Almost Explanatory Notes on Matthew 11

I'm not going to take the time to do full explanatory notes on Matthew 11, but there are a number of features to this text that you might not notice if you weren't clued in to them. I thought I'd mention some:

1. First we have the expression in verse 1, "when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples." This is a feature of Matthew's editing of Mark. Matthew is basically Mark plus 5 major discourses (the Sermon on the Mount, the Mission Discourse, the Parable Discourse, the Kingdom Discourse, and the Eschatological Discourse).

At the end of each of these additions to Mark/expanded versions of Mark, Matthew says, "When Jesus finished..." (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). The final one signals the end of the pattern, "When Jesus had finished all these sayings..." This pattern is yet another major testimony to Markan priority (in other words, that Mark is the source behind Matthew rather than Matthew the source behind Mark).

2. John the Baptist's questioning about whether Jesus is the Messiah in 11:2-6 raises significant questions only when one takes into account the Gospel of John's portrayal of Jesus' baptism (John is almost always the one that causes difficulty fitting its account with the other gospels historically and ideologically--which is why the others are grouped together as the "synoptic" gospels).

One's presuppositions will come into play in what you do with this puzzle--Didn't John the Baptist already know who Jesus was? Some simply consider the portrayal of John the Baptist in John to be more theological than historical at this point. Others propose various explanations for why a John the Baptist who already knows Jesus is the Messiah would send his disciples to ask Jesus if he was.

3. 11:12 has always puzzled commentators: "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence and men of violence take it by force" (RSV).

My question is what Matthew means by "now." Does he mean from the time of John the Baptist till the time of Jesus or from the time of John the Baptist to the time of Matthew's writing? In my opinion, Matthew more than the other gospels blurs together the teaching of the pre- and post-resurrection Jesus. In Matthew 10, for example, Jesus' commission to the twelve disciples flows almost imperceptibly from his words to them in the setting of his earthly ministry to their post-resurrection mission.

Certainly it would make sense to say that many of the Jews of the first century tried to bring about the kingdom of heaven by force. Kingdom of heaven for Matthew, it seems to me, is largely the same as Mark's kingdom of God. As far as I can tell, it still refers to God's rule come to earth as it is in heaven. It is often suggested that "heaven" here is a circumlocution for God out of reverence for his name. But I have some questions about this reasoning since God is not God's name.

11:14 Jesus says that John the Baptist is Elijah. But in John, John the Baptist explicitly denies it (John 1:21). Again, one's presuppositions will decide what you do with this difference. You will either see it as a difference between Matthew and John's theology or perhaps suggest that John the Baptist was in fact Elijah but didn't know it.

11:19 "Wisdom is proved right by her actions" If in fact the version of this saying in Luke is more original--"Wisdom is proved right by her children" (Luke 7:35). On the majority hypothesis (Mark Goodacre objects!), this is a Q saying. And so if Matthew's audience knew the Jesus saying, "Wisdom is proved right by her children," then they would have noticed the change of wording in Matthew 11:19.

Ah, they might say, Jesus is not calling himself a child of wisdom here but he is wisdom herself!

11:20 It is interesting that Matthew says Jesus did most of his miracles in Bethsaida and Chorazin because almost no miracles are recorded in the gospels in these places. But apparently these places did not repent.

But what does Matthew mean here? Does it mean they did not accept Jesus' message of the kingdom of God? Does it mean they did not believe on Jesus as the messiah? Are we talking pre- or post-resurrection? Did they not accept his resurrection? It is allegedly Q material (Luke 10:13-15).

The idea that this is source material to which Luke has added is supported by Luke's unique "Satan falling from the sky" material that he inserts here before Luke 10:21-22, which is how Matthew's material continues in Matthew 11:25-28. These verses have the very important, "No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son reveals him" (11:27). This John sounding material is one of very few places in the Synoptic gospels where Jesus claims exclusivity as a path to God.

11:28-30 -- I don't see how any first century Jewish audience would not have heard an allusion to the book of Sirach in these words:

Sirach 24:19 -- "Come to me [wisdom], you who desire me..."

Sirach 51:23, 26, 27 "Draw near to me, you who are untaught... Put your neck under the yoke, and let your souls receive instruction... See with your eyes that I have labored little and found for myself much rest."

In short, Matthew is comparing Jesus to wisdom, as we saw above in 11:19. In Sirach 24, this wisdom comes to rest in the Law. For Matthew, on the other hand, Jesus represents the fulfillment of the Law. An invitation to take on his yoke as teacher is thus an invitation to take on the yoke of the fulfilled Law, the wisdom of God.