For issues of date and authorship, see http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.html

1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

There are several issues concerning this geneaology, especially with respect to the one in Luke. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html offers the first points to consider:

The geneaologies openly contradict. Response:

1. Matthew and Luke present different genealogies of Jesus--one through David's son Solomon (the royal line) and the other through David's son Nathan (the non-royal line). The royal line is traced in Matthew; the "natural" line in Luke. Matthew's genealogy goes only back to Abraham (to show the Jewish character of the King); Luke's goes back to Adam (to show the universal aspect of the Savior). Matthew's emphasizes Jesus' royalty; Luke, his humanity. A similar view as expressed by Hill [Hil.GM, 74] is that "Luke provides a pedigree of actual descent, while Matthew gives the throne succession", which would fit in with the use of genealogies as described below.

2. It is generally accepted (but not unanimously) that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. (The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David.)

3. Both genealogies are 'aware' of the virgin birth: Luke adds the phrase "He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph" (3:23) and Matthew switches verbs from "X begat Y" to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine pronoun) was born Jesus".

4. So, how does Joseph 'step into' Mary's lineage? How does he 'pick up' her legal heritage?

Probably through the law of levirate marriage.

The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages. One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662: "Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, May and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"

5. So, strictly speaking, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage of M+J). Now, as a practical matter, I consider the gene-issue to be important, simply because there were NUMEROUS other indications that the Messiah WOULD BE from the 'stock of Jesse' etc--images and phrases that DO put more emphasis on the blood-line that does simply 'legal lineage'--but I am persuaded that these requirements were adequately satisfied from Mary's side.

Within the ancient world kinship and family were a person's primary source for status. The reputation of one's ancestral house was an important factor in how one viewed one's self, and how others viewed you. Kinship was a root of self-identity and understanding. The Jews had a special focus on this, as for example those descended from Levi and Aaron were determined to be the ones suitable for Temple ministry. The book of Esdras notes that those among returnees from Babylon who could not prove Levite lineage were not permitted to perform Temple service.

In this context the genealogies of Jesus were called upon to serve certain purposes. Let's note some relevant points:

A Skeptic states that we need to "explain why the Luke genealogy contains almost twice as many ancestors as Matthew's in the same time period." Miller rightly answers that this is an example of a "simple pedagogical/rhetorical technique of Matthew (common in his day)". In more detail, in a predominantly an oral culture, things had to be memorized, and memory was made easiest by making things as short as possible while still retaining their purpose. Matthew's intentional breaking of Jesus' lineage into 3 blocks of 14 is indeed a memory device. Such fluidity in genealogical records is not exclusive of the Bible. "By virtue of its form a linear genealogy can have only one function: it can be used to link the person or group using the genealogy with an earlier ancestor or group. The actual number of names in the genealogy and the order of those names play no role in this function, and for this reason names are frequently lost from linear genealogies, and the order of the names will sometimes change." [I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood, 213] The removal of names and the telescoping of lists is known in other oral cultures -- and it is also known that certain numerical patterns were preferred.

We offered the observation that, "In any given society, genealogies may function in more than one of the three spheres...it would be possible for a society to have a number of apparently conflicting genealogies, each of which could be considered accurate in terms of its function." [I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood, 213] So why are Jesus' genealogies different?

Luke's goes all the way back to Adam and has 56 generations. His interest is in establishing a tone of universality in the Gospel message and mission, as he does in Acts with the admission of Gentiles into the Kingdom of God. This is all there is to his purpose, and so the genealogy is linear rather than segmented.

Matthew's goes back to Abraham and has 3 groups of 14 generations. Here he certainly telescopes (and Luke probably does, too). But Matthew is trying to prove certain points with his genealogy that Luke is not. He is, first, trying to establish Jesus as a legitimate heir to David's throne, and thus he uses the lineage through known names in 1 and 2 Kings. Second, Matthew has split into blocks of 14 so as, perhaps, to match the Hebrew sum for the numerical equivalent to the name David (14 -- though Hagner [1/7] notes that this works only in Hebrew, and may just be a coincidence,), and to match the breaks with significant events in Jewish history, the "pedagogical device" Miller refers to. Finally, Matthew wants to include some women of a questionable character, because they serve as an "in your face" to the expected charge that Jesus' own birth was in some way scandalous or abnormal. Neyrey in Render to God [47] argues that a critical purpose of Matthew is to employ a stereotype of "covenants of promise," hence the exclusion of Moses and any priestly members, and the inclusion of persons like the women (and Jeconiah!) that show that "God's blessings worked through these disqualifications [these persons had] because God is free to choose whom God chooses."

Critics sometimes not that the last group does not have 14 names but 13 or even 12 (if Jesus is not counted, which he should be). Hagner [1/6] solves the matter by ending the second group with Jehoiakim, as one who was in the original list prior to a scribal error (or else, caused by our confusion, as Jehoiakim and a variant of Jeconiah's name are spelled the same in the LXX).

Finally, a note for those who make much of Mark providing no genealogy: He does! It is any place where he identifies Jesus as the "Son of God" thus giving Jesus more status than he would ever achieve through Mary or Joseph.

What about the "Jeconiah curse"? Critics note that Jesus has as an ancestor Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12), of whom the prophet Jeremiah said, "Write this man down as childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30) Response from fabprf4.html:

I personally am not convinced this 'Jeconiah' problem EVEN EXISTS, and here's why:

I don't think the prophecy in Jeremiah is referring to Jeconiah's descendants FOR ALL TIME. The context of the passage seems to limit the scope to just his immediate descendants:

1. The phrase 'in his lifetime' (lit. "in his days"-yom) focuses the passage on the immediate future;

2. the "for" word connects the 'no man of his descendants' with the 'in his lifetime'--the strong casual relationship between not-prospering-now and his descendants is strong evidence for an immediate future context;

3. the 'again' word ('od) is not the "big" FOREVER word: ad-olam or le-olam.

4. Immediately after this passage, Jeremiah relays a promise by Yahweh to raise up 'a righteous branch to David' --a promise of the continuing line of David! Could Jeremiah have been so blind as to not notice such a contradiction (if the preceding passage referred to the 'end of the Davidic line'?!) It looks much more likely that this is a deposing of Jeconiah, and a promise of a better king from the stock of David (maybe even from non-immediate descendants of Jeconiah?).

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Critics who find here a parallel to the crass pagan stories of deities having sexual intercourse with human women are simply using their imagination. The Spirit of God was the instrument of YHWH's ex nihilo creation in Genesis 1, and there is no reason to read this creation any differently as involving an act of divine fiat.

A betrothal [Hag.M, 1/17] was a formal contract which gave the husband legal rights over the wife and so, though there would be no sexual contact, any sexual liasion outside the marriage would be considered adultery.

19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

"Privily" means that Joseph would do no more than go through the normal divorce procedure involving two witnesses; this, as opposed to subjecting Mary to public shame before numerous witnesses (her and his family; the village; etc.).

20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

"Jesus" means "YHWH is salvation" and is thus an appropriate name for the Savior. Miller responds to those who think it a problem that Jesus was not called "Emmanuel" as a name:

People and groups in the OT were OFTEN getting special 'place' names and temporary names, to be used for a specific purpose. Solomon, for example, got TWO names at his birth (II Sam 12.25)--Solomon and Jedidiah. No reference is ever made to Jedidiah after that, but it doesn't seem to be an issue. See also the story about Pashur in Jer 20:1-6.

* Israel and Judah consistently receive 'temporary' and symbolic names in the Prophets (cf. Ezek 23 and Is 62.3-4)

* Matthew is the one who quotes the 'Immanuel' passage one verse AFTER the he reports the angel's command to name the son JESUS, AND four verses BEFORE reporting that his parents called him 'Jesus'...he doesn't show the SLIGHTEST concern over this "problem"! (in other words, it WASN'T an issue in that culture). This is even more striking in that Matthew is the one arguing that the passage was fulfilled! --the name issue wasn't an issue.

* If you had to call the kid 'Immanuel" for the prophecy to be fulfilled, what in the world are we gonna do with Is 9.6--where the child gets 4 names (i.e. wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace)?!

* And actually, we don't think it was his mother who had to call him 'Immanuel' anyway. Most modern bibles have a footnote at the 'she shall call him...' text, that explains that in the MSS, we have a couple of variants (he, she, they)...Matthew quotes it as 'they'...This could apply to ANYBODY who acknowledged that Jesus was God walking among his people--even John 1 would qualify for this.

This is just not generally considered a problem:

"There is no problem in referring the names Jesus and Emmanuel to the same person. This may well be the reason Matthew spells out the meaning of the name Emmanuel, meqÆ hJmw`n oJ qeov", “God with us” (LXX Isa 8:8, 10). Indeed this is not a personal name but rather a name that is descriptive of the task this person will perform. Bringing the presence of God to man, he brings the promised salvation—which, as Matthew has already explained, is also the meaning of the name Jesus (v 21b). “They” who will call him Emmanuel are those who understand and accept the work he has come to do. Matthew probably intends the words of Jesus at the end of his Gospel—“Behold I am with you always, until the end of the age” (28:20)—to correspond to the meaning of Emmanuel. Jesus is God, among his people to accomplish their salvation (see Fenton, “Matthew,” 80–82). [WBC]

For issues related to the translation of "virgin" see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

For issues related to Matthew's use of the OT see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html

24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

2:1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

For the issue of contradictions between this narrative and Luke's, see http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.html The words are misleading here; the translation "in the east" should be read "at its rising," a more accurate reflection of the Greek. It is not wrong for Matthew to call Herod a "King" rather than a tetrarch. Herod was given the title "King of Judea" by the Roman Senate in 40 BC, and made good on that when he took over in 37. "Worship" [Hag.M, 1/28] need not mean religious devotion but does indicate to pay homage to. That there were three magi is not specificed; this comes from later Christian tradition.

3When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 5And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

See http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof3.html for material on this prophecy. Herod is probably troubled by the prospect of a rival (especially given his paranoia) and the rest of the city is no doubt troubled because they expect Herod to react in a bad way.

7Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. 8And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. 9When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. 12And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

The gifts offered were "the most common offerings" in the ancient Neat East. They were "all products of Arabia, but not exclusively so." [Hil.GM, 84] Hagner [Hag.M, 1/30] is no doubt correct that the magi would have known of Herod's reputation and suspected a trap of some kind

13And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Egypt at this time was a "natural asylum" for Jews [Hil.GM, 84] "especially from the time of the Maccabbean struggle." The danger of Herod to messianic movements is illustrated in that it was only after his death that the Qumran communtiy returned to its headquarters, which had been destroyed in 31 BC [85]. Hosea's text is appealed to in order to illustrate Jesus' trip as a "recapitulation" or re-enactment of the Exodus. Critics who suppose that history was merely invented on the basis of OT texts are looking at matters the wrong way. Recasting of stories in terms of previous stories was a normal practice and admired skill in this day. Critics assume that there was no known (or unknown) history of Jesus and that the NT writers scoured the OT (and other sources) looking for material they could turn into a Jesus story. Never considered is the idea that the NT writers had an actual story of Jesus which they proceeded to retell, with skill, using as many allusions to the OT as they could. This would have been a standard practice of the era and no point against the historicity of the text in and of itself. Historicity should be determined by the normal tests: i.e., "Is it plausible as history?" -- not by whether it contains imitations of another story.

Malina and Neyrey report in Portraits of Paul [89-90] that one form of support for testimony was "probabilities" -- verification from general experience. Rhetoriticians noted that when setting forth a statement to a judge or jury, orators should "pay attention to the question of whether he will find his hearers possessed of a personal knowledge of the things of which he is speaking, as that is the sort of statement they are most likely to believe." An appeal to common experience was always helpful to aid in understanding. When Bible stories follow typical forms, they do so for this very purpose. Using words and phrases from the Old Testament accomplished a similar purpose. Material is phrased in such a way as to appear verifiable from experience. Of course this again says nothing about historicity, but it gives ancient writers every motive to report what they say, true or false, in terms recognizable from previous experience. If the NT imitates the OT, it has every reason to do so, and thereby offer no reason why we should argue for fabrication on these grounds alone. (This relates as well to the ancient prejudice against anything new. Casting new things in old terms or relating it to the old was a way of trying to gain acceptance for the new.)

Flemming Nielsen (The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomic History), in an examination of the histories of Herodotus, notes in that writer a purposeful intention to duplicate the vocabulary, morphology and style of Homer, and the use of "deliberate Homeric quotations", places where Herodotus "deliberately plays upon his readers' awareness of particular passages of Homer" (as indeed Luke does, using a variety of Greek works). Nielsen notes further:

A particularly marked occurrence of this is seen in the Croesus-narrative, where the many quotations from Homer and the entire Homeric structure are far more than merely an artistic decoration, in that they create a backcloth for Croesus' and Cyrus' speeches by associating them in the readers' mind with Agamemnon and Achilles. The most critical events in the account of the Persian wars are likewise related to the Homeric account. In this manner, the Persian wars are shown no less important than the Trojan war, the Persian-Greek conflict being a repetition of the war between Achaens and Trojans.

And Albert Lord, a specialist in oral and mythic traditions, had this to say in The Relationships Among the Gospels [39]:

Traditional narrators tend to tell what happened in terms of already existent patterns of story. Since the already existing patterns allow for many multiforms and are the result of oft repeated human experience, it is not difficult to adjust another special case to the flexibly interpreted story patterns....The fact that the Entry (of Jesus) into Jerusalem, for example, fits an element of mythic pattern does not necessarily mean, however, that the event did not take place. On the contrary, I assume that it did take place, since I do not know otherwise, and that it was an incident that traditional narrators chose to include, partly at least because its essence had a counterpart in other stories and was similar to the essence of an element in an existing story pattern....That its essence was consonant with an elements in a traditional mythic (i.e., sacred) pattern adds a dimension of spiritual weight to the incident, but it does not deny (not does it confirm, for that matter) the historicity of the incident.

In Judaism likewiese, words did not create events, but events called out the words. And what he and others call "fiction" is actually deliberate allusion of the sort Herodotus employs.

16Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. 17Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, 18In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Although much has been made of the Slaughter of the Innocents - and indeed, any such event would be tragic - there is no reason to assume that it could be considered high on the list of Herod's atrocities in terms of scope or magnitude. How many boys aged two and under could there have been in and around the tiny city of Bethlehem? Five? Ten? Matthew does not give a number. Hagner [Hag.M, 1/37] notes an estimate of 20. Josephus says that Herod murdered a vast number of people, and was so cruel to those he didn't kill that the living considered the dead to be fortunate; he even ordered that at his death, one member of every family was to be killed so that there would be mourning in the land when he died. Thus, indirectly, Josephus tells us that there were many atrocities that Herod committed that he does not mention in his histories - and it is probable that authorizing the killing of the presumably few male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem was a minuscule blot of the blackness that was the reign of Herod. Being that the events of the reign of Herod involved practically one atrocity after another - it is observed by one writer, with a minimum of hyperbole, that hardly a day in his 36-year reign passed when someone wasn't sentenced to death - why should any one event in particular have touched off a rebellion, when others in particular, including those recorded by Josephus, did not? Herod probably died in March or April of 4 BC; the Slaughter would therefore have occurred during one of his last two years on earth, and it is ridiculous to say that the things he did in the previous 34 years - equally, if not more so, a time of political unrest among the Jews - was insufficient to incite rebellion, whereas killing a few male infants in a backwater suburb would be sufficient in comparison. Even critics will admit that this event was within Herod's character to perform. (Also, however careful Skeptics think he was, it is doubtful that Josephus recorded EVERY atrocity performed by Herod; if he had, his works would be rather significantly larger!)

Furthermore, a revolt would have been unlikely in any event. For all of his ruthlessness, Herod was nowhere near the monster the likes of, say, Caligula. More importantly, he was careful to not offend Jewish religious sensibilities; Josephus records only two instances where pious Jews questioned him on such matters. [Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 19, 297] In Jewish eyes, Herod might have been a devil; but he was a nicer devil to have in charge than a Roman devil! The Slaughter of the Innocents, though, is something that fits in perfectly with the character of Herod. (Also, is it perhaps not too far a reach to wonder whether Herod - who had his own son assassinated - hired vigilantes of some sort to perpetrate the Slaughter, and that it was not connected to him until his death which was shortly thereafter, when it was too late for anyone to vent their anger on him?)

More information at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabrach.html

19But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life. 21And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 23And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

More information at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabrach.html Archaelus followed in his father's pattern and was deposed by Rome in 6 AD, whereas his son Antipas who ruled in Galilee was a more tolerant ruler and allowed "revolutionary sentiments" to exist in Galilee that his father would never have put up with [Hag.M, 1/39].

3:1In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 2And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 3For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

John wore the raiment of Elijah to intentionally signify his fulfillment of the role of Elijah predicted in Malachi.

What is the "kingdom of heaven"? Commentators have noted the "already-not yet" tension often associated with this phrase; at times Jesus and Paul speak of it as something now present, at others as something future. Preterism finds a unique answer for this paradox, inasmuch as it recognizes the KoG as God's rule within the hearts of His people (cf. Jer. 31:33) as well as being a sort of realm that matches conceptually with what we popularly call "Heaven". Because this is primarily an ideological rule, based in personal loyalty and obedience to YHWH (as has now been further confirmed by Jerome Neyrey in Render to God, who writes that the KoG "describes how Father-Patron bestows the benefaction of power" in relationships with His clients [68]), it is a Kingdom truly "invisible" on earth inside the hearts and heads of believers; hence Jesus could indeed speak of the KoG as present in some ways, as in the hearts and minds of his disciples, or in specific acts of his that advanced the KoG. Yet because he WAS King in the KoG, and was yet officially enthroned as he would be at the parousia, there are also senses in which he could speak of the KoG as future. Put another way, the present kingdom in Jesus' day was the kingdom power, manifested in the prophetic voice and miraculous ministry, which is different from the kingdom rule, which is the final "ruling until he places all his enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 15). Witherington in Jesus, Paul and the End of the World (64) notes that this is in accord with Jewish perceptions that the KoG was something that arrived over time and as part of a process -- it was not, "whoosh, there it is" but "a process or a series of events that could involve the present." (Note in passing that "God" in "Kingdom of God" is NOT the personal name of God, but per usage of theos is a noun like "deity" -- so that one cannot argue that "Kingdom of God" means the kingdom is not Jesus' to rule over. This is in line with references to it as the "kingdom of heaven" [not personal] or as the Son of Man's kingdom [Jesus'].)

5Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

It would be natural for the Pharisees and Sadducees to appeal to the prestige of their ancestor as a sign of God's favor; Hill [93] notes the illustrative example of Mek. Exod. 14:15, "it is by the merits of Abraham their father that I walled up the sea for them." Jewish thought of the rabbis' day [Mou.M, 23] held that Abraham had been such a great guy that he had "built up a treasury of merit" that the Jews could draw from, and this makes further sense of the appeal. John's riposte makes it clear that more than lineage will have to be present to enter into the covenant relationship he brokers. "Stones" and "children" sound similar in Aramaic and were probably used "punningly" by John; perhaps likewise in Aramaic "the root" and "hewn down".

Some suggest that John may have been a member of the Essene movement. While this is possible (and not necessarily objectionable) the fact that his baptisms were once-for-all performances, while the Qumranites baptized repeatedly {Hil. GM, 89], suggests that if John ever was an Essene, he was not a very good one.

10And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Bearing of shoes was a menial task accorded by a master to a slave.

13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Did John recognize Jesus, or not (versus John 1:32-3)? Liberal scholars are content to dismiss one or both verses as theological fabrications. I can agree that they are put in for theological purposes, but that hardly means that they must have been made up. Matthew 3:5-6 likely reports a public confession. The person who came to be baptized somehow let it know that they were confessing; most likely they confessed to Johnny or one of his disciples prior to baptism. Jesus comes along for baptism...and does what? He confesses no sin whatsoever. John is probably flabbergasted and thinking one of two things, perhaps even simultaneously: 1. Whoa! This is the one I was waiting for? Why is he undergoing this rite of repentance? 2. How can I be sure that this is the right guy? I haven't been watching him 24 hours a day! John might just play it safe and assume that the guy is telling the truth...that is, unless you want to allow that something about Jesus "triggered a recognition (revelation?) in John as to Jesus' identity which elicited the statement of Matt. 3:14." From there, the settling of the Holy Spirit becomes a matter of confirmation that fixes the identity of Jesus in John's head once and for all.

Why would Jesus need to be baptized to "fulfill righteousness"? As leader of his social ingroup, Jesus would serve as a model for those he led; this regardless of any "necessity" to be baptized. This fits with Hill's [96] understanding that "righteousness" means "righteousness of life through obedience to God".

4:1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Could Jesus have failed the Temptations, and were they meaningful? No, I don't think Jesus could have failed -- not in the least. Someone will say, "Well, so what did the temptations prove, then?" I'll explain what they proved with an analogy. Let us recall the story of the Sphinx: Persons approaching this creature were required to answer a riddle posed by it in order to pass. Losers were summarily dispatched. The only way to get past it was to answer the riddle -- right? Well, let's say that rather than answer the riddle, one of these Greek fellows stopped by the time travel surplus store, and instead of answering the riddle, blew the Sphinx away with a howitzer. So did he defeat the Sphinx? Of course he did. And he did so by rendering the Sphinx's challenge irrelevant.

This is what the purpose of the Temptation of Jesus was -- it was to prove Satan to be irrelevant in context. Jesus experienced temptation firsthand (Hebrews 4:15) and knew what it was like, but this is not the same thing as saying that he could have fallen for it (and as Hebrews goes on to say, he didn't fall for it -- cf. Hebrews 2:17-18: "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." ). A Greek could hear the Sphinx's riddle, and say, "Yeah, so what?" before blowing the beast to smithereens. In the same way, Jesus was tested, and was guaranteed a 100%. The Temptation was a glorious demonstration of what the Incarnation had accomplished. It was also an honor challenge in which Jesus and Satan engaged in riposte -- and Jesus is depicted as winning hands down.

The temptation's occurrence in the wilderness, and the 40 days, are meant to mirror Israel's test of faith in Exodus [Har.GM, 66] and more closely the forty-day fasts of Elijah and Moses. Critics who think that this implies ahistoricity do not properly contend with the ancient tendency to wish to re-enact symbols to create a message; Jesus would purposely choose to go to the wilderness and fast forty days in imitation of prior events. Indeed if critics can accuse Matthew of coming up with the idea, why can Jesus not have done so?

2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

The "if" in Satan's words are a first-class conditional; it would be better rendered "since" for it assumes the reality of what is being said [Mor.GM, 73] and says "if" as a way of suggesting that some validation is in order. It is essentially an honor challenge.

Matthew 4:8 by no means implies a flat earth, nor a monstrous mountain large enough to oversee the earth. The trip to the mountain was a cheap psychological ploy by Satan -- given what we know of the honor and shame dialectic of that social world, it fits as the premise of an "honor challenge" by placing Jesus in a pre-eminent position. Thus the showing of the kingdoms was accomplished by means of projecting images of some sort, as suggested by the parallel verse in Luke 4:5: The devil led him up to a high place, and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.

Further, as anyone who has climbed mountains knows - and the writer of Matthew surely knew, if he lived in the area around Judea, as Matthew did - the higher up you go, the smaller things down below get, by your perspective. So it seems unlikely that (even if he did believe it a flat earth, personally) Matthew's offering is not compatible with a globe. Note that even on a flat earth, a high mountain would be a very poor place to observe the kingdoms of the world "in their glory." Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world, and Matthew's reader's would roll over laughing and throw his book in the garbage! It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed.

It need not be read from this that Satan does actually own all the kingdoms. This is a parody of Ps. 2:8, a promise to the Messiah to make the nations his [Hag.M, 1/68] and is more to be taken as an excessive pledge by Satan being desperate to have Jesus do his bidding. The dishonorable devil is simply promising beyond what he can deliver.

10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Does Matthew contradict Luke's order of temptations? No. Matthew uses "then" (Matt. 4:5), which shows a logical sequence of events, while Luke uses "and" (Luke 4:9) between the two events, which obscures the sequence of events. Matthew also uses, in addition to "then" (tote), the word "again" (palin), indicating a repetition. Luke does indeed use only "and" (kai). What all of these "ands" indicate is that Luke is using an original Semitic source, probably oral in origin itself. (The use of "and" this way is recognized as reflecting a Semitic source as this was how Semitic stories were often told.)

The Skeptic sometimes accuse Jesus here of adding the phrase "and serve him only" to Deut. 6:13 in this quote. However, this is again a typical rabbinic exegesis: It follows that if you fear God only, then you serve Him only. This was typical hermeneutical practice for the day and can only be called an "error" by anachronizing. Albright and Mann add in their Matthew commentary [35] that Jesus' quote reflects the LXX version of Deuteronomy, other than the word "only".

12Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; 13And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:

Skeptics playing with the KJV may complain that, if Jesus left Nazareth and went to Capernaum, he was still in Galilee, and so could not have gone to Galilee. The verse actually indicates departure to Galilee, specifically Nazareth, followed by Capernaum.

14That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 15The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;

Skeptics who mark time nitpicking at the KJV may object that the lands of Zabulon and Naphtali are on the western side of the Jordan, and so could not be "beyond" the Jordan. But the word "along" is a better offering than "beyond."

16The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. 17From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 18And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 19And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. 20And they straightway left their nets, and followed him. 21And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. 22And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.

The actions of the fisherman indicate a much more extensive relationship with Jesus prior to this event. To simply leave family, one's most critical ingroup, with no other prompting than this would be an absurdity and not a realistic way of reading this text.

23And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. 24And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. 25And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

Some point to Matthew's use of "their synagogue" as pointing to a break from Judaism that signifies a late date for Matthew, but I would question whether this is always an "adversarial" their -- it may refer to provenance, as in Matt. 4:23: "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues..." -- can this not mean simply the Galileeans' synagogues?

5:1And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Was this sermon on a mountain, or on a plain? And just what was it's content? Luke and Matthew vary so widely! Some like to say that Matthew and Luke are reporting two different sermons, but this is untenable - both are followed by the same story of the healing of the centurion's servant.

In terms of place this is easy -- The Greek in Matthew is to be interpreted as referring not to "on a mountain" but "in mountain country" - it is a regional rather than a specific reference. (See D. A. Carson, "Exegetical Fallacies".)

The issue of content might appear more complex, but it is actually just as easy to explain. When reckoning with any teaching of Jesus that appears in more than one gospel, one should observe the dictum of N. T. Wright: That Jesus taught these same basic things, in slightly different forms, perhaps hundreds of times. As long as the basic message is intact, it matters not at all which "version" is recorded. At the same time, we have noted here Matthew's structure as a "teaching" gospel, a manual with a structure designed with education in mind. Matthew has clearly designed the Sermon on the Mount as a compendium (which his readers, seeing the structure of his Gospel, would recognize), rather than as a straight historical report (like Luke's version would be expected to be, as he is reporting in the Hellenistic historiographic tradition). Keener's commentary on Matthew explains [162]:

...[A]ncient writers exercised the freedom to rearrange sayings, often topically. Writers who collected such sayings summarizing the thrust of a famous teacher's message (such as Epictetus' Encheiridion, Menander's epitome, or the Qumran Temple Scroll) called their collections "epitomes"; Matthew has exercised an analogous literary liberty, collecting many of Jesus' sayings on the topic of ethics, even if the precise comparison with Greek "epitomes" may be overstated.

Keener notes as well that rabbinic collections of sayings could vary on details just as the two sermon "versions" could. There is no need to resort to absurd harmonizations, as is done by some evangelical critics of this view.

The "blessed" signals in classical Greek literature "one who takes cognizance of the essential harmony which binds him to society and to the world" [Hil.GM, 109]; this is obviously not to be read in terms of modern "ha ha happiness". It is rather to be read im terms of those to be honored [Ney.HS, 165].

3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Poor in spirit" refers in context to persons not materially poor particularly (though those are part of the group, a great part of it in the ancient world) but those who are socially vulnerable who were preyed on by the greedy and powerful. In essence Jesus affirms the value of the oppressed person, which is exactly the opposite of the alleged "pie in the sky" interpretation says, by offering them the consolation that God is on their side and agrees with their outrage over the tactics of the "rich". In essence this says that the ideology of the KoG agrees with what the poor as a whole experience.

4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

The "mourning" here is not the stuff you do at funerals. In context it's actually those who "protest the presence of social evil" (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-2), so it is related to the first beatitude.

5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Meekness in the ancient world (per Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values) is gentleness, coupled with non-violence that is followed not because of any revulsion to violence, but because the meek person CAN use violence but has enough confidence and ability not to threaten or challenge others, and whose opponent is unworthy or too weak -- in other words, he's not strong enough or right enough for you to bother with. The OT example in Ps. 37 are those who do not protest the loss of their land to greedy landowners, knowing that God owns the land and will get it back for them or else judge the greedy. "They will inherit the earth" is not so much a pay-off as a prediction. Meekness also means non-response to honor challenges [Ney.HS, 181] purely for the sake of personal satisfaction.

6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Neither religious rituals nor politics is the subject here (that is a modern definition of "righteousness" when it had yet to exist; ie, it is confusing "righteousness" with "self-righteousness"). The word here actually means equity of character and action, or to put it another way, justice.

7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

In the ancient world 99% of the people were under "authoritative rule" of someone in a position to grant them mercy (which means, actually, paying of debts of personal obligation and so does not apply if i.e., spanking is an earned punishment, and does not indicate that the "crime" requires a "mercy" response from God). Mercy also means the foreswearing of vengeance [Ney.HS, 182] which the typical ancient person would have thought honorable and just to enact.

9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Far from being an appeal for pacifism, "peacemakers" refers to those who keep peace -- that could mean, by war if needed (remembering that the Pax Romana was enforced by Rome's military power).

10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Neyrey [Ney.HS, 170] describes the person here as one who would lose all "[m]eaningful social intercourse" and experience "severe reprecussions on the economic and social status" scale. In this light the "poor" of v. 3 are those that have been made poor and vulnerable because they have lost their social status [171], their family, and all else for the sake of Christ.

13Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

One Skeptic found this puzzling, so he wrote to various salt companies and asked them whether salt ever lost its flavor. They assured him that it didn't, so the Skeptic put down Jesus here for a dumbbell error. The word here is moraino, meaning "to become insipid; fig. to make (pass. act) as a simpleton:--become fool, make foolish, lose savour". In the context of this verse, it refers to believers being the "salt" of the world. Now believers themselves won't lose their "saltiness" except in one way - by becoming like the world. Hence, as tohow salt "loses" its savor, the answer is by contamination. (I have also been advised, but have not been able to confirm, that Dead Sea salt, unlike our modern, refined table salt, does lose its flavor. A reader noted that the explanation may be that "ancient 'salt' wasn't pure sodium chloride, but NaCl mixed with other rock and mineral matter; if it was allowed to get moist, the NaCl would dissolve out and leave behind a pile of tasteless dirt. Thus, in order for the salt to preserve its savor, 'the world' had to be kept out of it." It is also noteworthy that in context, this isn't salt used for consumption in the first place! Malina and Rohrbaugh suggest [Social-Science Commentary, 50] that the "earth" here alludes to an earthen oven outside the house which was used to bake, and had a dung heap nearby; the dung was used as fuel and was salted to use as a catalyst to make the dung burn. The reference is to salt that is so exhausted that it no longer makes the dung burn -- not to how tasty the salt is!)

14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Versus John 9:5, who is the light of the world -- Jesus or his followers? As Jesus' followers are the "body of Christ" on earth, the answer is obviously both. This is no whimsical distinction; it is a description fully in accord with Jewish sensibilities (and the OT concept of Israel as being a "light" to the nations, precisely because they carry God's message) and the imagery of "light" from God. However, if anyone wants to still be picky, the Greek of John 9:5 lacks the definite article, so that Jesus is saying, "I am light of [as in, for] the world" -- not the light!

15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Skeptics ask: Are we to do our deeds before men (per Matthew 5) or is that wrong (per Matthew 6 and 23)? Note that Matthew 5 tells us to do deeds in the same way -- as what? The previous examples are of a city on a hill and a lamp. Lamps and cities don't light for the sake of showing off -- they are passive instruments. They don't seek or take praise; they don't know or care that anyone watches, they just shine and do their jobs. That's our example. On the other hand, the Matthew 6 verse is after a warning about not making a public spectacle out of your giving, and not announcing it with trumpets like the hypocrites do. Now if you are publicly announcing your "good deeds" and being a hypocrite, you are far from letting people see your good works: You are in fact setting a bad example, and being a poor witness for Christ (and actually, just a jerk in general, whoever you are). So the two pieces of direction in Matt. 5 and 6 are progressive education, and they go together: Set a good example, but don't do the peacock strut, lest you tarnish those good works with the stain of hypocrisy, and thereby defame the cause of Christ. The remaining two verses then draw from this lesson.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

"If this is true," the skeptics may ask, "why are you violating the law by eating pork and wearing polyester suits?" This is indeed the substance of skeptical objections I have seen, but behind the snideness and silliness lie a valid question: What is the role of the Law in the life of the Christian today? Do we need to trash our polyester? If we are true believers, do we need to execute witches? And finally, is the covenant still "good" with Israel today?

To answer these questions we need to establish some frameworks, and to do this I will draw from some previous and related essays. Our primary framework has to do with the categories of the law.

First, some laws are universal moral laws. This includes do not steal, do not kill, and others. There is no disagreement that these laws should indeed be continued to be obeyed today, so we need not discuss them further.

Second, some laws are cultural universals. By this I mean laws geared to Israel's culture that have a universal moral law behind them. As an example, some have suggested the prohibition on trimming your beard [Lev. 19:27] relates to pagan practices that cut facial hair for magical purposes. So the universal behind this cultural would be, don't do the occult. But here is my favorite example, from Deut. 22:8-9:

When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.

One Skeptic says, "One would be hard-pressed to find home builders" who follow this rule. But actually they do follow the modern equivalent. In ancient Israel, the flat roof of a house would be used for many purposes, such as sleeping, household chores, and entertaining. These chores included drying and storage of produce; even today the roof is used for such things in modern Arab nations. We don't use our roof the same way -- the modern equivalent is a balcony. Our builders certainly do make sure that they follow the point of this rule to the letter! At any rate, it would also be agreed that the universals behind these cultural applications should continue to be followed.

Finally, there are ceremonial laws. Instructions for building the Ark of the Covenant, for example, are definitely in this, as are sacrificial laws. What else belongs in here? Most likely the dietary laws belong here, as their purpose was to make the Jews "different" and to serve as a testimony to their difference in the most intimate ancient setting, that of meal fellowship.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

For the Christian, entering the kingdom of heaven is accomplished by the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us. Put another way, God views us through "Jesus glasses."

21Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Jesus is talking in 5:22 about relations with one's brother (not physical brothers, of course, but fellow believers) and about words said in anger to that brother. Thus in reply to other passages:

Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

In Matthew 23:17, Jesus is not talking to his brethren, but to the Pharisees. In short, Jesus was calling a spade a spade - and in line with the verse in Psalms, was referring to the Pharisees as unbelievers (in His own work, of course). This also means that the OT verse does not apply here. There is also this passage:

Luke 11:40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?

The same point applies, but we will add here that the word for "foolish" in Luke is a different Greek word than the one in Matt. 5:22. (aphron vs. moros). The former word is also used by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:36. It has more of a connotation of "unbeliever" than it does a reference to just plain stupidity as moros has.

The word "angry" refers to an "inward, brooding anger" as opposed to an instant, flaring sort [Mou.M, 45] it finds its source in being personally dishonored [Ney.HS, 191] and desiring revengae, and thus will have nothing to do with anger over things like a just cause or with an instant reaction.

23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. 25Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

A Skeptic I know puts a negative spin on this verse, saying it teaches us to "cut a deal with an adversary, in spite of the truth, honor, or honesty." Why one cannot deal within truth, etc. while still dealing with an adversary quickly is not explained, but perhaps our critic thinks "agree" means "give in to their point of view." It does not. The Greek word here means "reconcile" and expresses the teaching of reconciling with others found in both Jewish and Greco-Roman teaching [Keener, Matthew commentary, 185]. Furthermore, the word "adversary" is a technical term for an opponent in a lawsuit.

27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Is this meant to be taken literally? No; this is rhetorical hyperbole of the sort found in Seneca, who for example advised that one who cannot rid one's heart of vice should rip their heart out; similar words are found in Philo and the work of the rabbis, and other ancient writers offer expressions regarding willingness to undergo amputation for the sake of a greater good (see Keener, Matthew commentary, 188n) or for the sake of honor, which is the entire point. Today we even speak of giving an arm or a leg and no one takes us literally; in the East even today such expressions are used: "What I say to you is truth, and if it is not, I will cut off my right arm at the shoulder/pluck out my right eye." [Rihbany, The Syrian Christ, 118]

The woman in question is probably a married one [Mou.M, 46] but other NT passages deal with lust towards those that are not married.

30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

A "problem" is alleged in that Matthew includes an additional phrase, "except for marital unfaithfulness", not found in Mark. Some critics say that the phrase was added to reflect the needs of the early church; and maybe it was, but that by no means requires that Jesus never added that qualification on His own at some point, perhaps in a different context or teaching. Matthew could simply have conflated two of Jesus' separate teachings, which is no crime. But the most likely reason for the difference is that Matthew was spelling out what Luke and Mark leave implicit within the social context. The divorce debate in Jewish circles in Jesus' day pitted the followers of Hillel against those of his rival, Shammai. Hillel took a more liberal view, permitting divorce in a variety of circumstances (even if the wife spoiled a meal!); Shammai, only in the case of adultery. In both Jewish and Greco-Roman society, Blomberg notes in his commentary on Matthew, "divorce and remarriage were universally permitted and often mandatory following adultery." [292] Hagner's commentary on Matthew [549] adds: "Rabbinic Judaism required a husband to divorce and unfaithful wife." (m. Sota 5:1, m. Yebam 2:8; also Qumran literature, 1QapGen 20:15; Marcus Bockmuehl notes these passages and ties it not to Hillel and Shammai, but to halakhah on Deut. 24:4; neverthless his point is the same: the exception was presupposed -- Marcus Bockmuehl, "Mt. 5:32, 19:9 in Light of Pre-Rabbinic Halahkah," NTS 35 (1989), 291-5) In other words, both sides agreed on the exception which Matthew adds, and by the same token, Jesus could certainly have safely presupposed it without any fear of misunderstanding.

33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

How does this square with James 5:12, ". . . swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation"? What is being condemned in the NT verses is not oath-taking per se, but flippant, casual oaths; particularly, oaths made merely for the sake of gaining honor [Ney.HS, 201] as opposed to sincere pledges. The words "at all" in Matthew come from holos, which can mean simply, "not at all," but can also mean "commonly." Who makes a serious, solemn oath on heaven, the earth, a city, or their own head? The NT is condemning people who treat oaths with contempt by making them thoughtlessly; hence, for the sake of personal honor only. Philo speaks of people decorating their comments with oaths for no other purpose than to posture [202]. Keener's commentary on Matthew (192ff) explains the historical context of these passages. All ancient societies viewed oath-taking as dangerous, since they essentially called upon a deity to execute vengeance if the oath was not fulfilled. A flippant or false oath was in a real sense a blasphemy, a casual misuse of the name of God.

Somewhat paralleling the words of Jesus, the Essenes seem to have avoided oaths altogether, other than their oath of initiation. The Greek philosopher Pythagoras and others similarly taught, "let one's word carry such conviction that one need not call deities to witness." In the context of Jesus' own day, there existed a "popular abuse" of oath-taking in which surrogate objects were introduced to swear by, so as not to profane the divine name -- things like the right hand, Jerusalem, God's throne, and the head. Jesus also addresses this practice in his directive not to swear on such objects, as some thought it easier to break an oath if they swore on something inanimate rather than God! What we therefore have here is an example of Jesus not disagreeing with the OT about oaths, but rather moving beyond the OT into an even more demanding standard that focuses on motivation rather than action (in the same manner as the "adultery in the heart" directive). Those who find contradictions between these verses and others are, as usual, oblivious to the contexts and the purposes behind the passages.

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Is the "eye for an eye" rule of the OT countered by Matthew 5:39, "Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"? Is Jesus countering the OT law here? Those who think so need a little training in historical context as well as literal context. In this section of the Beatitudes, Jesus offers points taken from the Pharisaic oral law and refutes them: The sort of wrangling that was done to, for example, get around the "no work on the Sabbath" restriction by nailing a board between two houses so that they could be technically counted as one house! There was an "extra layer" of meaning added to the OT by the oral law, and in this particular case, the layer was added to suggest that "eye for an eye" was not only for civil matters of justice -- as the OT intends -- but also for interpersonal relationships; hence, the examples that follow of someone being slapped, or being forced to carry a Roman soldier's pack, or being sued: Things that may have been irritating or inconvenient, but were by no means illegal. To strike someone as described was an insult against their dignity (usually, only slaves were given such treatment), but it was no crime (in other words, it does not forbid physical defense): Even so would the oral law have insisted that it was just fine to use the principle of lex talionis for personal revenge on the one who had humiliated you.

"Resist not evil" is a popular Jewish proverb (cf. Ps. 37:1, 8; Prov. 24:29) which means, in essence, do not compete with evildoers, trying to "outdo" them in vengeance. (As Bivin and Blizzard put it in Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, if your neighbor dumps a pail of garbage on your lawn, "we are not to retaliate by dumping two pails on his lawn." [109]) In other words, don't try to get back at them in more spectacular ways. Read woodenly this would suggest giving away things without discernment, but the two parts of the verse are actually in Hebrew parallelism and are two ways of saying the same thing. [Bivin and Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, 11] "Ask" and "borrow" in Hebrew are synonyms in a certain sense: A difference is made in Hebrew between borrowing something tangible (a book or a coat) and borrowing something interchangeable (money, flour, etc). Jesus uses the two different senses in this verse: "Give to him that asketh thee (for a thing like a book or a coat), and from him that would borrow (flour or money) of thee turn not thou away."

But now pair this with the teaching in 5:39 on revenge. The teachings belong together: One way to "get even" with a neighbor would be to refuse to extend them a loan. I.e., when Fred Flintstone is mad at Barney Rubble, one way he shows it is my refusing to let Barney borrow his bowling ball. In a corporate society such as the ancient world, such refusal to exchange or loan violated a common precept of survival and concern for the common good. It is only by ripping the verse from its larger didactic and social context that one can read from it a justification to go up to a Christian and "ask" for their radio, Bibles, etc. just to get them to "follow" this command.

Should we pay twice as much if we lose a lawsuit? Only if you are a first century Jew intending to make a point that shames your opposition. Keener [Matthew commentary, 198] notes that this verse -- "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." -- offers a "shockingly graphic, almost humorous, illustration of what he means by nonresistance to force his hearers to consider their values." Giving away both garments would have resulted in total nudity, an "intolerable dishonor" in ancient Palestine. This act would shame the person who sued you in the first place -- Biblical law required the overnight return of a garment taken as pledge (Ex. 22:26-7) and the person taking your cloak would be quite a grinch! The verse does offer a polemic against a litigious society, but it is also no different -- actually better -- than Epictetus' comment that one should surrender one's cloak or even one's body to those who demand it, for none of these things belongs to one anyway. The emphasis is on the kingdom being valued more than things. If this is wrong, then Skeptics must say that those who perform similar protests -- the Gandhis, or the civil rights warriors -- are wrong too. This has nothing to do with child support or judgments as a whole; ir reflects rather a principle of refusing to engage in ` petty games of honor.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

One Skeptic notes that this statement does not exist in the OT. But those familiar with 1st century rabbinic Judaism know what this is: A reference to a saying that was taught by certain rabbis and by the Qumranites! The Manual of Discipline 1:9-11 says, "to love all the sons of light, each according to his lot in the Council of God, and to hate all the sons of darkness, each according to his guilt in the vengeance of God."

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Certain Skeptics think that Jesus missed the mark in living up to this admonition. A key here is understanding the function of polemic in first-century Judaism. It is certainly possible under these constraints to love one's enemies and pray for them, and also attack them polemically, though such complexity of emotion is quite often foreign to us. Moreover, the term "love" here does not correspond with our modern psychological category; it is "not a matter of sentiment and emotion but concrete action and practical concern." [Hill's commentary on Matthew, 130] It is in fact the term agape. It does not exclude verbally attacking and discrediting one's opponents when they are in the wrong.

Beyond that, Jesus speaks to these men not as his enemies, but as enemies of the truth. There is no indication that he speaks to them as personal enemies, for all of his comments reflect their deception of others. The ancient definition of agape did not exclude polemical practices against ideological opponents who did broad, general harm to others, and so Skeptics are merely illicitly applying modern categories to the situation. One would hardly suppose that Matthew 5:4 would restrict one from joining an army and fighting in a war against a Hitler or a Stalin. (This becomes a case of having agape for the greater number, and generally innocent, at the expense of the lesser who are guilty. Jesus' situation with the Pharisees and others attacked was very much in this category, since their actions imperiled the eternal fate of others.)

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 2Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Rich persons would be shamed for not giving to the poor anyway, so since in essence they were "forced" by the community to do so, the best way to receive a reward of honor was to let evenryone know just how well you were fulfilling your duties. The person who blows trumpets, etc. seeks the honor rewards of men; they are hypocrites because they undoubtedly told the poor (via words and actions) to stay in their own place. Such persons have their reward of honor (from other people) already and so warrant no reward of honor in heaven. The blowing of trumpets may be literal or figurative. Hypcorisy is indicated in that such persons pretend that their concern is for the poor when it is actually for honor rewards [Mor.GM, 137]. Giving in secret was possible by means of a special chamber in the temple where persons could leave their gift in privacy and the recipient could later pick it up [138].

5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Doesn't Paul contradict Jesus here when he tells us to lift up their hands while praying? No, because Jesus' words are an instruction against public prayer, done for the purpose of being noticed ("that they may be seen of men") and receiving the public honor due them. This has nothing to do with modes or positions of prayer. It does however [Ney.HS, 221] command quite radical behavior, since prayer was expected to be done at the very least among other persons. This is a signal to withdraw from the public religious life of the synagogue. In other words, as Neyrey puts it, the disciples are to vacate the traditional playing field and getting on God's playing field, for it is only honor from God that truly matters.

7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. 9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11Give us this day our daily bread. 12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. 14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

The pagans often repeated the names of their gods again and again as a way of getting them to do their bidding [Mou.M, 55] such that it was even regarded as more powerful to pronouce their names exactly right. "Lead us not" should be read in terms of "allow us not" [Hil.GM, 138] and "temptation" should probably be read in terms of testing or trial, as in persecution. The point of highlighting repetetitions is that heathens used repetition to persuade a deity to change its mind. "After this manner" does not mean to use the exact words, but refers to a mode of prayer that this particular prayer exemplifies.

Note that the prayer requests simple things like daily bread. The model does not support those who use prayer to request wealth or fame. "Temptation" means testing or trial in sense of persecution, not sin.

16Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 17But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; 18That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

Fasting as a display of public piety would be a form of accruing honor; once again the lesson is like the one directed towards those who give alms. Later Jewish teaching also disdained this sort of ostentatious piety [Hil.GM, 140].

19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21For where your treasure is, there wiil your heart be also.

It was easy for theives to break through most houses, which we made of mud brick or clay [Mou.M, 59]

The ancients did not share our perception of money as a cure-all, and as Pilch and Malina note in the Handbook of Biblical Social Values, the ancients believed that all goods were limited and supply and had already been distributed (which, until the industrial age, they practically were). If Jesus is giving an incorrect emphasis here, then so was Seneca and Diogenes Laertes (who "praised the moral blessing of poverty"), Lucretius and Cato (who "condemned the danger of wealth"), and Dio Chrysostom (who along with Laertes said that wealth was worthless compared to knowledge). The ancients valued discipline and knowledge more than they did money. Moreover, let it be kept in mind that there were neither banks nor credit unions available. Saving money meant using a strongbox which was either in the home or buried under the floor, where the danger of thieves and corruption was very real. Note also the reference to moths: Jesus speaks here not of money per se, but of "treasures" -- possession like precious apparel, and precious metals that would rust away. In light of the passing nature of wealth in this context, sages advised people to be generous with their holdings and use them before the decayed. Ben Sira "admonishes his hearer to use money for a friend in need rather than letting it rust, for one would thereby lay up treasures in heaven." [Keener, Matthew commentary, 230ff]

In this age of electronic funds transfer and easy access to mutual funds and the stock market -- options never available, except to the very, very few and very, very rich after a fashion in the first century -- Jesus' advice would certainly not be the same.

22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! 24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

The "eye" metaphor alludes to generosity; an "evil eye" is one that covets. [Har.GM, 101] "The light of the body is the eye" means that the eye is what makes seeing (and therefore, coveting!) possible [Hag.M, 1/158].

25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? 26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

The passage encourages the reader not to worry about things, but to trust God's provision, and has nothing to do with idleness as such. Only an extremely amateurish exegete (or a very, very lazy person!) would see this passage as an excuse for idleness: Not even the "fowls of the air" lay around waiting for food to drop into their mouths! To not be anxious simply means to not be fearful -- and even Skeptics should agree that worrying and paralyzing anxiety is a waste of time.

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? 28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Grass and flowers are transitory and worthless in the end, so God would certainly provide much more for His people. Thus the Kingdom should be a disciples' priority rather than amassing of possessions.

7:1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

A couple of things to notice here: The further exposition clearly indicates that what is condemned here is not judging per se, but judging hypocritically. It also clearly indicates that once you take the "plank" out of your own eye, you will see clearly (the Greek here is diablepo, meaning according to Strong's, to look through, i.e. recover full vision) to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Thus one is quite free to judge - if one is not a hypocrite! Now of course, there is a lot more that could be said about how one should go about the process of "judging", and we can discuss in this particular case the relevance to the sins of a national leader, and so on. But the bottom line is that this verse is not an outright forbidding of judging at all. In fact, it's right in line with John 7:24, "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

A hyperbolic teaching against hypocrisy in line with verse 1, with the comical image of someone with a log (huge flaw) offering to help someone with a speck (minor flaw).

6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

The likely meaning of this is to not preach the message of repentance to those who are unreceptive or unappreciative -- it's a "shake the dust from your feet" admonition. It is perhaps a topical pointer indicating against laxness in judgment, as a balance for the previous warning against harshness in judgment [Mor.GM, 167].

7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

The passage needs to be understood in the context of the Father's patronage; it is not free license to get anything we want, but carries with it the implication that the loyal and obedient child will ask for only what he needs (bread and fish being peasant staples; the child does not ask for a Rolls Royce!) and respect the Father's authority and judgment.

The image of two paths in life is found in Seneca (Ep. Lucil. 8:3; 27:4) and Diogenes (30 to Hicetas) and is expanded in other contexts by Jews, Greeks and Romans alike. It should not be understood in terms of number of persons who will be saved: "life" should not be read as ultimate salvation nor "destruction" as ultimate damnation, but both words have much broader usage than that ("But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?"). While this has obvious didactic applications for one's ultimate choice, the application as a whole is more along the lines of the "two moral ways" stressed by Jewish pietists for life as a whole.

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Skeptics who press the agricultural metaphor a little too far may say, "That's baloney! Just look at any tree with fruit on it, and you'll see that even the best tree makes rotten fruit now and then." True, but that's not quite what Jesus has in mind. We're so focussed on the nice stuff we get in our produce department that we forget that there are worlds of fruit trees out there unfit for human consumption. One of these, given as an exemplar in Malina and Rohrbaugh's social science commentary [323], is the Sodom's Apple, reputed in Jewish legend, according to Josephus, to have been one of the effects of the judgment on Sodom. As these authors describe it, the tree is "low and unattractive" and while the fruit looks good enough to eat, its interior is full of seeds and tufts of hairlike growth that make it practically inedible and unpleasant to consume. That's assuming of course that you get past the rind (which is "deadly poison") and manage not to be touched by the tree's sap, "a milky latex extremely irritating to the skin").

Of course, it might be then argued that an apple tree might produce a rotten apple now and then; but if that's the fault of pests or drought, for example, that is not making the fruit inherently bad to us, by nature, which is the whole point of the parable (not that it can be MADE bad by outside effects). You may as well say that you could invalidate this teaching by going around to good fruit on the trees and scribbling profanity on it, and then smashing it to make it "bad". And knowing some Skeptics as I do, that's exactly the sort of thing they'd do just to make Jesus' words erroneous.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

The word "Lord" here is kurios and is the normal title for any person in authority (like our "sir"). The people are recognizing Jesus' obvious authority but are not "calling on his name" -- they are, rather, calling out to him. It may imply recognition of divinity as well, but it requires nothing of a covenant/patronage relationship, and indeed, reflects an attempt to secure cheap honor [Ney.HS, 225] when in fact the person never did the patron's work as claimed.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. 28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

In this we see a precursor of the warning against false prophets in the Olivet Discourse and those who work false wonders in Jesus' name (like the sons of Sceva, and perhaps later persons who tried to use the name of Jesus in their own magical arts). Logically it follows that one must base one's work on the true rock and not on a false one.

8:1When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him. 2And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 3And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

That Jesus touched the leper, who was ritually unclean, is implicitly a testimony by Jesus to his divinity; for he thought himself to be one who could cleanse the unclean, and also not contract the uncleanness himself.

Jesus' reluctance to be known is an example of what would have been regarded as honorable behavior in the ancient world. For Jesus to have been plain about his divinity and Messianic nature in public would have aroused serious envy (as we do see it did, from his opponents, especially in John) as he would have been claiming a high level of honor, and this would have been seen as drawing from the well of honor, which was a "limited good". Thus to make such claims and take such actions would have been seen as taking honor from others. In an individualist society with limitless good, the thing to do is go out and share what you have with others, and even brag about it. The world Jesus lived in would have found such behavior intolerable; hence he twlls the leper to keep things quiet where his role is concerned. The "testimony" is for the purpose of the leper being able to return to normal society after being ritually unclean.

5And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, 6And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. 7And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. 8The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. 9For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

Did the centurion actually come (Matthew) or he send elders, and then friends (Luke)? If you have seen this one before -- and it is a "classic" among uninformed Skeptics -- you may know the standard answer: "In the view of the ancients, agency and representation was the same as being there. If the elders and friends were there representing the centurion, so then was the centurion." If the Skeptics don't like this answer, well, that's just too bad -- it was a reality of ancient culture, and the evidence shows that this was accepted to the point that actions directed by another could be directly attributed to that person. For example, in the Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish (Heidel, Babylonian Genesis, 188), Tablet 6 "clearly says" that Marduk gave a plan to create man to the god Ea, who then went and executed the plan. As [Mar]duk hears the words of the gods His heart prompts (him) to create ingenious things He conveys his idea to Ea, Imparting the plan [which] he had conceived in his heart: "Blood will I form and bone will I cause to be; Then will I set up lullu, 'Man' shall be his name! Yes, I will create lullu: Man!... Marduk sounds like the big boss here, but who ends up doing the work? Marduk attributes the crime of strife to the god Kingu, and: They bound him and held him before Ea; Punishment they inflicted upon him by cutting (the arteries) of his blood. With his blood they created mankind; He [Ea] imposed the services of the gods (upon them) and set the gods free. After Ea, the wise, had created mankind... So did Ea create man, or did Marduk? Ask Tablet 7 for another opinion. It "clearly says": Tutu may the people, in the fourth place, magnify as Agaku...Who removed the yoke imposed upon the gods, his enemies; Who created mankind to set them free... Here's another example, but from the Bible: John 19:1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. Hey, Pilate was one hefty fellow! He didn't leave the scourging to his grunts, no sir! The Latins had a maxim: "What our agent does we do ourselves." Historically it is quite likely that the centurion sent elders and/or friends to make the requests -- under the ancient rules of patronage and honor, a person of high social status (like the centurion) never made a request of one of lower status unless they were desperate [Keener, commentary on Matthew, 266]. To have actually come out to Jesus physically would have been exceptional. Why does Matthew shorten the story using the principle of agency? The answer lies in his addition of the material about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and his goal to compile the teachings of Jesus and his lesser emphasis on action. But Luke, whose concern is more to express the universality of the Gospel (cf. Luke 2:10, the start of this theme) and is less concerned with specific parties (as he "universalizes" the Pharisees and Sadducees who come to John the Baptist), prefers to report the interaction between the centurion and the Jewish leaders, thus exemplifying the cooperation to be demonstrated by those who come to Jesus (as believers would) with no concern for ethnic barriers -- a striking message at a time when Jewish hatred of Romans, especially Roman soldiers, especially leading Roman soldiers, would have been acute.

The expression of unworthiness [Hag.M, 1/204] most likely reflects the centurion's sensitivity to Jewish concerns over association with Gentiles and entry into their homes.

10When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 11And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 13And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

"Weeping and gnashing of teeth" were expressions of shame (not pain), and are in accord with exclusion from the prestige of sitting at the table with the Hebrew luminaries. The passage expresses a paradox: That as there would be Jews who would be turned out of the Kingdom (thinking their mere descent from Abraham would be enough!), there would be loyal Gentiles who would enter it.

14And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever. 15And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them. 16When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: 17That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

The service of the mother indicates to the reader that she is able to return to her social duties. The people come in the evening as soon as the sunset occurs, and the Sabbath is over, permitting (as they see it) the work of healing.

18Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side. 19And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. 20And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. 21And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. 22But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

The scribe [Hag.M, 1/216] reflects normal Jewish custom in his effort to select Jesus as a teacher; but Jesus normally selects his students, not the other way around, hence his cool reception.

Commentators differ on whether the father had actually already died in this situation, but whether he had or not, Jesus was declaring service to his ministry of greater import than service to Torah, for in either case honor to a parent would be at stake (whether it be honorable burial or care for the aged). I lean towards the idea that the father was alive, since burials usually occurred the same day as the death [Mor.GM, 203] and if the father had indeed died, the man would be caught up in all of the process.

23And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him. 24And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep. 25And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish. 26And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. 27But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!

28And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. 29And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? 30And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding. 31So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. 32And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters. 33And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils. 34And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.

Where did this incident take place? Matthew says in the land of the "Gergesenes"; Mark says (though not in the KJV) "the country of the Gerasenes"; Luke says "country of the Gadarenes." What's the location, and is there a contradiction? We can elimiate "Gergesenes" right away -- that is a textual error found only in later mss.; better mss. say "Gadara" as Luke does. And Luke may have said "Gerasa" -- the textual tradition is not clear on that either {Archer, Bible Difficulties, 323]. So if there is any dispute, it is between Gadara and Gerasa -- maybe.

The differences, by the muddled textual issue, may have arisen at a time of later scribal activity, but it is also possible that one gospel writer said Gerasa, and others said Gadara. Why would they do this, and do they contradict? They do not contradict, because all the Gospels speak generally of the "country" of the town named, and both Gerasa and Gadara were part of the Decapolis, and this was part of Decapolis territory.

But, the critic may ask, why would they give different cities in the first place? We can only offer sound speculation based on data, and in so doing offer a general lesson in harmonization.

Geresa as a city grew "tremendously" during the period of 22-76 AD, and may have even been the capital of the Decapolis for a while. We might see why, in this light, someone like Mark would use it as a reference: It was the better-known of the two cities, and Mark's Roman audience would perhaps know Gerasa better than they knew Gadara. On the other hand, Matthew's Palestinian and Syrian readers lived near the area and would know about Gadara. My own life situation offers a parallel to this: I live in an incorporated suburb of Orlando that has its own name and identity. When I talk to people in this area, I tell them I live in that suburb and I mention it by name. But when I talk to someone from another state, I give Orlando as my residence -- knowing that they likely have never heard of such booming sites as "Winter Garden," "Oakland," or "Pine Hills".

This is a key to understanding differences in the Gospel accounts. Each writer had an audience. Each writer also had different experiences, education, and vocabulary. What they write had to be written with these frames of reference in mind. This was especially essential in an era when only 10% of people could read, and had to retain details in their heads. Everything had to be done to make material easier to remember. And this leads into the next issue, which is the biggie:

Was there one demoniac (Mark, Luke) or two (Matthew)? The common and simple answer given is by Archer:

If there were two of them, there was at least one, wasn't there? Mark and Luke center attention on the more prominent and outspoken of the two, the one whose demonic occupants called themselves "Legion" (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 325).

Practically speaking, this answer is correct, if not complete, and does resolve the alleged contradiction. But there is more. If you have a red-letter Bible, look over Matthew. You'll notice that the teachings of Jesus form 5 major sections. This is something Matthew INTENTIONALLY did, for many reasons -- but our main reason of concern is that he was writing his Gospel as a showcase for the teachings of Jesus. A handbook, if you will. Jesus' miracles were of secondary concern and used only to the extent that they provided connecting narrative frameworks that allowed Matthew's gospel to fit properly in the genre of bioi (ancient biography). Thus it is no surprise that he lacks the sort of detail Mark and Luke give for the story. His main interest isn't in Jesus' actions, but in Jesus' words. Think how your pastor might use a Bible story -- if he wants to emphasize one part of it, he'll talk more about it in his sermon and less about other parts. This is more or less what Matthew is doing.

Luke and Mark are MORE concerned with action, though. You see fewer (in Mark) and more scattered (in Luke) "red letter" parts in their Gospels (especially Mark, which is an "action" gospel that moves at a quick pace -- as a hint, look how often he uses the word "immediately"). They would be inclined to describe what happened in more detail.

So why would the