabbath 15

Matthaean omission of Mk 2.27 and the Matthaean redactional change

in the corresponding pericope (Mt. 12.1-14) are studied carefully, the
attitude of Matthew towards the Sabbath can be determined. Matthew,
in contrast to Mark, does not agree on the abandonment of the
Sabbath, but affirms it indirectly, as stated above. However, the
practice of the Sabbath does not belong to the central ethic of
Matthew. The central ethic is to do the will of God (Mt. 7.21-27),
which is concretized by helping even the unworthy one who is in
need, the criterion for righteousness in the final judgment (Mt. 25.31-
46). The double commandments of love (Mt. 22.34-40) and the golden
rule (7.12) demand that one does good. Together with the notion of
mercy (Mt. 12=7), they are central to Matthaean ethics. The Son of
Man, who is portrayed as the teacher of this theological ethic, is Lord
of the Sabbath (Mt. 12.8).1 This can be seen in Mt. 12.5-7, his
redactional addition.2 The Sabbath commandments are subordinate to
the temple duties. Matthew writes that the priests in the temple may
sacrifice on the Sabbath day in Mt. 12.5, that is, break the Sabbath
commandments.3 He thus links David's eating of the holy bread with
the breaking of the Sabbath commandments by the priests in the
temple. In this way, he is able to justify the breaking of the Sabbath by
Jesus' disciples, by explaining that they were hungry (Mt. 12.1).
Moreover, mercy is greater than the temple duties; God wants mercy
more than sacrifice (v. 7), that is, mercy is more important than the
Sabbath commandments. The healing of the man with a withered hand
on the Sabbath by Jesus (Mt. 12.9-14) is an example of the primacy of
mercy. So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Mt. 12.12).

redactional addition of Mt. 24.20. See J. Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium, Π

(HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1988), p. 323: 'Wir werden die Bemerkung als Indiz
dafür nehmen dürfen, daß die mt Gemeinde noch den Sabbath gehalten hat'.
1. Theissen (Lokalkolorit, pp. 270-88) has in this regard correctly identified
that Matthew stresses the ethic of Christians in the community (e.g. Mt. 22.1-14,41,
43; apocalyptic speech Mt. 24-25), whereas the Gospel of Mark can be characterized
by the threat of war. He finds circumstantial evidence of the threat of war in the
Gospel of Mark outside Mk 13 also in Mk 3.4, 24; 5.1-17 and the pericope of the
cleansing of the temple (11.15-19), the parable of the vineyard and the tenants (12.1-
12), and the pericope of Barabbas (15.6-15) (pp. 272-74).
2. D. Hill, On the Use and Meaning of Hosea VI.6 in Matthew's Gospel',
NTS 24 (1978), pp. 107-19 (115).
3. Probably referring to Num. 28.9-10.
16 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (1991)

It is plausible that there were different viewpoints on a non-essential

issue, such as the Sabbath, within a community, especially when the
Gentile Christians, no matter how few they were, existed among the
1
Jewish ones in the community of Matthew. R. Hummel, one of the
Matthaean scholars who holds firmly that the Gospel of Matthew has a
strong Jewish-Christian tendency, cannot deny the fact that Jewish
2
Christians and Gentile Christians existed in that community. In the
Gospel of Matthew, hints could also be found which describe
indirectly the situation of the Matthaean community, in which
different opinions and even different behaviours existed: the contrast
between αγαθός and πονηρός (5.45; 12.34; 20.15; 22.10) is a
3
redactional theme of Matthew. The Matthaean community could be
characterized as one which was composed of 'good and bad' members
4
(e.g. Mt. 22.10; 13.24-30, 36-43). From Mt. 24.10-12, it can be
inferred that Matthew foresees that the community will divide when a
crisis takes place before the end of the world. Although Mt. 24.10-12
5
is redacted from Mk 13.9-13, there is a striking difference between
the two pericopes (Mk 13.9-13 and Mt. 24.9-14) with reference to the
description of the context of the hatred. In Mk 13.12, the hatred is
directed towards members of a family (and brother will deliver up
brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise
against parents and have them put to death); whereas in Mt. 24.10-12,
Matthew probably describes a forthcoming situation of the community
shortly before the end time. Here it is worth noting that Luke
preserves the original idea of hatred in a family (Mk 13.12) in his

1. The fact that Gentile Christians existed in the Matthaean community may be
derived from texts such as the pericope of the centurion of Capernaum in Mt. 8.5-13,
of the Canaanite woman in Mt. 15.21-28 and of the call for the universal mission of
therisenJesus (28.16-20).
2. R. Hummel, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im
Matthäusevangelium (BEvT, 33; Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1963), p. 153: 'Zu den
Folgen der Verwerfung Jesu durch Israel gehört auch die Existenz der Kirche aus
Juden und Heiden'.
3. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (EKKNT, 1.1; Cologne: Benziger
Verlag, 1985), p. 35.
4. See C.W.F. Smith, 4The Mixed State of the Church in Matthew's Gosper,
JBL 82 (1963), pp. 149-68.
5. Indeed Matthew used the pericope, Mk 13.9-13, twice. Once he relocated it
to Mt. 10.15-23; the other time he modified this pericope and left it in the same
context in Mt. 24.9-14.
 WONG The Matthaean Understanding of the Sabbath 17

eschatological context (Lk. 21.16), so the redactional change by

Matthew may be deliberate. The hatred in Mt. 24.10-12 is not within a
family, but inside the community, and the readers of the First Gospel
are directly addressed (Mt. 24.9-14): many Christians (referring
probably to the ones who are in the Matthaean community) will fall
away, betray and hate one another. Many false prophets (referring
perhaps to the ones who do not belong to the community; cf.
Mt. 7.21-23) will arise and lead many astray. The love of many
people (ή αγάπη), which could be regarded as the central ethic in the
community of Matthew, will grow cold because of an increase in
lawlessness (ανομία, 24.12). The break of the Sabbath command­
ments could be regarded as a kind of lawlessness. Although the
keeping of the Sabbath is not the central ethic, it could be a factor
which would lead to the division of the community in the end time.1
To 'pray that your flight may not be.. .on a Sabbath' implies that at
least some of the members of the Matthaean community (probably
some of the conservative Jewish Christians who still behave according
to their tradition) would hesitate to flee on a Sabbath, even though
their lives were thus in increased danger. Of the Matthaean addition of
the phrase 'on a Sabbath' to the context of the injunction to pray
(Mt. 24.20), I would say rather that Matthew wants to keep the com­
munity intact by taking care of the 'weak' ones (who might hesitate to
flee even at the critical time), as Paul in 1 Cor. 9.22 does, and prays,
as the Lord teaches (Mt. 6.13), that they will not be led into temptation.

ABSTRACT

G.N. Stanton argues against the members of the Matthaean community keeping the
Sabbath strictly, and suggests that they do not adhere to the Sabbath commandments,
but that they are afraid of antagonizing their Jewish persecutors. This article counters
Stanton's argument by pointing out that Mt. 12.1-14 (the most relevant Matthaean
text to the Sabbath issue) cannot be taken to legitimate abolition of the Sabbath, as
Stanton maintains, if enough attention is paid to a general exegetical principle and the
Matthaean redactional changes. Moreover, if the historical background of the two

1. In this regard, Matthew urges the readers of the Gospel to endure to the end
in order that they will be saved; and this Gospel of the kingdom (probably referring
to the Gospel of Matthew) will be preached throughout the world as a testimony to all
nations, and then the end will come (24.13-14).
18 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (1991)

Gospels is considered, it can be seen that the persecutors in Mk 13.14-23 and M t

24.20-28 could not have been Jews, but were Romans. Finally, a tentative alternative
to account for the Matthaean redactional addition 'on a Sabbath* in the verse 'pray
that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath' (Mt. 24.20) is put forward
from an examination of the probable readers of Matthew 24 and the situation of the
Matthaean community implied therein.

This publication is
available in microform. University Microfilms International
reproduces this publication in microform: micro-
fiche and 16mm or 35mm film. For information
about this publication or any of the more than
13,000 titles we offer, complete and mail the
coupon to: University Microfilms International,
300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Call
us toll-free for an immediate response:
800-521-3044. Or call collect in Michigan,
Alaska and Hawaii: 313-761-4700.

D Please send information about these titles:

Name
Company/Institution_

University
Micrórilms City
International State . Zip_
Phone _L
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.