For Matthew, sonship is actualized by obedience.1 Jesus is the son of God par excellence but not merely because of his divine conception (Matt 1:18), nor even because of his adoption into the Davidic line (1:1, 16, 17).2 Jesus is the son of God par excellence but not merely because of his divine conception (Matt 1:18), nor even because of his adoption into the Davidic line (1:1, 16, 17).2 Instead, Matthew recognizes Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God because he did his Father’s will (see 3:15–17; 4:1–7; 26:39–42). That is, he responded to his Father’s revelation with believing obedience.3 The sonship of disciples in Matthew’s Gospel is then patterned on his exemplar: obedience to the revealed will of God.4

Matthew roots this conception of sonship in Deuteronomic expectations of obedience from Israel.5 Indeed, Jesus’s recapitulative activities in chapters 2–4 climax on this point in the temptation narrative (4:1–11). Jesus is the persistently obedient wilderness wanderer contra Israel, resisting temptations presented as challenges to the nature of his sonship (εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, 4:3, 6).6 But Jesus is not the only character upon whom Matthew brings these expectations. The religious leaders, too, are assessed with the measure of obedience. And, in Matthew’s presentation, they are found wanting.7

I contend in this article that, as the disqualification of the religious leaders is demonstrated, the nature of sonship, as outlined above, receives greater clarity. My method builds on Bauer’s suggestion that consistent contrasts and comparisons shape the reading experience of Matthew’s Gospel.8 The reader must compare themselves to the character of Jesus, to many supplicants, and, at times, to the disciples, while also contrasting their idea of discipleship with that found in the example of the religious leaders and other antagonists (e.g., Herod, Pilate, the Gerasene townspeople).9 In this study, I apply Bauer’s idea to Matthew’s development of the motif of sonship, arguing the religious leaders function rhetorically to distinguish the positive from the negative. That is, they provide a model of what is not sonship, contrasting with Jesus, whom the narrative tells (e.g., 3:17; 11:25–27; 16:16; 17:5) and shows (4:1–11; 26:39, 42) to be the archetypal son.10

The positive example of Jesus, the obedient son, and the mixed manifestations of sonship by the disciples and crowds have been studied at some length.11 But the role of the religious leaders in negatively defining sonship has been neglected.12

The study focuses on Matthew 11–16, beginning after Jesus’s Missionary Discourse, and ending before the decisive confession of Peter at 16:16. This focus was chosen for two reasons. First, this section heavily features Jesus’s interactions with the Pharisees (esp. ch. 12), providing a significant sample to consider their characterization. Second, Matthew 11–16 culminates with Jesus’s declaration that his disciples ὁρᾶτε καὶ προσέχετε their teaching (16:6, see also 16:11–12), presenting the Pharisees as the primary contrast to Peter’s declaration in 16:16. This suggests that Matthew’s characterization of the Pharisees is not only a common but an important feature of this section of the gospel.

In analyzing the interactions between Jesus and the leaders in these chapters, I attend to the vocabulary of sonship (υἱός, πατήρ) as it is utilized by the narrator and in the gospel’s dialogue, discourse, and diverse allusions. I further explore the figure of sonship as Matthew enacts it, positively or negatively, in the activities of the religious leaders.

1. Matthew 11–13: Revealing Rejection

Israel’s unbelief in the face of messianic revelation is pervasive in chapters 11–13.13 These chapters address a rising tide of disappointment in and opposition to the kingdom of God that has risen in response to Jesus’s ministry.14 The shape of chapters 11 and 12 is comparable, culminating in descriptions of the status of those who responded rightly to Jesus (11:25–30; 12:46–50), contrasting with the poor examples preceding them.15 These two chapters set out the narrative basis for the parables discourse by exploring how the people of Galilee, especially their leaders, have reacted to Jesus.16 Three themes are common to all three chapters: divine revelation (11:25–27; 13:11–17), diverse responses (positive and negative; 11:3, 16–19, 20; 12:2, 14, 23, 42, 45, 50; 13:3–9, 18–23), and coming judgment (11:24; 12:30–32, 33–37, 41–42, 43–45; 13:24–50, 46–43, 47–50).

The Baptist’s doubt opens the section, asking σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (11:3), jarring against his earlier confidence (3:14). Jesus had fallen short of John’s expectations. Most likely, this refers to the expectations articulated in 3:7–12: does Jesus really have a winnowing fork in his hand?17 This pericope serves as a re-introduction of the judgment theme into the foreground of the narrative; the audience recalls John’s anticipation and desires with him for its fulfilment.18

So, judgment features in the pericopes that follow (e.g., 11:21–24; 12:36–37). But it is a judgment that falls in response to those who have rejected the revelation that comes with Jesus.19 Jesus shows his focus on responses: the questioners are told to report to John ἃ ἀκούετε καὶ βλέπετε (11:4). Then to those who went out to see John the Baptist (θεάομαι, 11:7; ὁράω, 11:8), Jesus presents two impressions: one positive, his own (11:7–15), and one negative, that of τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην (11:16–19).20 In contrast to his positive review, Jesus casts the reactions to John strikingly in terms of the kingdom, saying it has suffered violence and is being taken by force by the violent (βιαστής, 11:12).

Allusions to Deuteronomic sonship are present here, ensuring comparisons are made on filial grounds. Of particular interest is the religious leaders characterizing the Son of Man in 11:19 as φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης. This combination echoes the similar words in Deuteronomy 21:20 (MT: אבֵֹסוְללֵוֹז; LXX: συμβολοκοπέω, οἰνοφλυγέω), used to describe the rebellious and stubborn son (cf. Prov 23:19–22; 28:7).21 The prospect of a filial theme here is strengthened by Matthew’s use of children as a fitting comparison to γενεά in 11:16 (see also, Deut 32:20; Matt 12:39; 16:4; 17:7).22

Two potential disobedient sons are in view: Jesus and the religious leaders. There is significant irony in the religious leaders making this claim about Jesus when it does not match the narrative’s portrayal of his actions. Indeed, the irony may run so deep that, rather than being simply a false accusation, Jesus’s accusers, by raising the question of disobedient sonship, have suggested that they are those to whom belongs its proper classification.23

Following this pericope are two that explicitly concern revelation. The first laments the response of the cities of Galilee, οὐ μετενόησαν (11:20),24 and expresses the principle that greater accountability attends greater revelation.25 A great light shone in their midst (4:16), yet they refused to acknowledge it. And so, their judgment would be worse than those who had not received the same (11:22, 23): Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, all cities that typified godlessness in the Old Testament. The Galilean failure to repent is indicative of the hostility that will follow in chapter 12. From this story, readers expect the rejection of revelation in Jesus to be behind opposition to Jesus.

But first, the condemned of 11:20–24 are contrasted with the accepted of 11:25–30.26 Jesus’s sonship is the means of this acceptance, the revelation involved in his own filial relationship enabling the Father’s revelation to whomever the Son chooses to make him known (11:27). Sonship thus finds expression in knowing, in revelation.27 Further, sonship is functional here. The Son draws others into the knowledge and rest of the Father (11:27–29).

Revelation is discriminatory. Judgment is coming, and the axe will fall on those who fail to respond to Jesus’s revelation with obedience. But those who respond rightly demonstrate they are sons, ones to whom the Son has chosen to reveal the Father.28 Chapter 11 anticipates the way Matthew unites the themes of revelation and judgment in chapters 12 and 13.

1.1. Matthew 12:1–21: Sons by Service, not by Sabbath

Two Sabbath controversies begin chapter 12. They end with a scheme for Jesus’s murder and are followed by a sharp counterpoint in 12:15–21.29 Such a shocking conclusion spills out of a far more subtle competition: a contest of wisdom. On one side are the Pharisees, with their role and reputation as teachers of the Law (12:2; cf. 9:11; 15:1–2; 16:6,12), the wise men of Judaism (23:2, 16, 24). On the other is Jesus, who is flanked by material defining him as both the Wisdom of God (11:19, 27–30) and the Teacher of Wisdom (13:1–52).30

Pharisaic understanding of the law is tested in these passages.31 They are exposed as misinterpreting Scripture, as Jesus utilizes the rhetorically sharp, οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε (12:3, 5) and εἰ … ἐγνώκειτε (12:7), to demonstrate their error.32 Though they critique his Sabbath-keeping, they do not really know the law they use to convict him.33 As a result, they fail to see the arrival of something greater than the temple (12:6).34 The something greater is a present reality (ἐστιν ὧδε, 12:6). Jesus is not here prophesying about a future revelation but is himself a revelation of what is in the present, the kingdom.35 Their obsession with the law makes them incapable of perceiving the significance of the miracles Jesus was performing.36

The Pharisees’ misapprehension is not accidental but willful.37 The questions, “have you not read” and “do you no know,” suggest that what Jesus argues should have been obvious.38 Their opposition arises from a rejection of what is clear. The fruit is that they present themselves as those apparently wise and understanding and yet effectively ignorant: their wisdom is skin deep, borne of following form and not of understanding substance. So, they fail to see the irony of spending their Sabbath plotting the murder of the man they accuse of breaking it by healing.39

The destructive nature of their misunderstanding is foreshadowed in their condemnation of the guiltless (12:5), it is demonstrated in their failure to care for the man with the withered hand (12:10), and it climaxes in their plotting of Christ’s death (12:14). Jesus provokes the second controversy, healing on the Sabbath that which could have waited until the following day.40 It is telling that Matthew makes no mention of the encounter between the man and Jesus; the evangelist is interested in Jesus’s conflict with the Pharisees.41

A filial frame is cast over this conflict by its context, both what comes before and what follows. In the preceding pericope, Jesus is framed as the Son of the Father who gives rest. Matthew presents the Pharisees in parallel. Ironically, they are guardians of the Sabbath, God’s regulated rest, yettheir application of that guardianship is without regard to the hunger (12:1) or hurt (12:10) of those under their care.42 They show themselves to be the givers of a heavy burden, one that voids the Father’s rest and

opposes the merciful yoke given by the Father’s Son (cf. 11:28–30).43

The passage following the conflicts complements this contrast. In 12:18–21, Matthew brings together the roles of Servant and Son, defining the obedience of Jesus in these terms and against the example of the Pharisees.44 Matthew’s quoting of Isaiah 42 intrudes into the narrative.45 He has amended Isaiah 42 to reflect the heavenly declarations of sonship in 3:17 and 17:5.46 The comparison below shows Matthew’s amending of the LXX and MT to conform with these two events.

Isa 42:1 MT	Isa 42:1 LXX	Matt 12:18	Matt 3:17; 17:5 (identical)
… ׁישִפְנַ התָָצְרָ ירִיחִבְּ…	…ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου, προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου…	…ὁ ἀγαπητός μου εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου…	…ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα…

’Aγαπητός and εὐδοκέω from 3:17 and 17:5 replace ἐκλεκτός and προσδέχομαι from Isaiah 42:1, though ἡ ψυχή μου is preserved. The result is to bring together Son and Servant.

By linking this quotation with the voice of God after Jesus’s baptism, Matthew implicitly claims that the Messiah’s mission, inaugurated with his baptism, is now being fulfilled in the Son of God.47 Thus faithful son meets faithful servant.48The MT’s דבֶעֶ (Isa 42:1) could be translated as either δοῦλός or παῖς. Matthew’s choice of παῖς may be a function of the ambiguity of the term, showing, in that choice, the pulling together of servant and son.49Both are significant dimensions.

The conflict with the Pharisees clarifies this Servant-Son Christology.50Doyle argues that given the Pharisees are very much featured through the chapter (12:2, 14, 24, 38), it is likely they are also in view when it comes to the formula quotation of 12:17–21.51Four significant lexical connections to the Pharisees’ portrayal throughout the chapter strengthen this connection.52The first is Matthew’s use of ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις in 12:19, notably absent from the LXX. Its only other use in the Gospel characterizes the hypocrites in 6:5.53Hypocrisy is certainly a relevant characterization of the Pharisees in this instance, their stated desire to protect the sanctity of the Sabbath day being at odds with their murderous plotting.

A second connection concerns the servant’s anointing with τὸ πνεῦμά μου (12:18). Matthew goes on to assert, against the Pharisees’ accusation of demonic authority, that Jesus’s exorcisms occur ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ (12:28). Indeed, the very wrongful ascription of Jesus’s authority by the Pharisees is then described to be blasphemy against the Spirit (12:31, 32).54

The quotation’s framing of the messianic task as bringing justice (ἐκβάλλω, 12:20; cf. ἐκφέρω, Isa 42:1, 3 LXX) provides the third connection. The Beelzebub narrative uses the same term to describe Jesus’s exorcisms (12:24, 27, 28).55Indeed, the word is used with striking frequency through Matthew 12 (12:20, 24, 26, 27×2, 28, 35×2), five of which describe exorcism and the final two (12:35) summarizing the confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees.56A final connection is, admittedly, more tenuous. In 12:19, the highlighting of the messiah’s failure to be heard (οὐδὲ ἀκούσει) may be said, on the suggestive weight of the other connections, to correspond thematically with Jesus’s repeated calls to listen (11:16–19, 20–24; 12:24, 41–42; 13, 14–15).57

The sum of these connections is to indicate Isaiah 42:1–4 has been quoted here to contrast Jesus, the Servant-Son, with the Pharisees.58Against those who do not know the Law they seek to enforce, Jesus fulfills the Isaianic portrait of the will-doing sufferer. He is the wise one whose words and works surpass those of wise teachers of Judaism.59And he is the gentle and quiet one, not breaking reeds or snuffing out wicks (12:20), but healing and feeding (12:1, 13). The murderous intent of the Pharisees thus contrasts absolutely with Jesus’s servanthood.60Indeed, casting Jesus’s sonship specifically in terms of his servanthood challenges any filial relationship of the Pharisees with the Father. They, in their hypocrisy and callousness, are a foil for the Servant-Son, with whom God is pleased and who will obediently submit to the Father in proclaiming justice to the Gentiles.61

Thus, sonship is defined in terms of obedience to revelation, here in the form of the prophetic pattern of the Servant (ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν, 12:17) and the obvious function of the Sabbath-laws (12:3, 5). Further, the purpose of sonship is suggested in the giving of rest expected of sons of wisdom and delivered by Jesus (12:1, 13) and the drawing in of Gentiles (12:21).

1.2. Matthew 12:22–45: Sons by Speech

Sons see and speak. The Pharisees fail to identify Jesus’s messianic authority, and so their speech is corrupted (12:34–37). Their problem is not evidential (cf. 12:38–39). It is spiritual. Indeed, a man, deaf and blind by demonic activity, is healed to imply the blindness and deafness of the Pharisees by similar spiritual work (cf. 12:43–45).62The comparison is subtle.63In the case of the disciples plucking wheat, the Pharisees are recorded as “seeing” this (12:2) and reacting negatively. In response to the demoniac’s healing, they “hear” and again react negatively (12:24). They cannot perceive the reality behind Jesus’s external actions (cf. 9:27–34). They are blind and deaf, missing words and works (cf. Matt 13:14–15, quoting Isa 6:9–10).64
Those concerned with the external see only the external, unwilling to accept what this testifies about the inner life.

The height of their blindness is in the misattribution of Jesus’s miracles to demonic authority (Matt 12:24). The misattribution occurs in answer to the crowds’ cautious conferral on Jesus of the royal title, son of David (12:23). The Pharisees’ reply begins with the demonstrative οὗτος, its emphatic position conveying along with the elaborate οὐκ … εἰ μή structure, the contempt implicit in the answer.65
A similar accusation has been made before (9:34), but here it is more vivid and offensive: Beelzebub is named.

Jesus’s response reveals the seriousness of the Pharisees’ charge. He constructs their misattribution as a culpable misunderstanding of the manifestation of the kingdom, reflective of an irrational (12:25–26) and immoral (12:31–32) decision to stand against the Spirit by whose authority he really acts (12:28).66This is no mere intellectual argument. In “disputing the indisputable,”67the Pharisees’ response exposes more than their impression of Jesus. It reveals their standing before God. Ultimately, they are those who stand without forgiveness, now and in the age to come (12:32).

A filial frame is once again implicit in this narrative. Most significantly because of the pericope crowning the chapter, 12:46–50, discussed below. But two details surface the theme here. The first is in 12:27, where υἱός receives prominence, fronted in the apodosis.68Jesus presents a clever argument, establishing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who cannot denounce him without denouncing their own followers.69The use of υἱός emphasizes the close relationship between the Pharisees and those Jesus refers to.70If they are indicted, the Pharisees are implicated: sons do the will of their fathers (cf. 12:50; 21:31). Ironically, the Pharisees here deny that Jesus is acting on the authority of God, i.e., that he is not doing the will of the one he claims to be his Father.71

The second suggestion of sonship attends the image of the strong one. Jesus is likely alluding here to Isaiah 49:24–25,72where the captives and plunder of the mighty one (רוֹבּגִּ) taken by the Lord are Israel’s sons (ִךְיִנַבָּ, Isa 49:25; also, 49:22). The movement of Isaiah 49 is one of familial restoration, as Yahweh brings them from being under the care of foreign foster fathers and mothers (49:23) to being under his own care (49:15). In leveraging this passage here, Jesus suggests his work effects the rescue of sons and the restoring of proper paternal relationship.

Following Jesus’s discussion of blasphemy is a short discourse on good and bad words, tying speech and identity close together (Matt 12:33–37).73 Γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν appears again (12:34; cf. 3:7), underlining the seriousness of Jesus’s critique.74 He matches this with the severe observation that, being evil, the Pharisees are incapable of speaking good (πονηροὶ ὄντες, 12:34; cf. 7:11). Words are the fruit of a good or bad root.75The misattribution of Jesus’s authority shows the evil of the Pharisees. Conversely, responding rightly to Jesus is constructed here as the fruit indicating the good tree from which it sprouts.

Matthew continues his exposé of the Pharisees by returning to the now-familiar tool of contrasting the religious leaders with believing gentiles (cf. 2:1–11; 8:11–12). The request for a sign in 12:38–42 sharpens the focus on the Pharisees’ rejection of Jesus and his message. It reflects a failure to repent (cf. 12:41)76typical of a “wicked generation.” Like the devil, they ask Jesus for a sign (cf. 4:6).77And the sign given is none except that of Jonah (12:39). Jesus quotes directly from Jonah 2:1 (LXX), the explicit point of comparison being the mutual confinement in belly and earth (12:40).78The genitive, Ἰωνᾶ, is epexegetical. Jonah himself was the sign to the Ninevites, one who had been delivered from certain death.79Jesus anticipates presenting himself as a similar sign; this generation will see the greater revelation of deliverance from certain death: the resurrection. Yet, so far, Jesus has been rejected.

The case of Jonah is interesting. The book typifies biblical denunciation of nationalistic spiritual prejudice. Jonah was reluctant to bring about the repentance of a pagan nation for fear that Israel be condemned by comparison (see Jonah 4:1–3).80In Matthew 12:39–41, Jesus uses the image of Ninevite repentance to realize that fear. The condemnation of Israel is achieved by comparison of revelation, πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε (Matt 12:41). Despite their lesser revelation, the Ninevites then repent, but now the Pharisees have not. The reference to the Queen of Sheba serves the same function, the wisdom of Solomon was great, and he drew even gentiles in, but something πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε (12:42) and the Pharisees have not received him.81

The use of gentiles here as the standard of comparison recalls the proximity of Israel to revelation and, therefore, the expected rightness of their response. This is the supposed sonship of Israel’s leaders, shamed in contrast to the right response of gentiles (cf. 8:11–12). Their failure to recognize the even greater revelation of Jesus makes them more culpable than the pagans (cf. 11:21–24).82It confirms Jesus’s evaluation of the religious leaders, blind and deaf, the bad tree providing the bad fruit.

The depths of spiritual distance are determined as expected sons are cast as demoniacs. The near are now far in the worst way possible. Jesus’s judgment of the Pharisees reaches a new intensity in 12:43–45: refusal to acknowledge what God is doing in Jesus has left them worse than before his coming.83And so, the temporarily restored are permanently alienated and separated.84The evil generation faces disaster in their rejection of Jesus.

1.3. Matthew 12:46–50: Sons by Obedience, not by Blood

Dramatic division concludes a chapter of conflict. Matthew defines the basis of inclusion and exclusion, of standing outside (12:46; cf. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30) and standing under Jesus’s stretched-out hands (12:49).85The Pharisees, and those they represent, are excluded from familial relationship with God in much the same way that Jesus’s biological family are; genetics are insufficient. More than Abrahamic descent will be required to escape the coming judgment (cf. 3:9–10). Those plundered from the strong one are identified with another criterion: obedience.

Sonship is in view for Matthew. In 12:50, the phrase, τοῦ πατρός μου, is a Matthean redaction. He is highlighting Jesus’s sonship (cf. Mark 3:35; Luke 8:21).86Further, the absence of a father from the list of family members does not only follow the composition of the group entreating Jesus in 12:46 but likely reserves the position of father for God alone (cf. 10:30).87The family of God, those who share a kinship with Jesus, is decided on obedience to the will of the family head. The same language, doing the will of God, distinguishes those who truly were and were not sons in the Parable of the Sons (21:28–32; see also, 3:15; 26:39).88
Aὐτός in 12:50 makes this exclusive criterion emphatic, the impression being, “he and no other.”89

Concluding the conflict in these terms suggests that chapter 12 has been a narrative performance of Jesus’s teaching in 11:25–30. As Jesus speaks with his disciples here, the Son enacts his revealing of the Father to those who are children, while the apparently wise and understanding Pharisees (cf. 12:3–8) who fail to listen and receive the revelation Jesus’s offers (12:24, 38), remain outside, represented by Jesus’s family. Matthew has clarified what it means to be a son through his portrayal of this conflict. Recognizing Jesus’s authority is the only means by which one might do the will of the Father. To hear and obey Jesus is to hear and obey his Father (cf. 28:19).

Notably, the chapter has concerned itself not with how one becomes a son of God but rather with how one is identified as a son. The Pharisees have shown their evil by their words and their ignorance by their lack of gentleness. So, Jesus looks around at those at his feet, in contrast to those who have rejected him, and says these are sons, the ones doing the will of the Father.90

1.4. Matthew 13:38–42: Sons by Seeds and Soils

Chapter 13 begins without any temporal interruption (Ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, 13:1), signaling corresponding thematic continuity.91Thus, the rejections of Jesus by the present generation (11:26), the cities of Galilee (11:21, 23), and especially the Pharisees (12:14, 24, 38–39) remain firmly in the foreground.92 The chapter acts somewhat as an apologetic explaining why Jesus’s messianic credentials ought to be retained despite this poor reception.93 As has been seen, sonship interacts with these themes of revelation rejection and consequent judgment. The motif surfaces explicitly in the Parable of the Weeds as two seeds are explained as two sons.

The interaction of the parables with the themes of revelation and judgment indicates that the religious leaders are being considered by Matthew as the first application of its negative categories, bad soil (13:3–8), bad seed (13:24–30), bad fish (13:47–50). The first parable in the Discourse illustrates rejection and hostility, the apparent failure of the kingdom. Seed is eaten, and plants wither or are choked (13:4–7).94
Jesus’s focus is not on the nature of seed or sower, but rather on soil, and its effect on the seed’s fate.95Not all soil is productive. The sense is of a revelation, the message of the kingdom, the same and given to all, yet received differently. Despite this mixed reception, amid hard hearts and competing pressures, the Parable is clear that the kingdom produces an abundant crop.96The theme of divided responses is sharpened in the explanation of parables given in 13:10–17. Only to some is it given to know those mysteries of God now manifested on earth.97

Of particular interest in this chapter is the Parable of the Weeds. Its titling as such by the disciples demonstrates its focus: not on the righteous, but on the wicked and the judgment they ought to face.98The passage concerns timing.99The kingdom has come. Yet despite its eschatological character, the end is delayed.100It is not the time of harvesting when the separation between wheat and weeds will occur, instead, the two will remain intermixed until a future judgment.101In the parable’s explanation (13:36–43), the emphatic comparison made by ὥσπερ/οὕτως marks this temporal thrust, the gathering and burning of the weeds, judgment, will occur not now, but at the end of the age.102

Timing is a consistent theme in the Parables Discourse. It is the note on which the parables conclude in the Dragnet Parable (13:47–50),103and sandwiched between the parable of the weeds and its explanation are two parables emphasizing the fact that the kingdom has come, but not in a spectacular and unmistakable fashion.104The sense of the Parables of the Mustard Seed (13:31–32) and of the Yeast is that although the kingdom’s beginnings are modest, those beginnings yet guarantee and even generate an extraordinary outcome.105Initial mediocrity is justified on the basis of a future judgment.106Significantly, the Weeds Parable is not seeking to address the nature of the church, as is commonly argued,107but rather to explain how the kingdom might be in the world without wiping out all opposition.108

Finally, here is the answer to the Baptist’s doubting (cf. 11:3). The absence of explicit judgment on the religious leaders and those who follow them is shown to be delayed with cause. The fact that these parables and, particularly, the Parable of the Weeds, provide the narrative answer to this concern confirms that the religious leaders were very much in Matthew’s sights in this chapter. Indeed, the religious leaders may be identified as the exemplar υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ of 13:38. This is supported by Matthew’s framing of the two fates of the wheat and weeds in terms very similar to John the Baptist’s invective in 3:12.109

With this background in mind, the reference to sons in the explanation of the Weeds Parable may be understood as having the religious leaders in mind as the prototypes of those who have rejected revelation. An interpretive catalogue of seven equivalences (εἰμί, 13:38–39) begins Jesus’s explanation of the Weeds Parable. They facilitate understanding of the more discursive outline of coming judgment in 13:40–43.110Not every element is given an interpretation. Jesus explains those elements relevant to the judgment to come.111The identification of the Sower as the Son of Man confirms the parable’s connection with the narrative context: this is about responses to Jesus’s proclamation of the kingdom.112Further, it matches the parable’s eschatological content.113However, different from the parable of the Sower (13:1–8), it is the nature of the seeds that is relevant to the drama of the parable (and not the soil). Two sets of sons map onto two sets of seeds.

The good seed is identified as οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας, and the weeds as οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ (13:38). The two grow together but are separated at the end of the age (13:39). Hagner and France each gloss the uses of υἱός here idiomatically as signifying belonging.114 Similarly, Osborne suggests that the term designates the chief characteristics of a group.115On these readings, no specific paternal relationships are in view. However, although the term may be used idiomatically as suggested (e.g., οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος, 9:15), the context indicates familial relationships are being alluded to.116The kingdom sons present as those in the discourse who have heard the word and understood it (e.g., 13:23).117Given that the discourse’s narrative precedent, 12:46–50, defined Jesus’s family on the basis of those who hear and do, who receive the revelation of the Son and respond to it with obedience, it would be consistent to see a divine-filial connotation here. This is strengthened by Jesus’s nearby reference to the kingdom to which these sons belong as τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν (13:43).

The phrase, οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ, appears only here in the New Testament, and has no extra-biblical parallel.118It was likely coined by Matthew to complement, by opposition, the kingdom sons. The term might be masculine or neuter. The neuter is possible as distinguished from the certainly personal διάβολος in the next verse (13:39; also, 4:1; 25:41).119 This would mean the phrase designates primarily behavior, sons characterized by evil.120However, the use of ὁ πονηρός in 13:19 as a personal agent makes the masculine more likely.121This is further indicated by the correspondence of this seed with the enemy actor of 13:25.

Thus, sonship here has a spiritual dimension. Those opposing the Messiah are labeled the sons of the evil one. They are of his planting (13:25; cf. 15:13).122This builds off the conclusion of Jesus in 12:43–45, where the Pharisees, expected sons, were demonstrably demoniacs.

This matches the extensive description of what is to be removed,123the sons of the evil one drawing the additional description of πάντα τὰ σκάνδαλα καὶ τοὺς ποιοῦντας τὴν ἀνομίαν (13:41).124 Lawlessness is a recurrent and serious characterization of those opposing Jesus in Matthew (e.g. 7:23; 23:28; 24:12), even applied to the Pharisees and scribes at 23:28. Likewise, the causing of others to stumble is considered particularly grievous, attracting severe warnings of judgment (18:6–7).125

The antithesis of these things is righteousness (οἱ δίκαιοι, 13:43), characteristic of those who shine like suns in the kingdom of their Father. In comparison with their present hiddenness (cf. 13:30, 32, 33), they shine here with a glory that all can see.126The idea of hidden glory draws a comparison with the use of the same language in 17:2, where Jesus’s transfigured glory is revealed to stand behind his ministry of suffering and death (16:24–26). It is further the eschatological counterpart of 5:14–16, the shining of sons in truth.127

Jesus’s contrast of the two sons is extensive, spanning action (ἀνομία/δίκαιος, 13:41, 43), influence (σκάνδαλον/ἐκλάμπω, 13:41, 43), and outcome at the final judgment (13:42–43). The broader discourse provides the cause of these differences: the bad seed and sons of 13:38–42 are also the bad soils of 13:3–9 who fail to hear and understand the message of the kingdom. There is, therefore, again, a correlation between revelation, obedience, and sonship. Rejection versus reception, lawlessness versus righteousness; Matthew frames each as a litmus for filial actuality.

Such a litmus is desirable. Despite the clear disparity between the sons, the time for their division remains in the future. In the present age, where kingdom sons do not yet shine in glory, but coexist alongside sons of the evil one, the reader is provided by this contrast with a means of discriminating between the two. Receiving Christ and his teachings is the indicator of future judgment (cf. 12:46–50; 28:19).

2. Matthew 15:1–14: Filial Infidelity

“Leave them.” Jesus’s disciples must abandon concern for the religious leaders’ offence (15:14); the Pharisees’ filial infidelity has rendered them unfit for leadership. In this pericope, Matthew continues to leverage the relationship between sonship and the reception of revelation. Here revelation, in the form of God’s commands, is repudiated and replaced by the religious leaders, an activity connected directly to the dishonor of both earthly and heavenly fathers. The sum? Their filial pattern is perilous: these blind guides are not to be followed (15:14).

The religious leaders are concerned with the wrong things. In 15:1–14, they appear as pedants.128 The disciples have acclaimed Jesus as God’s Son (14:33), and the masses have approached him, finding compassion and healing (14:14, 34–35; cf. 15:32). But here, the religious leaders question handwashing.129

15:3–9 is a powerful polemic against the scribal tradition behind this pedantry.130The accusation of the religious leaders is presented as a question, made circumspect by its focus on the disciples (διὰ τί, 15:2).131Notably, the grounds of the question are presented second after the more general charge.132The implication is that the specific issue of handwashing is incidental to the more important concern: preserving the elders’ tradition. Jesus’s reply then is consistent with this, focusing not on an example relating to purity but on the honoring of parents.133Indeed, the description of handwashing is much simplified than the Markan equivalent (Mark 7:1–3), so as almost to disappear into the background until it reappears in 15:15–20.134

Rather than answer the religious leaders’ question, Jesus begins by asking his own question, paralleling his to the religious leaders with similar words (διὰ τί, παραβαίνω, παράδοσις).135The similarities make the differences more striking. Jesus uses the emphatical pronoun ὑμεῖς and modifies τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων to τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν.136In so doing, Jesus changes their circumspect accusation into a direct challenge.

The Corban example is framed by two near-mirrored verses, 15:3b, and 15:6b, which draw attention to God as the one whose command and word has been broken/rendered void for the sake of tradition.137Inside this frame, Matthew parallels two sayings (ὁ γὰρ θεὸς εἶπεν, Matt 15:4; ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε, 15:5). The first is God’s speech, coming in the form of two commandments relating to filial responsibility. The second is the religious leaders’. Introduced as a contrast by the emphatic ὑμεῖς,138the speech describes the Corban practice of circumventing this responsibility. The parallel uses of λέγω enact the contradiction Jesus asserts in the frame, the speech of the religious leaders’ undercuts and replaces the speech of God.

15:4–5 is typically interpreted as presenting Jesus’s eager preservation of the law against its denial,139
exposing the problem of assessing morality with extra-biblical tradition.140This flipping of the religious leaders’ accusation on its head is significant, exposing their privileging of the will of their elders to be a rejection of the will of God. There is a significant intersection with the Gospel’s presentation of sonship on this point, the doing of the Father’s will being central to Matthew’s presentation of sons (e.g., 3:15–17; 4:1–7; 6:9–10; 21:31).141Indeed, the typical interpretation of this passage may be extended from this basis: it is more than coincidence that the Corban example touches on filial themes.

When compared to Mark, Matthew intensifies the Corban example (cf. Mark 7:1–3). To the fifth commandment (Exod 20:12), Matthew adds the related prohibition of speaking evil against one’s parents (21:17). There is a certain solemnity in Jesus’s quoting of this second command. He includes the Semitism reflecting the Hebrew infinitive absolute, θανάτῳ τελευτάτω, putting emphasis on the supreme penalty of the action.142Matthew emphasizes God’s regard for the regulation of filial responsibility, underlining the seriousness of the religious leaders’ undercutting. The parental right to expect filial provision is invalidated/nullified by the practice; this is the robbing of a parent of their rightful privilege.143The οὐ μή construction beginning 15:6 sharply emphasizes the negative effect of parental neglect: dishonor.144

The religious leaders’ use of tradition in a manner dishonoring their earthly parents points to a more essential and pervasive use of tradition to dishonor the supposed heavenly Father. This is suggested by the frame enclosing the Corban example discussed above (15:3b, 6b). Though Jesus has overtly treated the honoring of earthly parents in 15:4–6, his transition to the honoring of God in 15:7–9, confirms that the divine relationship has stood behind his critique. Matthew, different from Mark, places the Isaiah quotation at the end of his argument (cf. Mark 7:6–7). The effect of this placement is to tighten the citation’s application around the Corban issue.145This is relevant because the quotation’s thrust is false honor and vain worship, close lips but far hearts.146The use of τιμάω in both 15:6 and 15:8 suggests a fundamental connection between the Corban example and the honoring of the Lord. The treatment of two fathers, the heavenly and the earthly, are therefore considered in parallel, the shaming of the lesser proving the shaming of the greater.

The contrast between heart and lips in 15:8–9 prepares for 15:10–20, where the source of defiling and evil is the heart (esp., Matt 15:11, 18–19).147Jesus treats the religious leaders’ adverse reaction to his denunciation as irrelevant, consigning them to be plants not planted by his Father (13:13).148As these, they are dangerous, blind guides who must be abandoned (cf. 16:5–12).149The metaphor of planting connects a thread of agricultural-judgment images applied to the religious leaders since 3:10 (also, 3:12; 12:33; cf. 13:40–42).150In each case, separation is made on the basis of some essential quality: wheat, bad trees, a planting of non-heavenly origin. Here, the repudiation of God’s commands reflects hearts that are far from him. The religious leaders have shown by their dishonoring of God that they are not his sons.

Following this pericope, a pagan woman with no claim on the God of the covenant petitions Jesus and, because of her great faith, has her request granted.151This makes the denunciation of the religious leaders even more startling; the apparent children reject the bread that the “dogs” are now eating. Again, Matthew uses the pagan paragon of faith to demonstrate the right response of those who should be sons (cf. 2:1–11; 8:5–13; 12:39–42).152

In Matthew 15:1–14, the religious leaders claim the piety of pedantry. Yet their corrupted hearts have corrupted their tradition.153They have wielded tradition in the repudiation of divine commands and, consequently, in the dishonoring of the one who gave them. The fruit is failure of filial duty: they do not obey the Father’s will.154Reception and response to revelation are, once again, expected of sons, rejection of it marking the difference between the Father’s progeny and those not of his planting. Though the religious leaders present themselves as faithful sons, their preferencing of traditions reveals otherwise. The disciples, and the readers with them, must therefore conceive of their own sonship in contrast to the religious leaders’ example. They must not follow these blind guides. So, Matthew prepares for a great contrast in chapter 16. The filial failure of the Pharisees is emphasized by their demand of a sign in the face of those already given (16:1–4). Thus, their leaven, their unfilial rejection of the Father’s revelation, is to be avoided: the disciples must see and understand the significance of the loaves (16:9–11). It is Simon Peter then who demonstrates his sonship, receiving the revelation of the Father (16:17). Indeed, as he declares Jesus to be the Son of the living God, he shows himself to be a son with him (cf. 16:23).

3. Conclusion

In the movement from doubt (11:3) to faith (16:16), Jesus’s filial identity is sharpened by contrast with religious leaders who reject the Father’s revelation. This rejection is pervasive in its scope, extending to the Father’s commands (15:4–6), the Father’s kingdom message (13:19–22), and, most seriously, the Father’s Son (12:14, 24). And it is pervasive in its impact, producing unpardonable speech (12:32), unlawful action (13:41), and unfilial piety (15:4–9). The obedience of Jesus, reflected in his adopting the gentle ministry of the Servant (12:18–21), is drawn against this characterization. Disciples, and readers with them, are then invited into a sonship that takes place alongside him and dependent on him, as they receive the revelation of the Father that comes through him (see 11:27; 12:41–42, 46–50; 13:37). Kingdom sons are found to be those who receive and understand the message, produce lives of righteous obedience, and look forward to their full disclosure in the kingdom of their Father (esp., 13:43).

So, filial revelation invokes filial responsibility in Matthew’s presentation of sonship. This study has contended that a sonship that must be actualized in obedience is developed through the rhetorical contrast of the religious leaders with other characters in Mathew 11–16. Revelation begets discrimination as responses to the Father-revealing Son sort kingdom sons from those of the evil one. Family lines were seen to be drawn from obedience instead of blood or adherence to tradition. Indeed, kingdom sons were those who received and understood the kingdom message, responding by producing lives of righteous obedience. And Jesus’s sonship was defined against the ignorant, uncaring religious leaders whose blasphemy charge had demonstrated both their rejection of Jesus and their attendant spiritual bankruptcy. Indeed, Jesus’s filial faithfulness was confirmed in his obedient acceptance of the Servant’s contrastingly quiet and merciful manner.

What emerges from this study is the simple observation that, for Matthew, sons hear and obey. That is, the reception of and response to revelation figures first in Matthew’s filial framework. The locus of the Father’s revelation being in the words and works of Jesus means that the acknowledgment of him as the authoritative Servant-Son is the foremost fulfillment of this filial responsibility. It is as sons that we repent and follow the Son as he leads us in his pattern of filial faithfulness.

Further, sonship is seen to have its own revelatory function (cf. 11:27). Sons who do their Father’s will reveal their Father’s will, thereby drawing others into the privilege and obedience of sonship alongside them (5:16; cf. 28:19–20).155Thus, sonship plays a role in Matthew’s missiology. Sons receive revelation but also refract that revelation as the obedience it calls them to has both vertical (to God) and horizontal (to world) dimensions. Indeed, obedience is visible; a response to revelation works its way out in speech and action, affecting those who witness it. This has been seen negatively in the religious leaders, whose disobedience is determined to be dangerous (e.g., 15:14; 16:6, 11), their activities understood as representing the Father’s will. Jesus must characterize them as “blind guides” (15:14) and instead urge looking to his own filial pattern. Disciples then follow this form, living as salt and light, their works causing others to see and give glory to the Father (see 5:16).

The diagram below illustrates this idea of sons refracting the Father’s revelation in the moment of obedience and drawing others into the same relationship:

The Refractive-Attractive Function of Filial Faithfulness

---

---

[1] Cf. William L. Kynes, A Christology of Solidarity: Jesus as the Representative of His People in Matthew (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991), 7; David B. Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story: A Study in the Narrative Rhetoric of the First Gospel, JSNTSup 42 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 255.

[2] Donald J. Verseput, “The Role and Meaning of the ‘Son of God’ Title in Matthew’s Gospel,” NTS 33 (1987): 538; cf. N. T. Wright, “Son of God and Christian Origins,” in Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity, ed. Garrick V. Allen et al. (University Park: Penn State University Press, 2019), 126–27.

[3] Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 252–53.

[4] William Bennett, “The Sons of the Father: The Fatherhood of God in the Synoptic Gospels,” Int 4 (1950): 19–20; Brandon D. Crowe, “The Song of Moses and Divine Begetting in Matt 1,20,” Bib 90 (2009): 54; Hugh Montefiore, “God as Father in the Synoptic Gospels,” NTS 3 (1956): 45; Nicholas J. Schaser, “Israel and the Individual in Matthew and Midrash: Reassessing ‘True Israel,’” Religions 12.6 (2021): 7; Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 126.

[5] Brandon D. Crowe, The Obedient Son: Deuteronomy and Christology in the Gospel of Matthew, BZNW 188 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 4–5; Crowe, “The Song of Moses and Divine Begetting in Matt 1,20,” 55; George Harry Packwood Thompson, “Called-Proved-Obedient: A Study in the Baptism and Temptation Narratives of Matthew and Luke,” JTS 11 (1960): 7–8; Mark J. Goodwin, “Hosea and ‘the Son of the Living God’ in Matthew 16:16b,” CBQ 67 (2005): 278.

[6] Joshua E. Leim, “Worshiping the Father, Worshiping the Son: Cultic Language and the Identity of God in the Gospel of Matthew,” JTI 9 (2015): 78; Crowe, The Obedient Son, 10, 159–60; Jeffrey Gibbs, “Israel Standing with Israel: The Baptism of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel (Matt 3:13–17),” CBQ 64 (2002): 526.

[7] Cf. Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 237–38.

[8] David R. Bauer, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988), 137–38.

[9] Bauer, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel, 137–38.

[10] Cf. Bauer, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel, 136.

[11] E.g., Kynes, A Christology of Solidarity; Henry Pattarumadathil, “Your Father in Heaven: Discipleship in Matthew as a Process of Becoming Children of God,” AnBib 172 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2008); Crowe, The Obedient Son.

[12] For example, it is absent from three key studies on this topic: Kynes, A Christology of Solidarity; Crowe, The Obedient Son; Pattarumadathil, “Your Father in Heaven”; cf. Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 237.

[13] Kingsbury, Matthew, 18.

[14] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gæbelein, EBC 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 260.

[15] R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 451.

[16] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 451; cf. Brown, Matthew, 118–19.

[17] See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew 8–18, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 239.

[18] Cf. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 334.

[19] Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew 8–18, 266.

[20] See France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 420–35.

[21] Crowe, The Obedient Son, 176.

[22] See Crowe, The Obedient Son, 179.

[23] Crowe, The Obedient Son, 178.

[24] See John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 467.

[25] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC 33A (Nashville: Nelson, 2008), 314–15.

[26] Carson, “Matthew,” 274.

[27] Kingsbury, Matthew, 64.

[28] Cf. Kynes, A Christology of Solidarity, 93.

[29] Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20: A Commentary, trans. James Edwin Crouch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2001), 178; Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 460.

[30] Rod B. Doyle, “A Concern of the Evangelist: Pharisees in Matthew 12,” ABR 34 (1986): 17.

[31] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 330.

[32] See France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 458.

[33] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 303.

[34] Osborne, Matthew, 453.

[35] Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 303.

[36] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 334.

[37] Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 272.

[38] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 458.

[39] Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 307.

[40] Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 305.

[41] Luz, Matthew 8–20, 187; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 489.

[42] See Talbert, Matthew, 149.

[43] Osborne, Matthew, 448; France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 457.

[44] Cf. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 191; France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 471; Carson, “Matthew,” 286; Kingsbury, Matthew, 65–66.

[45] Luz, Matthew 8–20, 191.

[46] Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 286; Kingsbury, Matthew, 65–66.

[47] Francis P. Viljoen, “The Holy Spirit’s Characterisation of the Matthean Jesus,” IDS 54.1 (2020): 4; France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 206.

[48] Brown, Matthew, 122.

[49] Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 180–81; Osborne, Matthew, 465; cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 286.

[50] Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Thematic Use of Isaiah 42,1–4 in Matthew 12,” Bib 63 (1982): 457; Brown, Matthew, 121; Charles H. Talbert, Matthew, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 153.

[51] Doyle, “A Concern of the Evangelist,” 21–2.

[52] J. P. Nickel, “Jesus, the Isaianic Servant Exorcist Exploring the Significance of Matthew 12,18–21 in the Beelzebul Pericope,” ZNW 107 (2016): 185.

[53] Doyle, “A Concern of the Evangelist,” 22.

[54] Nickel, “Jesus, the Isaianic Servant Exorcist,” 185.

[55] Nickel, “Jesus, the Isaianic Servant Exorcist,” 185; Doyle, “A Concern of the Evangelist,” 22; cf. Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 114.

[56] Doyle, “A Concern of the Evangelist,” 22.

[57] Neyrey, “The Thematic Use of Isaiah 42,1–4 in Matthew 12,” 461–62.

[58] Doyle, “A Concern of the Evangelist,” 22; cf. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 181.

[59] Doyle, “A Concern of the Evangelist,” 17.

[60] Osborne, Matthew, 162.

[61] Doyle, “A Concern of the Evangelist,” 17.

[62] Doyle, “A Concern of the Evangelist,” 32; Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 182.

[63] Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew 8–18, 334.

[64] Doyle, “A Concern of the Evangelist,” 32; Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 182.

[65] Davies and Allison, Matthew 8–18, 335.

[66] Kynes, A Christology of Solidarity, 86; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 348; Osborne, Matthew, 478; France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 475; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 506.

[67] Carson, “Matthew,” 291.

[68] Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 316.

[69] Luz, Matthew 8–20, 203.

[70] Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 316.

[71] Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew 8–18, 338..

[72] Luz, Matthew 8–20, 209.

[73] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 349.

[74] See Doyle, “A Concern of the Evangelist,” 27.

[75] Hagner, Matthew 1 –13, 351.

[76] Hagner, Matthew 1 –13, 354; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 512.

[77] Bauer, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel, 69.

[78] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 409–10.

[79] Carson, “Matthew,” 296.

[80] Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 368.

[81] Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 327; Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 188.

[82] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 452.

[83] Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 369; Talbert, Matthew, 157.

[84] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 514.

[85] Cf. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 224–25; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 516.

[86] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 518–19.

[87] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 519.

[88] Cf. Crowe, The Obedient Son, 214.

[89] Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 332.

[90] Carson, “Matthew,” 300.

[91] Brown, Matthew, 125; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 223, 229; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 522; Carson, “Matthew,” 300; France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 501.

[92] Kingsbury, Matthew, 64.

[93] See Kingsbury, Matthew, 22.

[94] Cf. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 250.

[95] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 366–67, 369.

[96] Carson, “Matthew,” 310, 315–16.

[97] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 376.

[98] Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew 8–18, 427; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 392.

[99] Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke, 3rd ed. (London: SCM, 1972), 81; Davies and Allison, Matthew 8–18, 429; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 390; Luz, Matthew 8–20.

[100] Carson, “Matthew,” 316; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 393.

[101] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 384; Brown, Matthew, 133–34; cf. Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 348; Osborne, Matthew, 530.

[102] Osborne, Matthew, 534.

[103] Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 85; Osborne, Matthew, 537; Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 209; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 567; John Dominic Crossan, “The Seed Parables of Jesus,” JBL 92 (1973): 260.

[104] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 384–88.

[105] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 552.

[106] See Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 389.

[107] Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 390; cf. Luz, Matthew 8–20.

[108] Carson, “Matthew,” 316–17.

[109] Esp. συνάξει τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην (3:12); τὸν δὲ σῖτον συναγάγετε εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην μου (13:30).

[110] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 531; Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 81.

[111] Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 206.

[112] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 534–35.

[113] Davies and Allison, Matthew [8–18], 427.

[114] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 393; France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 535.

[115] Osborne, Matthew, 533.

[116] Carson, “Matthew,” 252; Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 206; see also, Luz, Matthew 8–20, 268; cf. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 559.

[117] Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 206.

[118] Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 83.

[119] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 531.

[120] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 559.

[121] Jeremias says it must be masculine as there is no example of υἱός or τέκνον being followed by a substantival adjective in the neuter, whereas son of the devil is found in Acts 13:10 and 1 John 3:10; Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 83; see also, Luz, Matthew 8–20, 268–69.

[122] Davies and Allison, Matthew 8–18, 431.

[123] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 536.

[124] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 560–61; Carson, “Matthew,” 326.

[125] Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 394.

[126] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 537.

[127] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 561.

[128] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, WBC 33B (Nashville: Nelson, 2008), 428.

[129] Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 408; cf. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 229.

[130] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 576.

[131] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 585; Brown, Matthew, 142.

[132] Hagner, Matthew 14–28, 430.

[133] Luz, Matthew 8–20, 328.

[134] Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 348.

[135] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 579.

[136] Hagner, Matthew 14–28, 431; Carson, “Matthew,” 348–49.

[137] See Luz, Matthew 8–20, 325.

[138] Osborne, Matthew, 586.

[139] E.g., Osborne, Matthew, 586–87; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 330; Brown, Matthew, 142; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 411.

[140] Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 411.

[141] See Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 252–53; Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, NTT (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 36–37; Kynes, A Christology of Solidarity, 33; Kingsbury, Matthew, 53.

[142] Hagner, Matthew 14–28, 431; Osborne, Matthew, 586.

[143] Hagner, Matthew 14–28, 432.

[144] Osborne, Matthew, 587; France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 580–81.

[145] See Chang Seong An, “Halakhic Controversy as Family Quarrel: Re–Considering Jesus’ Hand Washing Debate with the Pharisees in Matthew 15:1–20,” 신약연구 19.2 (2020): 297; cf. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 325; Osborne, Matthew, 587.

[146] Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 230.

[147] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 582.

[148] Carson, “Matthew,” 350.

[149] See Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 623.

[150] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 622–23.

[151] Carson, “Matthew,” 353.

[152] Cf. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 452.

[153] France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 574.

[154] Luz, Matthew 8–20, 332; Brown, Matthew, 143.

[155] J. M. Gibbs, “The Son of Man as the Torah Incarnate in Matthew,” SE 4 (1965): 44.