The Gospel of Matthew, vol. 2: Matthew 14–28

By Walter T. Wilson

What was the original purpose of the Gospel of Matthew? For whom was it written? In this magisterial two-volume commentary, Walter Wilson interprets Matthew as a catechetical work that expresses the ideological and institutional concerns of a faction of disaffected Jewish followers of Jesus in the late first century CE. Wilson’s compelling thesis frames Matthew’s Gospel as not only a continuation of the biblical story but also as a didactic narrative intended to shape the commitments and identity of a particular group that saw itself as a beleaguered, dissident minority. Thus, the text clarifies Jesus’s essential Jewish character as the “Son of David” while also portraying him in opposition to prominent religious leaders of his day—most notably the Pharisees—and open to cordial association with non-Jews.

Through meticulous engagement with the Greek text of the Gospel, as well as relevant primary sources and secondary literature, Wilson offers a wealth of insight into the first book of the New Testament. After an introduction exploring the background of the text, its genre and literary features, and its theological orientation, Wilson explicates each passage of the Gospel with thorough commentary on the intended message to first-century readers about topics like morality, liturgy, mission, group discipline, and eschatology. Scholars, students, pastors, and all readers interested in what makes the Gospel of Matthew distinctive among the Synoptics will appreciate and benefit from Wilson’s deep contextualization of the text, informed by his years of studying the New Testament and Christian origins.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Nov 29, 2022
• ISBN: 9781467464284

Walter T. Wilson

  Walter T. Wilson is the Charles Howard Candler Professor of New Testament at Candler School of Theology, Emory University. In addition to teaching New Testament at Candler, he coordinates the scripture and interpretation concentration as part of the Master of Divinity program. Prior to joining the Candler faculty in 1997, he taught at Yale Divinity School and the University of Chicago Divinity School. Wilson is the author of nine books dealing with the world of the New Testament and the editor of New Testament Interpretation: A Practical Guide.

Book preview

Section Seven

MATTHEW 14:1–17:27

Situated between the parables discourse (13:1–52) and the community discourse (18:1–35), the material in 14:1–17:27 comprises both the seventh section of the gospel overall and the gospel’s fourth major narrative unit.¹ For the basic outline of episodes in the unit, Matthew follows Mark 6:14–9:32, except for passing over Mark 7:32–36 (the healing of a deaf man with a speech impediment) and 8:22–26 (the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida).² Also noteworthy are three non-Markan passages featuring Peter (14:28–31; 16:17–19; 17:24–27), who now emerges as the disciples’ spokesperson (cf. 15:15; 16:22; 17:4). Formally, the unit is characterized by a significant amount of repetition.³ Within a short span, the reader encounters two feeding miracles (14:15–21; 15:32–38), two summary statements (14:34–36; 15:29–31), two controversy stories (15:1–9; 16:1–4),⁴ two exorcisms (15:21–28; 17:14–20), two didactic scenes (16:5–12; 17:9–13), two passion predictions (16:21–23; 17:22–23), two stories that prefigure the resurrection (14:22–33; 17:1–8), and, most important, three stories in which Jesus is acknowledged as God’s Son (14:22–33; 16:13–20; 17:1–8).⁵ In the same vein, the unit reprises a number of themes and situations familiar from earlier portions of the gospel. The boat story in 14:22–33, for example, recalls a similar story in 8:23–27, while the story of the Canaanite woman in 15:21–28 resembles the story of the centurion in 8:5–13. Similarly, Jesus’s hostile interactions with the Pharisees in 15:1–9 and 16:1–4 represent an extension of debates narrated in 12:1–14 and 12:22–45.⁶ Likewise the story about John in 14:1–12 presupposes earlier reports (4:12; 11:2), even as the account of the baptist’s death has the effect of intensifying the theme of suffering, foreshadowing the predictions of Jesus’s own death in 16:21–23 and 17:22–23. Finally, a feature that both builds on previous themes and lends the unit internal coherence is the plethora of stories that allude in one manner or another to the experiences of the exodus generation (see the commentary on 14:13–21, 22–33, 34–36; 15:32–39; 16:1–4, 5–12; 17:1–8, 14–18).

Structurally, the unit appears to contain two segments, the first (14:1–16:12) being dominated by the juxtaposition of miracle stories and controversy stories, while the second (16:13–17:27) is dominated by the juxtaposition of stories that pronounce Jesus’s status as the Son of God and stories that predict his death.⁷ Most of the first segment is organized as two matching panels.⁸

I. panel one

A. 14:13–36 = two miracle stories (14:13–21, 22–33), one of which is a feeding miracle, and a summary statement (14:34–36)

B. 15:1–20 = controversy story (15:1–11) + follow-up discussion with the disciples (15:12–20)

II. panel two

A. 15:21–39 = two miracle stories (15:21–28, 32–39), one of which is a feeding miracle, and a summary statement (15:29–31)

B. 16:1–12 = controversy story (16:1–4) + follow-up discussion with the disciples (16:5–12)

An important feature for the first segment is the motif of food, which draws attention to Jesus’s role as provider. Thus in addition to feeding the multitudes twice (14:13–21; 15:32–39), he brings up the motif when speaking on five occasions, twice with the disciples (15:17–20; 16:5–12), once with his opponents (15:1–9), once with the crowds (15:10–11), and once with an unnamed gentile woman (15:26–28). Contributing to the development of this feature, we also have the account of the banqueting scene in Herod’s palace (14:6–11), which serves as an antitype to the first feeding miracle (14:13–21).

UNIT ONE, PART ONE (14:1–12)

The question of Jesus’s identity (a major theme for much of chapters 11–16) is raised yet again, this time through the words of a new character, Herod Antipas, who responds to reports about Jesus and his miraculous powers with speculation that Jesus is in fact John the Baptist raised from the dead. That Herod would have reason to feel anxious about such an eventuality is shown by the following scene, which serves as both a digression and a flashback within the narrative. The audience watches as Herod has John imprisoned (cf. 4:12), learning that he did so because John had condemned Herod for marrying his brother’s wife. Although Herod initially refrained from executing John (on account of his fear of the people), at a banquet for his birthday a pair of women within his own household manipulate him into doing so. The description of the banquet itself, meanwhile, further illustrates the depravity as well as the viciousness of those who oppose the kingdom of God. The scene concludes with an explanation of how John’s disciples buried his body and reported to Jesus what had happened, which (rather awkwardly) returns the flashback to the story of Jesus’s Galilean ministry.

Text

¹At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the news about Jesus, ²and he said to his servants, This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead and for this reason the deeds of power are at work in him. ³For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. ⁴For John had been saying to him, It is not lawful for you to have her. ⁵And though he wanted to kill him, he feared the crowd, because they regarded him as a prophet. ⁶But when Herod’s birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced in their midst and pleased Herod, ⁷so that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. ⁸But being prompted by her mother, she said, Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist. ⁹Then the king was grieved, yet on account of the oaths and those reclining with him, he commanded it to be given, ¹⁰and he sent and had John beheaded in the prison. ¹¹And his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. ¹²And his disciples came, took the corpse and buried it; and they went and reported to Jesus.

Commentary

In Mark, the story about Herod and John (6:14–29) is framed by the sending out (6:6b–13) and return (6:30–31) of the Twelve, in which case John’s death functions as a warning about the fate awaiting God’s emissaries.⁹ As we saw above, Matthew has already deployed most of the material from Mark 6:6b–13 in his mission discourse (cf. Matt 9:35; 10:1, 8–11, 14). And as we will see below, he abbreviates the Markan transition that follows the story of Herod and John (Matt 14:13–14; cf. Mark 6:30–34). The resulting elision of Mark’s framing device brings the narrative of 14:1–12 into closer proximity both to the story of Jesus’s rejection at Nazareth (13:53–58) and to the account of the first feeding miracle (14:15–21).¹⁰ While 13:53–58 and 14:1–12 are connected by the theme of prophetic mistreatment (note προφήτης in 13:57 and 14:5), 14:1–12 and 14:15–21 are connected by the theme of banqueting.

The bulk of the pericope consists of a flashback explaining the circumstances of John’s imprisonment (14:3–5) and execution (14:6–12a). In ancient storytelling, the flashback (or analepsis, a type of retrospective anachronism) is a literary device that serves (at least in part) to explain how previous events have shaped developments in the primary narrative arc.¹¹ In the case of 14:3–12, the flashback explains why Herod thinks John has been raised from the dead, the reader being invited to see something specifically about the nature and circumstances of John’s death that would lead Herod to draw such a conclusion.¹² In lieu of Mark’s framing device, Matthew supplies one of his own, the latter being based on the motif of report and response. Specifically, in 14:1–2, Herod responds to reports he has heard about Jesus by identifying him as John raised from the dead, while in 14:12b–13a Jesus responds to the report of John’s death by withdrawing to a deserted place. For the substance of the story, Matthew relies on Mark 6:14–29, which he condenses by eliding much of 6:15–16, 19–21, and 23–24.

As Davies and Allison observe, in terms of the story’s basic plot, the relations between Herod, Herodias, and John are remarkably similar to those between Ahab, Jezebel, and Elijah, a point that reinforces the association of John with Elijah (cf. 11:14; 17:12).¹³ It is important to note, however, that Matthew’s abridgment of his source material, especially the omission of Mark 6:19 (the report that Herodias had a grudge against John and wanted him dead) and the summation of Mark 6:24 (the exchange between Herodias and her daughter), has the effect of curtailing Herodias’s role.¹⁴ Among other things, such editing better configures the account as a preview of the passion narrative, in which a Jezebel-type figure plays no part (cf. 27:19). In the same vein, the report in Mark 6:20 that Herod feared John (and therefore protected him) becomes in Matt 14:5 a report that Herod feared the crowd (and therefore did not put him to death) because they took John to be a prophet (cf. Mark 6:15), anticipating the report in 21:46 that the authorities feared the crowd (and therefore did not arrest Jesus) because they took Jesus to be a prophet (cf. 21:26). Like the story of the prophet’s rejection at Nazareth, then, this story prefigures the future awaiting Jesus, in this case his violent death, a point made clear by his speech to the disciples in 17:12–13. By the same token, John himself plays a relatively minor role in the story, with the narrator making no effort to explicate the victim’s virtues, the significance of his death, or his subsequent vindication (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.116–119), facts that distinguish the story both from the passion narrative and from comparable martyrdom accounts such as 4 Macc 13–18 or Acts 6–7.

If reports about Jesus reached John while he was in Herod’s prison (11:2), it is not surprising that similar reports reach Herod himself (14:1).¹⁵ In each case, the report prompts speculation about Jesus’s identity (11:3; 14:2). The redactional phrase at that time (14:1; cf. 11:25; 12:1) suggests temporal and thematic continuity with the preceding pericope: just as the Nazarenes offer their assessment of Jesus (13:54–57), Herod offers his (14:2).¹⁶ Matthew changes the title of the latter from king (Mark 6:14a) to (the technically correct) tetrarch in 14:1 (but not in 14:9; cf. Mark 6:26), thereby distinguishing him from his father, Herod the Great (cf. 2:1). Matthew also attributes the opinion of some people in Mark 6:14b to Herod and ignores the recitation of options for Jesus’s identity presented in Mark 6:15–16 (cf. Matt 14:5; 16:14),¹⁷ thereby maintaining focus on the opinion of Herod himself. Matthew also gives Herod an audience, namely, his παῖδες (attendants or courtiers),¹⁸ a detail that subtly connects 14:1–2 with the court scene in 14:6–11.

As for the content of this opinion, the claim that these powers are at work in Jesus because he is John raised from the dead (14:2) strikes the reader as odd, since John was not known as a wonder-worker (cf. John 10:41).¹⁹ Insofar as individuals raised from the dead were thought to be more powerful than ordinary human beings, perhaps the emphasis regarding powers here is supposed to fall on the personal transformation effected by John’s alleged resurrection.²⁰ At any rate, for Herod, the idea of resurrection is a cause not for joy (cf. 28:8) but for concern. The reader, of course, perceives the irony of the situation, knowing that it is not John but Jesus who will be raised from the dead, and that it is Jesus who wields resurrection power (cf. 9:18–26)—not because he is John reincarnated but because he is the Coming One whom John was expecting (11:3).²¹ Thus while Herod’s assessment of Jesus is misguided, it nevertheless names an important theme. What Herod interprets superstitiously, however, Matthew’s readers interpret eschatologically.

Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea from 4 BCE until 39 CE.²² According to Josephus (Ant. 18.118–119), he had John arrested and executed (in the stronghold of Machaerus in Perea) for sedition.²³ According to the evangelists, by contrast, he arrested John on account of Herodias (Matt 14:3 || Mark 6:17), specifically because the baptist was denouncing the ruler for marrying his brother’s wife (Matt 14:4 || Mark 6:18; cf. Lev 18:16; 20:21).²⁴ Since intermarriage was routinely practiced among the Herodians, such denunciations would have been interpreted as a condemnation of the Herodian dynasty itself and thus a challenge to the honor of Herod’s family.²⁵ The Markan reports regarding Herod’s ambivalence about John (6:20) and Herodias’s grudge against him (6:19) are exchanged by our author with a more straightforward statement (14:5), one that affirms both Herod’s weakness as a ruler and John’s status as a prophet (cf. 11:9; 21:26; Mark 6:15). The change also helps to typecast Herod as a murderer of prophets (cf. 5:12; 21:35–36; 22:6; 23:31, 34, 37). Following Mark 6:17, Matthew describes how Herod had John arrested and bound (14:3),²⁶ though he passes over Mark’s reference to the men sent to arrest John, thereby (again) maintaining focus on Herod himself.

With its trappings of royal intrigue and corruption, the episode that follows (14:6–11) is redolent of ancient court tales, including the tale of Esther, to which our story probably alludes.²⁷ Of particular interest for its verbal similarities is Esth 2:9, which tells of how the girl (κοράσιον, cf. Matt 14:11) pleased (ἤρεσεν, cf. Matt 14:6) the king, ἀρέσκω being a verb that in the LXX often has sexual connotations.²⁸ According to Mark 6:22, she pleased Herod and his guests, while in Matt 14:6 she pleases Herod alone. Once again, focus is maintained on Herod. While Matthew drops the reference in Mark 6:21 to a banquet (δεῖπνον), the references to Herod’s birthday (14:6a), to dancing (14:6b), to reclining guests (14:9), and to a platter (14:11) are consistent with a banquet scene. The impropriety of a princess dancing before guests in such a setting, engaging in the sort of performance usually reserved for courtesans,²⁹ is taken for granted, as is the idea that such an act would take place in a Herodian household.³⁰ Comparison can be made with an anecdote related by Livy (Hist. 39.43), which tells of a prisoner who is beheaded by the host of a banquet at the behest of a courtesan by whom the host is infatuated, a deed decried by the author as savage and cruel (cf. Plutarch, Art. 17). Our story is similar, except that the role of the courtesan is played by Herodias’s daughter (14:6),³¹ to whom the king makes an oath, offering to grant her whatever she might ask (14:7). Mark has ὤμοσεν πολλά (6:23), which Matthew changes to μεθ’ ὅρκου ὡμολόγησεν (14:7), in anticipation of διὰ τοὺς ὅρκους in 14:9 (= Mark 6:26).³² Again there is a probable allusion to the story of Esther, specifically the scene in Esth 5:6, where at a banquet, the king promises to give her all that you might request (cf. 7:2). For the element of impropriety, however, a closer parallel comes from Herodotus, Hist. 9.109, where Xerxes promises on an oath to give to a daughter-in-law whom he had seduced whatever she asked of him, a promise that turns out to have disastrous consequences (cf. Plutarch, Alex. 38).

With his similarly ill-advised oath, Herod relinquishes control of the situation to a young woman.³³ John may be a prisoner, but it is his captor who has been rendered powerless. Prompted by her mother, the girl asks that the head of John be brought to her here (ὧδε) on a platter, the macabre image adding undertones of cannibalism to the earlier insinuations of incest (14:3–4, 6). According to Mark 6:25, it is the daughter who adds the detail about the head being presented on a platter, while Matt 14:8 gives the impression that Herodias is behind the request in its entirety.³⁴ In light of the parallels noted above, it is interesting that according to a tradition preserved in Esth. Rab. 28.1, the head of Queen Vashti was brought to the king on a platter. The topos of slaughter at a banquet is attested in Greco-Roman sources as well, for example, Plutarch, Crass. 33.1–4, which also involves a severed head (cf. Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. 9.58).

In response to the girl’s request, Herod (now identified incorrectly as king) is grieved (14:9),³⁵ not because executing John contravenes his own will (14:5a) but (apparently) because he fears how the crowd will react to the news (14:5b).³⁶ It is apparent that Herod is also afraid of being dishonored before his guests,³⁷ especially in the context of a banquet, which ordinarily would have afforded the host an opportunity both to put his generosity on display and to cement his social connections.³⁸ Ironically, Herod’s concern for his reputation compels him to commit a supremely disreputable act, communicated with chilling understatement in 14:10–11.³⁹ Once John is executed, the platter with his head is given to the girl, who then gives it to her mother, a debauched caricature of the following banquet scene, in which Jesus gives bread to the disciples, who then give it to the crowds (14:19).⁴⁰ For decapitation as a form of punishment, see 1 Sam 17:51; 2 Sam 16:9; 20:22; 2 Kgs 6:31–32; 10:7; 1 Macc 7:47; Rev 20:4.⁴¹

The degradation of the Herodian court complete, John’s disciples emerge on the scene to give their master’s corpse a proper burial (14:12a), just as a disciple will emerge in 27:57–60 to bury the body of Jesus.⁴² While the Markan disciples of John hear a report (about John’s death), the Matthean disciples of John give a report (cf. 11:2), namely, a report about John’s death to Jesus. While this incident connects the pericope logically to the one that follows (and underscores the personal connection between John and Jesus),⁴³ it also produces a strange literary disjunction. In Mark 6:30, the flashback begun in 6:17 is resolved by resuming the story line interrupted in 6:13: the disciples who had been sent out (6:7–13) now return. However, as we have seen, Matthew dismantles this narrative frame, which means that at the end of the scene in 14:3–12, he does not return to the narrative present (i.e., Herod’s statement about John in 14:2). Consequently, the narrative continues on from the death of John as if no temporal jump backwards had happened at all.⁴⁴ In addition to creating a literary frame of his own (the story begins and ends by linking John with Jesus; 14:2, 12), Matthew’s distinctive conclusion provides a more direct and compelling rationale for Jesus’s withdrawal in 14:13, paralleling the withdrawal in 12:14–15.

Conclusion

If the depiction of Herodias is comparatively underdeveloped (see above), the depiction of her husband is developed sufficiently for the reader to recognize him as a tyrant, a stock character of ancient political and historiographical literature.⁴⁵ As Tom Stevenson puts it, the tyrant was in general paranoid, cruel, and unstable, both psychologically and emotionally … unlike the good king, he killed citizens; he was dominated by evil advisers and women … he was a creature of lust … he disregarded the state laws and institutions, ruling in an arbitrary, repressive fashion according to his moods.⁴⁶ Among the more conspicuous settings in which a tyrant’s vices manifested themselves was during public banquets, where the host’s decadence and debauchery would have been taken as evidence not only of his immorality as a person but also of his incompetence as a ruler.⁴⁷ The tyrant, then, constitutes the antithesis of the ideal monarch, who is governed not by his passions but by moderation and reason.⁴⁸

The characterization of Herod in 14:1–12 is familiar against this background, his behavior being guided by fear (14:5), recklessness (14:7), grief (14:9), and inappropriate desires, both for Herodias (14:3) and her daughter (14:6), his relationship with the former entailing an impious disregard for the law (14:4). He hosts a depraved and gruesome banquet, during which he has John executed without due process. Worst of all, he yields his agency to a pair of women from his own household. In all these respects, he contrasts both with the fearless, ascetic John and with the true king, Jesus.⁴⁹

UNIT ONE, PART TWO (14:13–21)

That the Messiah wields authority not only over illness but even over the elements of nature itself is further demonstrated in the account of the gospel’s first feeding miracle. Jesus responds to the news of John’s death by withdrawing from possible harm in order to resume his healing ministry. At the end of the day, the disciples present Jesus with both a summary of the people’s plight and a recommendation about how to deal with it, to which he replies by rejecting their recommendation and commanding them to feed the people themselves. To their observation about limited resources, he replies by issuing directives to both the disciples and the crowds. The multiplication of the loaves and fish, meanwhile, employs elements that foreshadow the Passover meal that Jesus shares with the disciples the night before his death (cf. 26:26). The audience is left with a final panorama of both the number of leftover baskets and the (large) number of people fed, appropriately drawing attention to how the bounty of God’s providential care acts through the agency of both the Messiah and his followers to meet the people’s needs.

Text

¹³When Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat to a deserted place by himself. And when the crowds heard this, they followed him on foot from the cities. ¹⁴And when he got out, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion on them and healed their sick. ¹⁵But when it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, The place is deserted and the hour has already passed. Send the crowds away so that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves. ¹⁶But he said to them, They do not need to go away; you give them something to eat. ¹⁷But they said to him, We do not have anything here except five loaves and two fish. ¹⁸And he said, Bring them here to me. ¹⁹And ordering the crowds to recline on the grass, he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven and offering the prayer of thanks, he broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples (gave them) to the crowds. ²⁰And they all ate and were satisfied; and they took up what was left over of the broken pieces, twelve baskets full. ²¹And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Commentary

The account of the feeding miracle is comprised of four scenes. After a transition that establishes the setting (14:13–14), there is a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples, who abruptly reappear in the narrative (14:15–18),⁵⁰ the miracle itself (14:19–20), and an editorial comment about the number of those fed (14:21). Like the feeding miracle in chapter 15, this event provides the disciples with an opportunity to put their faith into practice, even if they fail to fulfill the commission that their Lord gives them in 14:16. In terms of both substance and structure, Matt 14:13–21 corresponds to Mark 6:30–44, which Matthew abbreviates by eliding the material in 6:30–31, 34c–d, 37b–38a, and 40, thereby shortening the transition, reducing the amount of dialogue, and omitting the detail about the crowd’s division into groups of hundreds and fifties. Matthew’s version of the story exhibits several minor agreements with Luke 9:10–17,⁵¹ the most intriguing of which are οἱ ὄχλοι ἠκολούθησαν in 14:13b (cf. Luke 9:11a) and the comment about healing in 14:14b (cf. Luke 9:11c, though the wording is different), since together the agreements have a parallel in the Johannine feeding story: A large crowd followed him, because they saw the signs he was performing on those who were sick (John 6:2).⁵² The numerous parallels between Mark 6:30–44 and John 6:1–15, meanwhile, suggest shared reliance on a pregospel tradition.⁵³

Formally, the story in Matt 14:15–21 belongs to the category of gift miracle (cf. 1 Kgs 17:8–16; 2 Kgs 4:1–7; Luke 5:1–11; John 2:1–12; 21:4–11).⁵⁴ In contrast to other types of miracle stories, here the wonder-worker acts on his own initiative, while the wonder itself is recounted in a veiled or obscure fashion.⁵⁵ The gift miracle with which our account has the most in common is the story about Elisha in 2 Kgs 4:42–44, which also involves the multiplication of loaves of bread.⁵⁶ In addition to specifying the number of loaves as well as the number of men fed by the loaves,⁵⁷ the following components of the story are noteworthy for comparative purposes: the prophet commands his servant to distribute the meal; in response to the seemingly impossible order, the servant voices an objection, to which the prophet responds with a second command; the servant then sets the food before the men; the story concludes by mentioning a surplus of leftovers. In the midst of these obvious similarities with our story, there are also several differences. For example, the Elisha story lacks anything corresponding to the fish, while the gospel stories are clearer about the people’s need for food. Most important, while 2 Kgs 4:42–44 functions as an illustration of the prophecy-fulfillment motif,⁵⁸ Matt 14:15–21 functions as a commentary on the Last Supper.⁵⁹

Taking [λαβών] the five loaves [ἄρτους] … he blessed and broke [εὐλόγησεν καὶ κλάσας] the loaves and gave them to the disciples [ἔδωκεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς] … and they all ate [ἔφαγον]. (14:19b–20a)

taking [λαβών] a loaf [ἄρτον] Jesus blessed and broke [εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν] it and gave it to the disciples [δοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς], saying, Take and eat [φάγετε]. (26:26)

If the previous story (14:1–12) prefigures the death of Jesus, this story prefigures an event that helps to interpret the meaning of his death.⁶⁰ Whereas Matthew’s version of the supper draws attention to the forgiveness of sins (26:28), presenting Jesus as a savior (cf. 1:21), the description of the meal here evokes images of abundance, presenting Jesus as a provider.

If the king is a giver of death, then, the Messiah is a giver of life. After Herod kills an Elijah-like prophet, Jesus performs an Elisha-like miracle. Herod, despite his title, appears unmanly, relinquishing control to women and succumbing to the emotions of fear, desire, and grief. Jesus, on the other hand, appears as the true king (14:9), acting out of compassion for his people (14:14). If Herod is an antitype of Jesus, the same can be said of his degenerate royal banquet, which contrasts with the bucolic meal described in 14:15–21. While the former demonstrates the host’s impotence, the outcome of the story being determined by his rash oath, the latter demonstrates the host’s sovereignty, the outcome of the story being determined by his divine blessing.⁶¹ Whereas the former presumably is held indoors for elites, the latter occurs outside, where many thousands can participate. The two meals are further connected insofar as the wilderness setting of the latter is necessitated by the horrific event that takes place at the former. When Jesus hears from John’s disciples of their master’s death, he uses a boat to withdraw alone to a secluded place.⁶² In 4:12, Jesus had similarly withdrawn into Galilee when John had been taken into custody.⁶³ The reader, then, understands that what threatens John threatens Jesus as well.⁶⁴ A parallel can be seen also with 12:14–15, where Jesus withdraws after becoming aware that the Pharisees intend to kill him. And as in 12:14–15, when Jesus withdraws, many people follow him (cf. 14:13), and he heals them (cf. 14:14). In fact, Matthew’s redaction of 14:13 (cf. Mark 6:32–33) has the effect of highlighting the similarity between Jesus and the crowds. Upon hearing about John’s death, Jesus travels to a deserted place.⁶⁵ Upon hearing about Jesus’s movements, the crowds travel there as well, albeit by different means. How the crowds learned of Jesus’s plans—not to mention how they reached his destination ahead of him (14:14a)—is left unexplained. In any event, Jesus now attracts throngs of people to the wilderness, a development that represents yet another way in which he is seen to resemble his forerunner John (cf. 3:1–5).

While John’s wilderness experience emphasized asceticism (3:4) and judgment (3:7, 10, 12), however, this wilderness experience emphasizes bounty and benevolence (cf. 11:18–19). The miraculous provision of bread in 14:19–20 also stands in contrast to the wilderness scene in 4:2–4, where the famished Jesus refuses to provide bread for himself. The messianic question posed there (if you are the Son of God, etc.) finds an indirect response here.⁶⁶ When Jesus sees the crowd (14:14), he has compassion (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη) on them, the same emotion he will experience before feeding the four thousand in 15:32–38.⁶⁷ While the compassion of the Markan Jesus inspires him to teach the people (6:34c), the compassion of the Matthean Jesus inspires him to heal their sick (14:14).⁶⁸

The fact that Jesus has just performed many deeds of power makes the suggestion of the disciples (who presumably have accompanied the crowds on foot) in 14:15 all the more disconcerting.⁶⁹ Evidently, they have yet to appreciate the full extent of his ability to care for the people. As Davies and Allison observe, by passing over the exchange in Mark 6:37–38 (cf. John 6:5–7), Matthew shifts attention from the disciples’ incomprehension to their deficient faith, a theme that figures prominently in the next pericope as well (14:22–33).⁷⁰ In this respect, the disciples’ words in 14:15 and 14:17 recall the skepticism voiced by Moses in Num 11:13–14 and 11:21–22 regarding the power of the Lord to provide for the people in the wilderness: The people among whom I am are six hundred thousand on foot; yet you have said, ‘I will give them meat, so that they may eat for a whole month.’ Should flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, to be sufficient for them? Or should all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to be sufficient for them? (Num 11:21–22). While ἔρημος had been mentioned as the setting in 14:13, it is only at this point that the story of the manna and the quails (Exod 16:1–36; Num 11:1–35) emerges as a typological precursor.⁷¹ The symbolism of the number seven (five loaves plus two fish in 14:17, 19; cf. 15:34, 36, 37) is consistent with the Exodus typology as well, inasmuch as the Feast of Unleavened Bread was to be celebrated for seven days (Exod 12:14–20; Deut 16:3–4; cf. John 6:4). The dilemma presented by the people’s apparent lack of provisions is exacerbated by both the isolated location and the late hour (14:15). Like the Israelites of the wilderness generation, they are compelled to rely on heavenly beneficence (14:19; cf. John 6:50–51, 58), the wilderness thereby serving as a venue in which to encounter the divine.⁷² In this light, Jesus’s command to the disciples in 14:16 (you give them something to eat) can be seen as a kind of divine commission, augmenting earlier commands to serve the people through ministries of preaching and healing (10:7–8).⁷³

To the command in 14:16, Matthew adds a second command in 14:18 (Bring them here to me), one unparalleled in Mark or Luke (cf. 17:17). The text of 14:19a then has Jesus himself command the people to sit down (Mark 6:39 has him order the disciples to have them sit down), creating a parallel with the feeding of the four thousand (cf. Matt 15:35 || Mark 8:6), and encouraging the reader to think of Jesus as the host. Matthew also omits the reference in Mark 6:40 to the crowds sitting in groups of hundreds and fifties (cf. Exod 18:21, 25; Deut 1:15).⁷⁴ The net effect of these changes is that greater attention is paid to what Jesus himself says and does, a focus that continues in 14:19b, which describes his ritualistic actions with the loaves and fish.

Looking up to heaven while at prayer does not appear to have been widely practiced in ancient Judaism.⁷⁵ Nor is it an element of the Last Supper, in which case one can only speculate on the significance of the action here.⁷⁶ Perhaps it is meant to suggest that the ensuing meal represents the symbolic fulfillment of the petition for bread (6:11) in the Lord’s Prayer, which begins by acknowledging the Father’s heavenly location (6:9).⁷⁷ As we saw earlier, the bread of 6:11 has eschatological meaning, which would appear to be the case here as well. This much is suggested by the report in 14:20a that the crowds were satisfied (ἐχορτάσθησαν), a verb found also in the fourth beatitude (5:6; cf. 15:33, 37), suggesting that what transpires here signifies the realization of prevailing expectations. According to 2 Bar. 29.4–8, for instance, the final consummation will be an era of miraculous provision for God’s elect, for whom Behemoth and Leviathan will serve as food (cf. 4 Ezra 6.51–52), as well as manna … from on high (29.8).⁷⁸ The inspiration for the evangelist’s wording, meanwhile, may come from Ps 131:14–15 LXX: This [i.e., Zion] is my resting place for ever and ever; here I will dwell because I have chosen her. I will bless her provision with blessings; her poor I will satisfy [χορτάσω] with bread.⁷⁹

Jesus hands the broken loaves to the disciples, who then distribute them to the crowds (14:19c). Despite the deficient faith they have just displayed (14:17), the disciples are thus presented as brokers of divine power and agents through whom messianic benefits are conferred upon the people, a role reinforced by the reference to twelve baskets in 14:20,⁸⁰ suggesting that the Twelve had a role to play in collecting the surplus pieces as well.⁸¹ Nothing is said of the crowd’s reaction to these events: for them the miracle occurs offstage. Instead, the story concludes with an authorial comment about the remarkably large number of participants, the five thousand men (cf. Acts 4:4) corresponding to the five loaves of bread.⁸²

Conclusion

Following the example of Hellenistic kings, Roman emperors sometimes sponsored mass civic feedings as a way of demonstrating their largesse, a practice emulated by wealthy magistrates in the provinces as well.⁸³ Records of these events are preserved in numerous honorary inscriptions that, among other things, highlight the number of individuals fed.⁸⁴ Examining our story within this sociocultural context encourages the reader to see Jesus as a public benefactor, one whose compassion contrasts with the cruelty exhibited by king Herod at the banquet in 14:6–11. Civic banqueting was often associated with religious festivals, rituals, and personnel, thereby supporting the ideology of the civic cults.⁸⁵ Accordingly, the feasts were usually held in public places, such as a temple precinct, a sacred grove, the prytaneum, or the marketplace. While the poor, slaves, and nonresidents might receive something to eat, most often the distribution of food favored wealthy citizens, in which case the organization of the feast mirrored the stratified order of society. The feeding in 14:13–21, by contrast, occurs in the religiously and politically liminal space of the wilderness,⁸⁶ with ample food being distributed to all participants, even women and children (14:21).⁸⁷ The actualization of miracle discourse in this instance, then, takes on polemical as well as sociopolitical dimensions.

UNIT ONE, PART THREE (14:22–36)

Like the picture of Jesus feeding the multitude, the picture of Jesus walking on water illustrates both his authority over the forces of nature and the expectation that his followers will somehow participate in this authority. The scene opens with Jesus, the crowds, and the disciples going their separate ways: Jesus up the mountain to pray, the crowds (we assume) to their homes, and the disciples to the far side of the lake in a boat. That night, the disciples encounter a storm, during which they see Jesus walking toward them on the sea. The fear they experience at this sight is consistent with the story’s theophanic underpinnings, as is his exhortation for them not to be afraid. As Douglas Hare observes, within this context, the supplementary story about Peter graphically depicts what it means to be a Christian caught midway between faith and doubt.⁸⁸ The same divine empowerment evident in the act of Jesus walking on water is at work in Peter as well, though the latter’s fear quickly overwhelms him. Jesus then further reveals himself as the one who saves those who call upon him in faith, with the disciples responding to Jesus in worship. The picture is completed with a narrative hinge in 14:34–36, which briefly shows the audience what transpires when the boat reaches its destination. Here the power of the gospel is communicated both in the manner in which word of Jesus’s presence goes out to the people and in the manner in which large numbers of people respond by coming to Jesus for healing.

Text

²²At once he made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. ²³And after dismissing the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When evening had come, he was there alone. ²⁴But the boat was already a long distance from land, battered by the waves, for the wind was contrary. ²⁵And in the fourth watch of the night he came toward them, walking on the sea. ²⁶But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were frightened, saying, It is a ghost! And they cried out in fear. ²⁷But at once Jesus spoke to them, saying, Take courage. It is I. Do not be afraid. ²⁸In reply Peter said, Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the waters. ²⁹And he said, Come. And getting out of the boat, Peter walked on the waters and came toward Jesus. ³⁰But when he saw the strong wind, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, Lord, save me! ³¹And immediately Jesus reached out his hand, took hold of him and said to him, You of little faith, why did you doubt? ³²When they climbed into the boat, the wind dropped. ³³And those in the boat worshipped him, saying, Truly you are God’s son!

³⁴When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret. ³⁵And when the men of that place recognized him, they sent word into all that surrounding district and brought to him all who were sick; ³⁶and they implored him that they might only touch the fringe of his cloak; and as many as touched it were cured.

Commentary

While the previous story alluded to the feeding of Israel in the wilderness, this story alludes to Israel’s salvation at the Red Sea (Exod 14–15), thereby extending the narrative’s exodus typology.⁸⁹ To this form of intertextual coherence can be added generic coherence (both 14:13–21 and 14:22–33 include accounts of so-called nature miracles) as well as geographical coherence (events in both stories occur near or on the sea). However, while in 14:13 the sea represents a means of safety (i.e., a means by which Jesus distances himself from Herod), in 14:24–31 it represents a source of danger. Finally, within this sequence of texts, it is also possible to detect a form of thematic coherence, one that extends to the beginning of the chapter. As we have seen, the events of 14:1–12 prefigure Jesus’s death, while the feeding miracle in 14:13–21 prefigures an event that interprets his death (i.e., the Last Supper). The passage in 14:22–33 then concludes the sequence with a story that prefigures the story with which the gospel itself concludes, namely, Jesus’s resurrection from the dead (see conclusion below). Yet another kind of narrative link is created by the theme of misidentification: Herod thinks Jesus is John raised from the dead (14:2), while the disciples think he is a ghost (14:26), the reactions in both instances reflecting common superstitions.⁹⁰

Matthew’s account of the walking on water story is based on Mark 6:45–52. While the episode has no parallel in Luke, it does have one in John 6:15–21, which demonstrates numerous similarities with the synoptic accounts.⁹¹ The pericope is unusual in that the Matthean version is longer than its Markan counterpart, the extra length being due to the redactional material about Peter in 14:28–31.⁹² Matthew has also completely revised the story’s conclusion (14:33; cf. Mark 6:51b–52), the exclamation of the disciples anticipating the confession of Peter in 16:16. The added material transforms the pericope generically from an epiphany story to a hybrid of epiphany story and rescue story, for which comparison can be made with Acts 5:17–25 and 12:1–19, both of which also involve Peter.⁹³ The altered ending, meanwhile, turns our story into something of a watershed for the broader story line. In the Second Gospel, the first human acclamation of Jesus as the Son of God occurs in Caesarea Philippi (8:29). In the First Gospel, this acclamation occurs at the end of our story. Specifically, it occurs in the context of an epiphany in which Jesus rescues Peter, the representative of the disciples, from death. Put differently, while Jesus feeds the crowds, he saves the disciples, who respond (in a way the crowds had not) to a manifestation of messianic power with a communal statement of confession. For Matthew, then, it is in his role as savior (cf. 1:21) that the divinity of Christ is most fully manifested and acknowledged.⁹⁴

The transitional passage in Matt 14:22–23 serves in part as a conclusion to the previous story (14:15–21), even as it recalls certain elements of the verses that introduced that story (14:13–14), thereby establishing a similar scenario, namely, Jesus’s separation from the disciples.⁹⁵ Like the wilderness, the sea represents both a liminal zone of uncertainty and a sociopolitical no-man’s-land, far from the centers of human civilization and power. While in 14:13 it was Jesus who departed in a boat, traveling alone to a deserted place, in 14:22–23 he makes the disciples embark while he stays behind to dismiss the crowds and ascend the mountain by himself to pray (cf. 6:5–6; 26:36–46).⁹⁶ The reference to the other side as the destination of the disciples’ voyage (14:22) brings to mind the introduction to the sea miracle story in 8:18–27,⁹⁷ though in that instance the disciples followed Jesus into the boat, while here they must be compelled to go without him, presumably because it is late in the day (14:15, 23) and they do not want to be separated (again) from their master. Jesus also separates himself from the crowds, a fact the evangelist rather pedantically mentions twice (14:22, 23),⁹⁸ thereby underscoring the private nature of the ensuing epiphany.⁹⁹

The epiphany story itself exhibits a symmetrical structure, with the notice about the strong wind in 14:24 corresponding to the calming of the wind in 14:32, and Jesus’s walking on water in 14:25–26 corresponding to Peter’s walking on water in 14:29b. At the center of the composition are Jesus’s words to the terrified disciples (14:27), Peter’s request (14:28), and Jesus’s command (14:29a). This structure contrasts with Mark’s version of the story, in which the center position is occupied by Jesus’s act of walking on water.¹⁰⁰ As is so often the case, for Matthew special significance is attached to the element of dialogue.

Matthean redaction also has the effect of putting the disciples in a more dire situation, the boat being far from land (14:24; cf. Mark 6:47a) and battered by the waves (cf. 8:24),¹⁰¹ not simply by the wind (cf. Mark 6:48a).¹⁰² The crew, then, is very much in need of assistance. Power over the sea is attributed to various ancient deities (e.g., Homer, Il. 13.23–31), including the God of Israel (e.g., Pss 89:9; 104:5–7; Isa 51:9–10; cf. Sir 24:5–6),¹⁰³ who sometimes confers this power on human agents: Moses (Exod 14:21–29), Joshua (Josh 3:7–4:18), Elijah (2 Kgs 2:8), and Elisha (2 Kgs 2:14). The ability to stride across the sea, meanwhile, is attributed in Greco-Roman mythology to certain heroes,¹⁰⁴ and in PGM I.120–122 we hear of a demon with such ability.¹⁰⁵ This last text reflects the association in the ancient mind between the sea and demonic activity,¹⁰⁶ which in turn reflects the use of the sea as a symbol of death and destruction.¹⁰⁷

It is against this background that we can best appreciate the event recounted in 14:25, behind which lies the biblical imagery of God walking on or through the sea (e.g., Job 9:8; 38:16; Isa 43:16). Of particular interest in this respect are Ps 77:16–21 and Hab 3:13–15, wherein this activity is applied to God’s salvation of the people (cf. Matt 14:30: Lord, save me!).¹⁰⁸ What such passages say of God is here said of Jesus, who in both his actions (14:25) and his words (14:27) becomes for the disciples an epiphany of divine power, the narrative symbolically portraying his sovereignty not only over nature but even over death.

Several features of the story contribute to its character as an epiphany account insofar as they parallel the features of epiphany accounts found elsewhere in the gospel. There is, to begin with, the reference to the mountain in 14:23, which seems to be the same summit upon which the transfigured Jesus (17:1) and the resurrected Jesus (28:16) appears to the disciples (cf. John 6:15).¹⁰⁹ As in the transfiguration story, the epiphanic experience in our story is communicated through both sight and sound. Thus we have the report of a visual phenomenon (14:25; cf. 17:2–3) followed by an auditory phenomenon (14:27; cf. 17:5),¹¹⁰ between which there is a report of human misunderstanding (14:26; cf. 17:4).¹¹¹ In both stories, the disciples are frightened (14:26; 17:6),¹¹² and in both stories, Jesus responds by exhorting them not to be afraid: μὴ φοβεῖσθε (14:27, 17:7).¹¹³ In 14:27 (cf. Mark 6:50; John 6:20), Jesus supplements the words of reassurance with words of self-revelation, the use of ἐγώ εἰμι (It is I) recalling the enigmatic self-naming formula of Exod 3:14.¹¹⁴ This self-identification has its counterpart in the redactional declaration of the disciples in 14:33 (Truly you are the Son of God!), the theme of divine sonship featuring in the transfiguration story as well (17:5; cf. 28:19). Finally, it is noteworthy that in both stories, a speaking role is assigned to Peter (14:28, 30; 17:4).

This last point illustrates one of the principal features of the section in which our story is situated (13:53–17:27), namely, the emergence of Peter as the disciples’ spokesperson and representative.¹¹⁵ In this instance, his actions contribute to the gospel’s imitatio Christi theme, which surfaced previously in the mission discourse (e.g., 10:25). Peter asks for permission to emulate Jesus’s miracle, that is, to participate in his power over the sea and what the sea represents, especially death. Jesus’s response implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of such a request, thereby also revealing something important regarding the nature of his messianic authority. Similarly, in the mission discourse, Jesus commands the disciples to perform the same miracles they have just seen him perform, conferring upon them the authority to—among other things—raise the dead (10:8).¹¹⁶ Power over death is thematized by another story of this section in which Peter has a speaking role, namely, his confession of Christ at Caesarea Philippi: you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it (16:18). Comparison with 10:8 and 16:18, then, suggests that Jesus’s response to Peter in 14:29 functions as a type of commission, specifically a commission to participate in his power over death. If this line of reasoning is correct, the inclusion of such a commission represents another way in which 14:25–33 generically resembles an account of a postresurrection appearance.¹¹⁷ Put differently, the texts in 10:8, 14:29, and 16:18 belong to a series of commissioning episodes culminating in the great commission issued by the resurrected Jesus (28:18–20), with each episode manifesting a different dimension of the power of the Messiah and his followers over death.¹¹⁸

If Peter participates in divine power, however, the manner in which he does so is decidedly human. On one hand, the request in 14:28 exhibits courage, insofar as it expresses Peter’s willingness to endanger himself in order to be reunited with his Lord. On the other hand, the request is tinged with doubt (if it is you), and, as we quickly learn, what applies to the disciple’s words applies to his actions as well. Recognizing his peril,¹¹⁹ Peter falters in his attempt to walk on the water and begins to sink (14:29b–30), his plea for help echoing the words of the psalmist: Save me [σῶσόν με], O God! For the waters [ὕδατα] have come up to my soul … the storm overwhelms [κατεπόντισεν] me. I am weary with crying out [κράζων] (Ps 68:2–4 LXX).¹²⁰ Allusions to the Psalter continue in the description of Jesus’s response, especially Ps 17:17 LXX (he took me, he drew me out of many waters) and Ps 143:7 LXX (stretch forth your hand from on high, deliver me and rescue me from many waters).¹²¹ Even if Peter has only little (i.e., inadequate) faith, Jesus will deliver him from death (14:31; cf. 8:26), the point being that the Lord’s saving presence is available to those who put their faith to the test, a fact that reveals a basic truth about the nature of faith itself. As Luz puts it, faith here is shown to be that mixture of courage and fear, of listening to the Lord and looking at the wind, of trust and doubt that according to Matthew remains a fundamental characteristic of Christian existence…. What the believer obviously experiences is that it is precisely one’s doubt that the Lord receives and overcomes (cf. 28:17).¹²² The mixture Peter demonstrates here prepares the reader for his role at Caesarea Philippi, which juxtaposes understanding (16:16–19) with misunderstanding (16:22–23), as well as his role in the passion narrative, which juxtaposes confession (26:33–35) with denial (26:69–75).¹²³

Our story does not conclude with Peter’s deliverance, however, a fact that reveals another basic truth about the nature of faith. Jesus and Peter join the eleven, who have presumably witnessed the events of 14:29–31, and the wind abates (14:32). In contrast to 8:26, no mention is made of Jesus rebuking the wind and the sea, leaving the impression that the miracle is effected by his mere presence in the boat, the disciples’ reunion with their Lord resolving the dramatic tension with which the story began. The conclusion to Mark’s version of the story conveys a similar resolution, though with a very different twist, the disciples responding to what they have witnessed with astonishment, incomprehension, and hardened hearts (6:51b–52). For Mark, then, the true meaning of both the miracle and the identity of the miracle worker remains hidden to the spectators. For Matthew, by contrast, the disciples know not only who Jesus is but how to respond to him, that is, by worshipping him (14:33; cf. 28:9, 17).¹²⁴ Again reference can be made to the Psalter.

They cried out to the Lord in their affliction, and from their troubles he brought them out. He gives a command to the storm and it becomes a breeze, and its waves are silenced. And they are glad because they are quiet…. Let them acknowledge the Lord for his mercies, and his wonders to the sons of men. Let them exalt him in the congregation of the people and praise him in the seat of the elders. (Ps 106:28–32 LXX)

God’s people respond to a maritime epiphany with acts of corporate worship, the generalizing language (those in the boat) in 14:33 encouraging Matthew’s readers to imagine themselves taking part.¹²⁵ The question posed by the disciples at the conclusion of the first sea rescue story (What kind of man is this?) is now answered by the disciples themselves,¹²⁶ their worship of Jesus coming to expression as a declaration of his divine sonship, the first such by any of his followers (cf. 16:16).

The description of the act of worship, unique to Matthew’s version of the story, suggests an additional connection between this story and the feeding of the five thousand. As we saw above, the feeding story prefigures the Last Supper, which in turn prefigures the church’s celebration of the Eucharist. Here we have the foreshadowing of another ritual practice that was no doubt familiar to the evangelist’s readers, namely, that of making confessional statements (e.g., 9:28; 10:32; 16:16; 27:54). Moreover, the confession in 14:33 serves as a christological commentary on the eucharistic symbolism of 14:19. The one who is with the community when it breaks bread is none other than the Son of God, who saves his people in their time of need (14:30; cf. 1:21; 26:28).¹²⁷

The chapter concludes in 14:34–36 with an abbreviated rendition of Mark 6:53–56 (cf. John 6:22–25). The pericope is structurally similar to 14:13–14 in that both passages consist of a transitional statement (in which Jesus travels by boat) followed by a summary statement (in which the sick are brought to Jesus and he heals them).¹²⁸ The resulting frame encourages the reader to interpret the miracle stories in 14:15–21+14:22–33 as a single unit. As in the first of those stories, both of the framing passages cast Jesus’s relationship with the people in a favorable light: they seek him out, and he ministers to them. By the same token, the deletion of the report in Mark 6:56a alters the nature of this relationship. Rather than engaging in a healing tour of villages, cities, and farms in the region, he remains ensconced in Gennesaret.¹²⁹ Furthermore, in contrast to the summary statements in 4:23 and 9:35, no mention is made in 14:35–36 of his teaching or preaching. As a consequence, his ministry to the people appears to be both more passive and more restricted.

If Jesus himself does not travel throughout the region, the report of his presence in Gennesaret does (cf. 4:24; 9:26, 31), once the residents of the place recognize him (cf. 17:12).¹³⁰ Matthew adds that all the sick were brought to him (14:35; cf. Mark 6:55), employing a motif of comprehensiveness similar to the one upon which he had relied when redacting the summary statements in 8:16 (cf. Mark 1:34) and 12:15 (cf. Mark 3:10).¹³¹ The next verse indicates that all those who touched the fringe of his cloak were cured (cf. Mark 6:56b), the means of healing recalling the story about the woman with the flow of blood (9:20–22).¹³² In contrast to that incident, the people here first ask permission.¹³³ If κράσπεδον refers to the tassels Jewish men wore at the corners of their garments (cf. 23:5), its mention here may subtly contribute to the exodus typology of 14:15–33 insofar as the instructions in Num 15:37–41 associate their use with the memory of the Israelites’ departure from Egypt.

Conclusion

As noted above, there are elements of the walking on water story that prefigure the story about Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. Indeed, some scholars have even gone so far as to argue that Matt 14:22–33 || Mark 6:45–52 represents the adaptation of a displaced resurrection account.¹³⁴ However one adjudicates the merits of this hypothesis, it is obvious that the story demonstrates certain affinities with descriptions of Jesus’s postresurrection appearances preserved in Matt 28:1–20; Mark 16:9–20; Luke 24:36–53; John 20:11–29; and 21:1–23.¹³⁵ It certainly is the case that the motif of faith versus doubt (cf. Matt 14:31) is a regular component of this tradition (Matt 28:17; Mark 16:11, 14; Luke 24:11, 41; John 20:24–29).¹³⁶ Note also that in Luke 24:37–38 the disciples assume that the resurrected Christ is a spirit (cf. Matt 14:26), and he responds by saying, ἐγώ εἰμι, It is I (cf. Matt 14:27),¹³⁷ while in John 21:7–8 Peter exits the boat to reach Jesus, leaving the other disciples behind (cf. Matt 14:29). Finally, Matthew’s distinctive conclusion to the story (14:33), which has the disciples worshipping Jesus in the boat, foreshadows the conclusion to the gospel, in which the Eleven worship the resurrected Jesus on the mountain (28:17; cf. Luke 24:52).¹³⁸

UNIT ONE, PART FOUR (15:1–20)

Once again we have a portrayal that displays Jesus in conflict with the Pharisees and scribes, though now his adversaries are seen to come from Jerusalem, the implication being that news about the Galilean prophet has reached the center of Judaism. The debate in this instance pits the authority of the Pharisees as interpreters of their tradition against the authority of Jesus as interpreter of the word of God, with the ritual of handwashing serving as a case study. To their complaint about the disciples’ failure to observe this practice, Jesus counters with a complaint of his own, the crux of which is that his opponents are more concerned with upholding traditions meant to help people observe the law than with observing the law itself, thereby exposing themselves as hypocrites and blind guides. As an illustration, he brings into view their tradition regarding the Korban vow, which he argues contradicts the divine commandment to honor father and mother, a sure indication of its human origin. After issuing a cryptic pronouncement about ritual purity to the crowds (graphically describing different things going into and out of someone’s mouth), Jesus is shown fielding a question and then a request from the disciples, who want to understand the meaning of this strange statement. Again drawing on the Decalogue for illustrations, Jesus explains that what people eat and drink leaves their moral core untouched, whereas what they say has the power to defile, since it proceeds from the heart.

Text

¹Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, ²Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread. ³In reply he said to them, Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ⁴For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ ⁵But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, Whatever of mine might have benefitted you is an offering, ⁶need not honor his father.’ And so you annul the word of God for the sake of your tradition. ⁷Hypocrites! Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you saying, ⁸‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. ⁹In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’

¹⁰And he called the crowd to him and said to them, Hear and understand: ¹¹It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.

¹²Then the disciples came and said to him, Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said? ¹³In reply he said, Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. ¹⁴Leave them; they are blind guides of the blind; and if a blind person guides a blind person, both will fall into a pit. ¹⁵In reply Peter said to him, Explain the parable to us. ¹⁶And he said, Are you still without understanding? ¹⁷Do you not perceive that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and goes out into the sewer? ¹⁸But the things that come out of the mouth proceed out of the heart, and these defile a person. ¹⁹For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. ²⁰These are the things that defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a person.

Commentary

Even if there is no obvious thematic link between 15.1–20 and the surrounding material,¹³⁹ the question posed in 15:2 is not entirely inapt from a narrative perspective, insofar as the disciples have recently served food to a large number of people (14:19),¹⁴⁰ and ritual impurity was sometimes thought to be communicated through unwashed hands (e.g., Lev 15:11). At any rate, as noted above, the theme of food/eating connects 15:1–20 with other passages in this section of the gospel, including 14:9–11, 15–21; 15:26–27, 32–38; and 16:5–12.

With regard to its internal rhetography, one noteworthy feature of the passage is the manner in which it draws attention to different parts of the human body, including the functionality of these body parts with respect to moral agency. The reader encounters references to the hands (15:2), then the mouth (15:10), then the mouth and the stomach (15:17), and then the mouth and the heart (15:18–19; cf. 15:8), the last of which