¹ Of the many commentaries available, I have found most useful those by A. H. M'Neile (Macmillan, London, 1915), and by E. Schweizer (Göttingen, 1973 and E.T. S.P.C.K. 1976). I shall refer to other studies when appropriate. Allen, W. C. in the introduction to the International Critical Commentary on Matthew (Clark, Edinburgh, 1907), p. lxviiGoogle Scholar states that the writer of the first Gospel ‘everywhere uses ή βασιλєία τῷν ούρανῷν of the kingdom which Christ announced as at hand, to be inaugurated when the Son of man came on the clouds of heaven’. He distinguishes this meaning from that of ή βασιλєία τῷν θεο⋯ and suggests that the use of this second term is due in some instances to the source, but he admits that at 21. 43 it is editorial and suggests: “The kingdom of God” might well be used to sum up that whole revelation of God to the Jewish people which was to be transferred to others.’ However, Allen fails to substantiate these insights in detailed exposition of the texts, and most commentators have not followed his lead. The more common view is that of Michael Goulder in Midrash and Lection in Matthew (S.P.C.K. 1974), p. 63: ‘Matthew uses “kingdom of heaven” as the rabbis do, though he can use the phrase “kingdom of God” when it is opposed to Satan's 12.28, or when God is being interpreted under the allegory of the Father 21.31, or householder 21.43, or in prayer 6.10, 33.’ I would like to suggest that Matthew does not use the phrase ‘kingdom of heaven’ as ‘the rabbis do’, but uses it in an unrabbinic fashion to mark a distinction between kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God.

² Kilpatrick, G. D. in The origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew (Oxford, 1946)Google Scholar, suggests that the parallel between 3.2 and 4.17 is less close than at first appears. He argues that the omission of μετανοείτε and yp at 4. 17 by k Syr^sc Justin, Clement, Origen and Eusebius is the original reading because, he claims, the first Gospel tends to emphasize differences between John and Jesus. However, he has to admit that Matthew assimilates the two summaries of preaching as far as ήγγικεν ή βααιλεΙα τ⋯ν ούραν⋯ν is concerned. It is the Fathers and versions that had more reason to emphasize a distinction between John and Jesus in this way than did the first evangelist. In any case, the shorter reading can be explained as assimilation to 10–7.

³ E.g. the discussion by Perrin, Norman in The kingdom of God in the teaching of Jesus (S.C.M. 1963), pp. 58 ff.Google Scholar

⁴ Matt. 4. I7∥Mark I.14b but with the following differences: πεπλήρωται ό καιπός is not present in Matthew, but the idea of fulfilment had already been introduced at 4. 14 with the quotation from Isaiah. τ⋯ν ο⋯παν⋯ν for τogr;ũ Θεοũ This is not merely a pious avoidance of the word Θεός, since ή βασιλεΙ τοũ Θεοũ is used four times in the first Gospel. The Markan πιστεũετε Έν εύαγγειιῳ refers back to Mark 1. 1 and neither is present in Matthew. Matthew uses the term εύαγγΈλιον in his summary at 4. 23 but avoids it at 16. 25 and 19. 29 to prevent the misunderstanding that there is a distinction to be drawn between ένεκεν Έμοũ and εύαγγελΙου Marxsen's suggestion that in the first Gospel ηύαγγΈλιον refers only to discourses is unconvincing, as shown by 24. 14, 26. 13 and 9. 35 where a distinction is made between διδάκειν and κηρύσσεσειν. Marxsen, W., Der Evangelist Markus (Göttingen, 1956), p. 93.Google Scholar

⁵ There are no exact synoptic parallels but cf. Mark 6. 7 f. and Luke 9. 2.

⁶ Deuteronomy 4. 1, alluded to in Matt. 5. 5.

⁷ The Isaiah reference may account for the reordering of 5. 4 and 5 in some manuscripts. It seems reasonable to assume that 5. 5 originally followed 5. 3 since the two sayings are parallel: о⋯ πτωχо⋯ and о⋯ πραεῑς each render in the LXX, and αύτ⋯ν ⋯оτιν ⋯ βασιλε⋯α τ⋯ν оὐραν⋯ν is parallel to an echo of Deuteronomy 4.1. This order is retained in D 33 et al.; see M‘Neile's commentary. The suggestion that 5. 5 is a secondary addition is unconvincing. πρα⋯ς is rarely used in the NT, only here and at Matt. 11.29 and 21.5 (from LXX) and in I Peter 3.4. It is a feature of the first evangelist's presentation, a characteristic emphasis upon meekness which should not be struck out in order to establish a group of seven Beatitudes.

⁸ Hill, David in the New Century Commentary (Oliphants, 1972)Google Scholar, writes: ‘The promised life of the kingdom is actualised in those who are blessed.’ It is not clear what this means, but it is clear that it does not represent the teaching of the Beatitudes.

⁹ Barth, C., ‘Matthew's understanding of the Law’ in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, ed. Bornkamm, , Barth, and Held, (E.T. S.C.M. 1963)Google Scholar, and Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism, part 1 (S.C.M. 1977).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Contra Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus (London, 1947), p. 169Google Scholar: ‘There is a sense in which the kingdom comes whenever and wherever God's will is acknowledged and obeyed on earth.’ The Liberal protestants of the nineteenth century, especially Ritschl, were incorrect in attributing their views either to Jesus or to the Gospel-writers, as Weiss, Johannes showed in Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen, 1892, E.T. Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, S.C.M. 1971).Google Scholar Liberal writings were creative reinterpretations of Christian traditions whose value must be assessed in terms of nineteenth-century and modern needs. Weiss condemned their historical claims but accepted their theological insights, and Norman Perrin's sarcasm about this can only be explained by Perrin's unexpressed belief that no truth is to be found outside the teaching of Jesus. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (S.C.M. 1963), p. 18 footnote I.Google Scholar

¹¹ It is clear that the first evangelist wished to polemicize against certain features of religious life, including hypocrisy and the neglect of mercy in the pursuit of righteousness, and that the scribes and Pharisees exemplify these features in the Gospel. That these tendencies have proved to be as much a part of Christian experience as they have of Jewish experience is undeniable. I shall refer to scribes and Pharisees as Matthew does, without implying that I accept the historical validity of the sweeping criticisms of those groups made in the Gospel.

¹² See the helpful discussion in Schweizer's commentary, E.T. pp. 137–8, 193–209.

¹³ No synoptic parallel.

¹⁴ No synoptic parallel.

¹⁵ No synoptic parallel.

¹⁶ Cf. Luke 11. 42: τήν κρΙσιν και τήν άγάπην τοũ Θεοũ Only Matthew mentions Έπεος.

¹⁷ Sanders, Jack, Ethics in the N.T. (S.C.M., 1975).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Since ή βασιλεια τ⋯ν ούραν⋯ν is used in verse 11, it could be argued that βασιλεια in verse 12 must refer to the kingdom of heaven and that if this is so, the kingdom of heaven is in some sense present. However, a clear distinction is being made between those who will inherit the future kingdom in verse ii and those who thought they would inherit it in verse 12. This clear distinction suggests that perhaps the two uses of the term kingdom are also to be distinguished, especially as the use in verse 12 fits exactly with the use of the term ή βασιλεια τοũ Θεοũ in the parable of the vineyard, 21. 33 ff.

¹⁹ Matthew only.

²⁰ No synoptic parallel.

²¹ Kingsbury, J. D., The Parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13 (S.P.C.K. 1969).Google Scholar

²² Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus (E.T. S.C.M. 1963), p. 150.Google Scholar

²³ No synoptic parallel at this point.

²⁴ 18. 34, 21. 41, 22. 11–14, 25– 12. 25. 30, 25. 31–46.

²⁵ At 8. 12 the semitism о⋯ ν⋯о⋯ τῃσ βασιλείασ was interpreted as referring to Jews, and the phrase was linked with that of η βαςιλε⋯αζ in 21. 33 ff. In 13. 38 υ⋯ο⋯ τ⋯ζ βασιλε⋯αζ does not refer to Jews. The orientation of the parable is entirely eschatological. It is concerned with what will happen at the judgement to those who accept or reject Jesus' preaching. The expressions ο⋯ υ⋯ο⋯ τ⋯ζ βασιλε⋯αζ and ο⋯ υ⋯ο⋯ το⋯ πουηρο⋯ share in this eschatological perspective. The sons of the kingdom are those who will inherit die kingdom, and the sons of the evil one are those who will be destroyed. The two phrases are not exactly parallel. Matthew could hardly have described those who will inherit the kingdom as υιι⋯ το⋯ θεο⋯ since he reserves the title ὐ υ⋯ἰζ το⋯ θεο⋯ for Jesus alone. On the other hand, he could hardly have called those who will be destroyed sons of the evil kingdom, since no such kingdom will exist in the future. This is presumably why he avoids the phrase υ⋯⋯ζ γε⋯ννηζ used at 23. 15.

²⁶ So, for example, Fenton, Hill J. C., Pelican commentary (1963)Google Scholar, Green, H. B.: New Clarendon commentary (OUP 1975)Google Scholar, Tödt, H. E., The Son of man in the Synoptic Tradition (E.T. S.C.M. 1965).Google Scholar

²⁷ So, for example, Allen, M'Neile, Schweizer.

²⁸ A Matthaean expression: 13. 49, 24. 3, 28. 20.

²⁹ New Clarendon commentary, note A, the kingdom of heaven, p. 235. Matthew 16. 28 refers to the kingdom of the Son of man but does not distinguish it from the kingdom of the Father.

³⁰ συλλέω 13. 29, 30, 41, and 13. 49–50 repeats 13. 40b–42.

³¹ So, for example, Allen, , Kilpatrick, , M'Neile, , Jeremias, , Fenton, , Hill, , Schweizer, , and Linnemann, Eta, The Parables of Jesus (E. T. S.P.C.K. 1966)Google Scholar; but not, for example, Derrett, J. D. M., Law in the N. T. (London, 1970), Green or Goudler.Google Scholar

³² So M'Neile. Since the point of the saying is that they do not enter the kingdom, a conative meaning is required.

³³ Contrast the aorists of Luke 11. 52.

³⁴ Cf. Mark 9. 33 ff. Matthew and Luke do not repeat Mark 9. 35. Matthew 18. 3–4 is without synoptic parallel at this point but there is an echo of Mark 10. 15 which Matthew later omits at 19. 14 f. However, Mark writes of ‘receiving the kingdom of God as a child.’.

³⁵ Cf. 10. 42 and 11. 25.

³⁶ So, for example, Hill.

³⁷ Since 19. 23 f. contains a kingdom of God saying, I shall return to it later.

³⁸ Goulder, pp. 307–11.

³⁹ So, for example, M'Neile and Schweizer.

⁴⁰ Matthew: έν τ⋯ βασιλεΙą σου cf. Mark 10. 37: έν τ⋯ δóξη σου.

⁴¹ Matthew makes explicit ὐφ⋯ τоũ φατρ⋯ζ μоν.

⁴² The parable of the pounds in Luke 19. 11–27 is similar to Matthew 25. 14–30.

⁴³ Cf. 5. 14–16, though the vocabulary is different.

⁴⁴ Especially 24. 42 and 44.

⁴⁵ Contra, for example, Jeremias and Fenton.

⁴⁶ Cf. 18. 23.

⁴⁷ Mark 14. 25 has έν βασιλεíą τοũ θεοũ. Matthew has έν τ⋯ βασιλεΙą τοũ πατρóς μου. The Gospel of Mark appears to make a distinction between the present existence of the kingdom of God and the future establishment of that kingdom έν δυνάμει, Mark 9. 1. The first evangelist distinguishes between the present kingdom of God and the future kingdom ef heaven. My thesis would have been more strongly supported had Matthew replaced the Markan έν τῇ βασιλεΙą τοũ with έν τῇ βασιλεΙą τω∼ν ούρανω∼ν. Why does he prefer τοũ πατρóς μου? This is to be explained by the intimacy of the setting. Jesus is not addressing the crowds, nor teaching the disciples in the presence of the crowds, but is present with his disciples at the last supper. έν τῇ βασιλεΙą τοũ πατρòς μου is a more personal way of describing the future kingdom of heaven. At 13. 43 έν τῇ βασιλεΙą τοũ πατπòς α⋯τ⋯ν clearly refers to the kingdom established at the end of the age, and cf. also ao. 20–8.

⁴⁸ Predigt, E. T. pp. 86 and 102.

⁴⁹ ⋯ρφ⋯зоνσιν: Conative Present.

⁵⁰ For example, Aboth 3. 3.

⁵¹ Matt. 4. 1 ff., Luke 4. 1. ff.

⁵² The first evangelist uses προϕθάνειν for ‘anticipate’ in 17–25.

⁵³ For example Fenton.

⁵⁴ For example Green.

⁵⁵ There is no exact synoptic parallel but cf. Luke 7. 29–30.

⁵⁶ For example Hill and Schweizer.

⁵⁷ Cf. also 6. 33.

⁵⁸ Notice the future tense: εἰσε⋯σεται.