VIOLENT ENDINGS IN MATTHEW’S PARABLES AND AN END TO VIOLENCE

Barbara E. Reid, O.P.

Catholic Theological Union

5401 S. Cornell Ave.

Chicago, IL 60615

Copyright 2001

To say that the effects of violence and the attempt to make religious meaning from it has permeated our consciousness and our public discourse since September 11, 2001 is to state the obvious. For Christians, the answers we seek for how to respond to violence are grounded in the praxis of Jesus as depicted in the gospels. There is, however, a tension in the Gospel of Matthew, between Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (5:38-48) and the violent endings of some of the parables. In this paper I will first discuss how Jesus and his followers are the target of violence and how his mission provokes violent responses. I will then look at the way Jesus teaches his disciples to respond to violence directed at them. Then I will sketch how the portrayal of God as offering boundless, unreciprocated love (5:44-48) clashes with the depiction of God in the violent endings of eight Matthean parables (13:40-43, 49-50; 18:23-35; 21:33-46; 22:1-14; 24:45-51; 25:14-30, 31-46). Finally, I will suggest possible solutions to this tension.

I. Jesus and His Disciples as Victims of Violence

References to violence permeate the Gospel of Matthew. That Jesus is an innocent victim of violence is clear from the outset. Herod seeks to destroy Jesus (2:13) and orders the massacre of the infant boys (2:16-18). Jesus predicts to his disciples that he will be handed over, suffer, and be killed (16:21-23; 17:12, 22-23), mocked, scourged, and crucified (20:17-19). He speaks of the cup1 he will drink (20:22; 26:27, 39, 42) and of giving his life as a ransom for many (20:28). After Jesus healed the man with the withered hand the Pharisees conspired to destroy him (12:14). And when Jesus tells the parable of the vineyard the chief priests and Pharisees try to arrest him (21:46), a plan which is finally carried out, beginning with their seizure of Jesus at 26:47-56. A similar fate has already befallen John the Baptist (11:2; 14:3-12) and awaits Jesus’ disciples (5:10-11; 10:16-33). That disciples should expect such is made explicit in a saying of Jesus at Matt 11:12.

This is the only saying in the gospels that uses the terms "violent" and "do violence." It is a Q saying (Matt 11:12 // Luke 16:16) that is redacted differently by Matthew and Luke, taking two different forms, directed at different narrative audiences, and conveying two different meanings. In Matthew Jesus directs the saying to the crowds (10:7), and the context is Jesus’ testimony to John the Baptist after the imprisoned John has sent two of his disciples to ask if Jesus is "the one who is to come" (10:3). Jesus has quizzed the crowd on what they are looking for and declares that there is none greater than John the Baptist, yet the least in the reign of God is greater than he (11:11). Then follows the enigmatic saying about violence: "from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence (biavzetai), and the violent (biastai;) plunder it (aJrpavzousin aujthvn)" (11:12).

The meaning of this saying is much debated.2 The central issue is whether biavzomai is to be taken in a positive sense, "to go after something with enthusiasm," or in a negative, hostile sense, "to inflict violence on." A further issue is whether biavzetai is to be taken as a passive, denoting the violence done to the basileiva tw`n oujranw`n, or a middle voice, with the basileiva tw`n oujranw`n as the active agent. Lastly, in what sense is aJrpavzw to be understood?

The meaning that best fits the Matthean form and context is to take biavzetai as passive, with the sense of "attack" or "forcible constraint."3 John is in prison under the order of Herod Antipas, an illustration of how the basileiva tw`n oujranw`n4 "suffers violence" at the hands of "the violent" (biastai;) who attempt to overpower God’s reign. "The violent" may include not only human opponents, as Herod and those of his ilk, but also the demonic forces that Jesus contends with in his exorcisms and healings..5 "The violent" attempt to plunder or lay waste God’s rule.6

The Lucan saying is quite different from the Matthean. After telling his disciples the parable of the steward who rewrites the promissory notes (Luke 16:1-13), Jesus directs this and several other sayings to the money-loving Pharisees who sneered at him (16:14-15). "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone is strongly urged to enter it (kai; pa`" eij" aujth;n biavzetai)." The best explanation for biavzetaiin Luke 16:16 is to take the verb passively in the sense of "constrain warmly," or "invite urgently" in the same vein as ajnavgkason eijselqei`n at Luke 14:23.7

Another text that follows a similar vein as Matt 11:12, is Matt 10:34-36, where Jesus speaks of the violent reactions provoked by the proclamation of the gospel. He says that he is bringing not peace, but a sword, causing division among family members, making enemies of one’s own household. These sayings, coming on the heels of the sending out of the twelve to proclaim the basileiva tw`n oujranw`n (Matt 10:5-15), prepare disciples for the same divided response that Jesus himself encounters: some follow, but others pose violent opposition. Such can include flogging, being dragged before governors and kings, betrayal to death by one’s own family members, and being hated and maligned (10:16-25).

II. Responses to Violence8

A. Avoidance or Flight

That avoidance or flight is a possible response to violence is posed early on in the Gospel. When the life of the infant Jesus is endangered by Herod, Joseph takes the child and his mother to Egypt (2:13-15), the traditional place of refuge (1 Kgs 11:40; Jer 26:21). There they remained until the threat had passed with Herod’s death (2:15). Upon their return to Israel, however, Joseph discerns that Herod’s son Archelaus who is ruling over Judea is as dangerous as his father was. After being warned in a dream, he moves his family to Nazareth (2:19-23).

When Jesus first speaks to his disciples about the violence they will suffer as a consequence of the mission, he adjures them to endure to the end and thus be saved (10:22). He further instructs them to keep fleeing to the next town when they are persecuted (10:23). But 10:24-25 already articulates the sobering realization that disciples are not above their teacher, and the text hints that they will also share in his violent death, about which he begins to speak explicitly at 16:21-23.

One other admonition to flee is found in the eschatological discourse in Matthew 24. There the warning is given by Jesus to his disciples, "when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains" (24:15-16). The context here, however, is the violence that accompanies the apocalyptic coming of the Human One, from which none will escape. The chosen ones will be gathered up by the angels (24:31).9

B. Rejoicing over Persecution

A different response to persecution is presented in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus pronounces "Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account" (5:11). He then advises, "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (5:12; similarly Acts 5:41; 1 Pet 1:6; 4:13). The disciples’ joy is sustained by the promise of future reward and by identification with the prophets who preceded them.

C. Nonviolent Confrontation, Love of Enemies, Prayer for Persecutors

Still another response to violence is proposed in Matt 5:38-48. The context is the section of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus sets forth a series of antitheses, each beginning, "You have heard that it was said . . .," followed by an instruction to intensify the command. Each mandate is introduced with the formula, "but I say to you," and urges Jesus’ followers that observance of what is written is not sufficient. Jesus’ commentary on Lev 24:20 recognizes that the Law allows for retaliation, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (Matt 5:48), but sets limits on the extent of blood vengeance: the retaliation cannot exceed the extent of the original act of violence. Jesus counters with, "but I say to you, do not resist (mh; ajntisth`nai) an evildoer (tw`/ ponhrw`/)" (5:39). Not to resist evil or an evildoer makes little sense on the lips of Jesus, when the whole gospel shows him doing just the opposite. Rather, as in the majority of instances that ajntisth`nai occurs in the LXX, Philo, and Josephus, the connotation is "resist violently," or use "armed resistance in military encounters."10 And, as Walter Wink has shown, the three examples that follow (vv. 39b-41) do not show passivity in the face of aggression, but rather active nonviolent resistance.11 The meaning of Matt 5:39 would be akin, then, to Rom 12:17, "do not repay anyone evil for evil" and Rom 12:21, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (similarly 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9). The aim is to break the cycles of violence, oppression, and humiliation by neither submitting passively, nor by responding in kind, but rather by seeking creative means to confront and resist evil nonviolently.

In the same vein, the command "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (5:44) concerns not feelings, but deeds toward the enemy12 that seek their good and aim to convert them into neighbor. There are only two other episodes in which Matthew mentions enemies. One is Matt 10:36, where divided responses to the gospel can cause members of one’s own household to become "enemies." The next line warns that whoever loves parents or children more than Jesus cannot be his disciple (10:37). Juxtaposed with 5:44, when "enemies" are one’s own family, the danger is not that one will "hate" familial enemies, but that one is tempted to let love for family come before love for Jesus. In such a case "love your enemies" would imply treating such relatives with the same loving kindness as before, while remaining steadfastly attached to Jesus, with the hope of winning them over to him. The other instance is the enemy in the parable of the weeds and the wheat (13:24-30, 36-43), who comes at night and sows weeds in the farmer’s field. The farmer does not retaliate by doing likewise to his foe, nor does he uproot the weeds, but rather waits with forebearance. Presuming that the farmer is a sympathetic character and that the parable ending implies a favorable outcome to his plan,13 it can be read as an illustration of loving an enemy.14 Perhaps by breaking the cycle of enmity with a deed of non-retaliation, the farmer can open the way toward repentance by the evildoer, which could make him into neighbor.15 Similarly, if one prays for a persecutor (5:44), from the stance of God, who loves all equally, and who bestows beneficence on all, irrespective of their deeds (5:45), the heart is opened to receive one another as neighbor and sibling.

Matt 5:45-48 gives the motivation for resisting evil with nonviolent means, loving enemies, and praying for persecutors: a disciple of Jesus must act this way because this is how God acts. Responding to evil not in kind, but with indiscriminate deeds of love, even when such are not reciprocated, is to act as children of God, whose love is wholly limitless.16 The one who most fully embodies this limitless, unreciprocated divine love is Jesus, as is clearly evident in the scene of the crucifixion. He has done no evil (27:23) and he is recognized truly as "Son of God" (27:54). It is this portrayal of God in 5:44-48 and Jesus as God’s Son (27:54) that clashes with the violent endings in Matthean parables for those who do evil.

III. Violent Endings for Evildoers

Eight of Matthew’s parables finish with violent consequences for those who do evil. Four of these parables are unique to Matthew (13:40-43, 49-50; 18:23-35; 25:31-46). In the other four (21:33-46; 22:1-14; 24:45-51; 25:14-30) Matthew makes explicit and intensifies the evildoing and the ensuing punishments.

In the four parables unique to Matthew we find the following violent endings. In the allegorical interpretation of the parable of the weeds and the wheat, the weeds are said to be the children of the evil one (oiJ uiJoi; tou` ponhrou`,13:38)17 and the enemy (oJ ejcqro;") who sows them is the devil (oJ diavbolo", 13:39).18 At the end of the age the angels of the Human One collect all who cause others to sin and all evildoers (pavnta ta; skavndala kai; tou;" poiou`nta" th;n ajnomivan)19 and throw them into the fiery furnace,20 where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (13:41-42). Similarly, the parable of the net that snared all kinds of fish concludes, "So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil (tou;" ponhrou;") from the righteous (tw`n dikaivwn) and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (13:49-50).21 The parable of aborted forgiveness (18:23-35) finishes with the angry lord handing over the evil slave (dou`le ponhrev, v. 32) who did not reciprocate forgiveness, to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. In the parable of the final judgment the king separates the blessed (v. 34) from the accursed (v. 41), telling the latter to depart from him into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (v. 41). These go away into eternal punishment while the righteous receive eternal life (v. 46).

In the parables that Matthew redacts from Mark or Q he intensifies the violent punishments for those who do evil. In the parable of the treacherous tenants (21:33-46), after the tenants have seized, beaten, killed, and stoned the slaves, and even the son sent to procure the harvest, the response of the landowner is to put those evil ones (kakou;") to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time (21:41).22 There is a further warning, after a quotation from Ps 118 about the stone rejected by the builders, that the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls (21:42). In the parable of the wedding feast (22:1-14) Matthew adds a unique detail in that the king’s envoys are seized, treated shamefully, and killed (v. 6). The king in anger sends his troops and destroys those murderers and burns their city (v. 7). Another group of servants is dispatched to go into the streets and gather all whom they found, both evil (ponhrouv~) and good (v. 10).23 The uniquely Matthean conclusion (vv. 11-14) has the king then confront an improperly attired guest, who is then bound hand and foot and cast into the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (v. 13). In the parable of the faithful servants (24:45-51) a wicked slave (kako;" dou`lo", v. 48) who beats his fellow slaves and eats and drinks with drunkards is cut in pieces (dicotomhvsei) by his master and put with the hypocrites, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (v. 51).24 In the parable of the talents (25:14-30) a wicked, lazy (ponhre; kai; ojknhrev, v. 26), worthless (ajcrei`on, v. 30) servant has his one talent taken away and is thrown into the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.25

Throwing evildoers into a fiery furnace, binding them hand and foot, casting them in outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, putting them to a miserable death, cutting and breaking them into pieces and crushing them, destroying murderers and burning their city, depriving them of the presence of God, putting them with hypocrites or with the devil and his angels, for all eternity—what has happened to blessing those who utter evil (5:11), acting with nonviolent resistance to an evildoer (5:39), loving one’s enemies, praying for those who persecute you (5:44), and acting from boundless, unreciprocated love because that is how God acts (5:44-48)? The punishments meted out in the parabolic endings present a far different picture of how God acts.

IV. Possible Solutions

A. Skewed Matthean Redaction

There are several possible ways to explain this tension in the Matthean narrative. One possibility is that Matthew did not sufficiently understand the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Missing the point that God’s love is unconditional, boundless, even when not reciprocated (5:44-48), he has capitulated to the prevailing myths about violence, and portrays God as acting in violent ways in his unique Matthean additions. As noted above, it is from Matthew himself, or his special source, that the bulk of the violent depictions come.

B. Misinterpreting Jesus as Nonviolent

The opposite possibility exists: that our interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is not accurate. Our reading of Jesus as advocating active, nonviolent resistance to evil could be an anachronistic reading prompted by the movements of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, et al. The violence in the parable endings represent the authentic voice of Jesus, not Matthew’s misconstrual. To pursue this direction, however, one would have to find a satisfactory way of answering how passivity in the face of aggression is good news for the poor and oppressed, and how to reconcile such an interpretation with the ministry and death of Jesus. Most especially, one would have to explain how Jesus provoked the religious and political authorities to execute him if his teaching was not in any way challenging them. One further consideration is that an example of successful nonviolent protest in Jesus’ day is known from Josephus, who relates Pilate’s capitulation to the delegation of Jews who prostrated themselves and extended their necks to embrace death rather than allow Pilate’s military standards to remain erected in Jerusalem.

C. Misinterpreting Violent Males as God

Another possibility is that the powerful males in the parables are not meant to be metaphors for God. Rather, these parables unmask their violence so as to lead the hearer to conclude that action must be taken to undo the unjust systems they perpetuate. In the parable of the talents (25:14-30), for example, if the hearer places his or her sympathies with the slave who hides the one talent, and presumes a worldview of limited good, and not a capitalistic stance of the possibility of unfettered increase, then the servant is not "wicked" except in the eyes of greedy acquisitors or those who are co-opted by them, as the first two servants. The third slave is the honorable one who blows the whistle on the wickedness of the master. The parable functions, then, as a warning to the rich to stop exploiting the poor and encourages poor people to take measures that expose such greed for the sin that it is. The violent ending (v. 30) is a sobering, realistic note of what can happen to those who oppose the rich and powerful.26

Similarly, the parable of the weeds and the wheat (13:24-30) may depict the undoing of an exploitive landowner. The parable does not say whether his plan to let the weeds grow alongside the wheat worked. From the point of view of the slaves, the landowner may be an absentee farmer with little farming knowledge, who makes an unwise decision not to pull out the weeds, perhaps thinking his benefit will be all the greater when he can use them for fuel (v. 30). The good news for the slaves is that the householder’s exploitation is curtailed by the sabotage of an enemy, perhaps a rival from the same landed class. For the unwise landowner, the parable presents a warning not to underestimate the threat of evil and highlights the necessity of taking appropriate action at the propitious moment.27

A difficulty with this interpretation of the parable of the weeds and the wheat is that the allegorical explanation in vv. 36-43 explicitly identifies the one who sowed good seed with the Human One (v. 37) and the enemy who sowed the weeds as the devil (v. 39). Furthermore, while this line of interpretation may be possible for these two parables, it does not seem possible for the other six we are examining. The parable of the unforgiving debtor, for example, explicitly equates the king who hands the slave over to the torturers with the heavenly father (18:35).

D. Human Response to Human Violence vs. Divine Judgment at the End Times

Another possible explanation is that the kind of nonviolent confrontation of evil that Jesus advocated in the Sermon on the Mount is not applicable to the kind of situation envisioned in these parables. All of them can be understood as portraying an end-time setting with a reckoning that is final. Clearly this is so for the parable of the final judgment (25:31-46). The parable of the weeds and the wheat and that of the net specifically speak about the end of the age (13:40, 49). That of the treacherous tenants is set at harvest time (21:34), a frequent eschatological image (Matt 13:30, 39; 21:34, 41). The parable of the great banquet evokes the eschatological banquet (Isa 25:6-10) to which people come from all directions (Matt 8:11). It also speaks of readiness (22:8), an end-time virtue. In the parable of the faithful servants the arrival of the master after a delay (24:46-48) and the unexpectedness of his coming (24:50) likewise carry eschatological overtones, as does the journeying (25:14) and delay (25:19) of the entrepreneur in the parable of the talents. The settling of accounts by the king (18:23) and the eternity of the punishment (v. 34) in the parable of the unforgiving slave are evocative of final judgment.

It may be that for Matthew, the teaching about nonviolent confrontation of evil and evildoers is not pertinent to scenes of end-time judgment. The teaching in the Sermon on the Mount applies to what disciples do to confront evil in such a way as to convert the perpetrator of evil and to safeguard against becoming an evildoer oneself by imitating the violence of the oppressor. The violent endings in the parables are speaking about a different situation entirely. They depict what happens when the time for conversion is past and the moment of final reckoning has arrived. They portray the dire consequences of not becoming a disciple or not "bearing fruit" at the proper time (21:43).28 Judgment is real and it is final. For those who have acted uprightly, the end is not a time to be feared, but a welcome relief as they are embraced into eternal life in God’s realm with the righteous. Not so for evildoers.

One difficulty with this line of interpretation is that disciples can be tempted to apply this end-time dichotomizing of evildoers and righteous ones in the present. Disciples can all too easily hear an assurance that they belong to the saved while others who they perceive as evildoers are condemned. Making rigid demarcations between good and evil in the present time does not allow them to face the mix of righteousness and wickedness within each person and each community in the present. Not perceiving one’s own capacity for evil is one sure step in being able to regard another as enemy and as the embodiment of evil. The final separation of good and evil, however, does not take place until the end time.

One further problem that remains is that the God of eschatological judgment is still cast in these parables as one who punishes violently those who reject the divine offer of love. There is still a tension between these parabolic endings and the divine image presented in Matt 5:44-48 and with that of the resurrected Jesus following his execution. In the resurrection appearances he says not a word about those who perpetrated the violence or the punishment they will meet, but only encourages his disciples not to be afraid (28:10), assures them of his presence with them, and sends them out to proclaim the gospel to all (28:19-20). In the human arena, how we resolve this issue is crucial. If God punishes evildoers violently, then humans in positions of power may read the gospel as giving divine approbation to their meting out violent punishment, and even execution, to those judged as evildoers.

E. The Consequences of Choosing Violent Retaliation over Forgiveness

One other explanation for the final violent consequences suffered by evildoers is not that God actively metes out this punishment, but that those who refuse to imitate the gratuitous, unearned, love of God choose instead to fuel the cycles of violence, thus by their choice, become a victim to this violence themselves. In the parable of forgiveness aborted (18:23-35) the forgiven servant is expected to understand the king’s behavior and to replicate it. Disciples of Jesus, like the forgiven slave in the parable, owe everything to God. The debt is beyond what can ever be paid, and it has all been eliminated by Jesus. The only response to such mercy is to let it transform one’s heart and so be able to act with the same kind of mercy toward others. Though the king in the parable may act this way for self-aggrandizement, God does it for the well-being of all creation. A different kind of power is at work in Jesus and his disciples: instead of gaining honor through avenging wrongs with violence and vengeance, Jesus shows the way of power through vulnerability. Potency is evident in willingness to forego vengeance and to engage in the hard work of reconciliation. Such depends on a transformation of heart (18:35) that impels one to begin from a stance of willingness to forgive when wronged. If disciples do not learn to imitate these godly ways in their dealings with one another, then they can expect to be treated by God with their own preferred method. Typical of Matthew, he is ever insistent on the ethical demands of discipleship. Forgiveness is freely given by God, but the price tag is to go and do likewise. One who fails to do so continues to fuel cycles of violence, of which such a one will, in turn, become victim. Akin to this line of interpretation is Jesus’ warning to his disciples at his arrest, "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (26:52).

Conclusion

The portrayal of God in the violent endings of Matthew’s parables presents a disturbing clash with the depiction of God who exercises boundless, nonreciprocated love in Matt 5:44-48. How we resolve this tension carries important consequences for how disciples understand what it means to be a child of God. Which manner of divine action is to be imitated? How are disciples to respond to violence directed at them? The willingness to forgive when victimized and to act toward all as neighbor is a choice—not a neutral one, but one that carries weighty consequences not only in the human realm, but for all eternity.

1.  A metaphor for suffering and death, found especially in the prophets to describe the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of its leaders in the early sixth century B.C.E.(Jer 25:15; 49:12; 51:7; Lam 4:21; Ezek 23:32-33; Isa 51:17).

2.  For a sketch of seven different lines of interpretation of this difficult saying, see W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison Jr., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997) 2.254-55.

3.This is the meaning most often found in Greek literature. See BDAG, 175-76, and the persuasive arguments and references given by G. Schrenk, biavzomai, TDNT 1 (1964) 614. As a passive biavzetai denotes the violence done to the basileiva tw`n oujranwn, not a middle voice denoting the action done by the basileiva tw`n oujranwn. So W. Carter, Matthew and the Margins (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2000) 589 n. 9; Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (SacPag1; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1991) 157; D. Senior, Matthew (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) 128; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (AB28A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985) 1118, et al.

4.  While it seems that there is a certain tension between Matt 11:11, which places John in a different age from those who belong to the basileiva tw`n oujranw`n, and Matt 11:12, which speaks of him as one in the basileiva who has suffered violence (Harrington, Matthew, 157), a case can be made for reading ajpov inclusively, so that both John and Jesus belong to the same period of salvation history (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.254).

5.  Senior, Matthew, 128.

6.  See BDAG, 134 for further references for this sense of aJrpavzw, and Schrenk, TDNT 1 (1964) 611, who shows that this is especially so when used with biavzesqai. Another possible translation of aJrpavzousin is "take it by force" (NRSV) or "seize or claim for oneself" (BDAG, 134). The sense of the saying would be that God’s rule is entering the world with explosive power, and belongs only to those who contend for it (Keener, Matthew, 339). However, this explanation does not deal adequately with the meaning of biasthv~, which ordinarily means "violator," one who "achieves his desires by theft" (Schrenk, 614) and with the persuasive arguments of Schrenk and others that basileiva tw`n oujranw`n is the object of biavzesqai, taken as a passive, not the active agent of the verb.

7.  BDAG, 176; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1114; NRSV footnote. Alternatively, biavzetai can be taken as an active verb in the middle voice, translated "presses in," that is, every one is assured an unhampered entry into the reign of God (Schrenk, TDNT 1.612). Other possible nuances include "takes (or tries to take) it by force (BDAG, 175; NRSV), "everyone is forcing their way into it," (NJB), or "everyone who enters does so with violence" (NAB).

8.  As already noted, the term biavzetai, "suffer violence" occurs only at Matt 11:12. In examining the possible responses to violence in Matthew, I will include passages that describe responses toward aggressors, enemies, evildoers, and persecutors.

9. There is also a reference to flight when John the Baptist questions Pharisees and Sadducees: "Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?" John rather admonishes them to produce fruit worthy of repentance (3:7-10).

10.  Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 185. See also Eph 6:13, where the metaphor implies military usage.

11. Wink, Engaging the Powers, 184-86. Similarly, Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 151.

12.  Carter (Matthew and the Margins, 154) notes that an "enemy" is anyone who is not one’s own, whether personal foe, foreigner, or national opponent.

13.  Douglas Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions of his Day (SBEC8; Lewiston/Queenston: Mellen, 1986) 122-23, suggests instead that the parable tells of the undoing of an exploitive landowner whose plan is foolishly optimistic and greedy. The slaves cheer as the landowner’s exploitation is curtailed by the sabotage of a rival from the same landed class.

14.  So John J. Pilch, The Cultural World of Jesus. Sunday by Sunday. Cycle A (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1995) 112-14.

15. In order to link this parable with "love your enemies" is would be necessary to understand the non-retaliation as a deliberate action meant to break the cycles of enmity, not as passive inaction.

16. The Jerusalem Bible translation of v. 48, "set no bounds on your love as your heavenly Father sets no bounds on his love" captures best this nuance of tevleio", which connotes "wholeness, completeness," not unattainable perfection.]

17.  Other Matthean references to evil or the evil one (oJ ponhrov~) include: the evil one as the source of false oaths (5:37); disciples are taught to pray for deliverance from evil or the evil one (6:13); the evil one snatches what is sown in the heart (13:19). People who are evil, yet know how to give good things to their children are compared with God who knows all the more how to give good (7:11); Jesus tells his disciples that they can tell true and false prophets by their fruits: a good tree will bear good fruit, but a bad tree bears evil fruit (7:17); a good tree cannot bear evil fruit (7:18); scribes think evil in their hearts (9:4); Jesus accuses Pharisees of being evil, unable to speak good things because "the evil person brings evil things out of an evil treasure" (12:34-35). An evil generation asks for a sign (12:39; 16:4). "This evil generation" is warned that their situation is like that of a person who has been reinhabited by an exorcised unclean spirit that brings back seven other spirits more evil than itself (12:45); Jesus explains to the disciples that evil intentions that come out of the mouth from the heart are what defile, not what enters the mouth (15:19); the workers in vineyard who grumbled about their wages are accused of having an evil eye (20:15); Jesus warns his disciples that if their eye is evil then the whole body will be full of darkness (6:23).

18.  The only other times in which oJ diavbolo" appears in Matthew are in the scene of Jesus’ testing (4:5, 8, 11) and at 25:41, where the accursed are sent off to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. There are three references to satana'": Jesus address the devil as satana'" at the conclusion of the testing (4:10), as also Peter when he is a stumbling block (skavndalon,16:23). In his confrontation with the Pharisees about the source of his power to exorcise demons, he quizzes them on how Satan could cast out Satan (12:26).

19.  The term ajnomiva is unique to Matthew among the gospels. It appears in Matt 7:23; 13:41; 23:38; 24:12. In the last instance, the context is Jesus speaking of the signs of the end of the age and the persecution that will ensue. One of the consequences of an increase in ajnomiva is that "the love of many will grow cold" (24:12). In light of 5:44 the saying in 24:12 is an observation that intensification of persecution results in increased difficulty in loving enemies in the manner of nonviolent confrontation.

20.  Matthew’s predilection for fire is evident in his frequent use of pu`r: 3:10, 11, 12; 5:22; 7:19; 13:40, 42, 50; 17:15; 18:8, 9; 25:41.

21.  This favorite phrase of Matthew occurs six times: 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30.

22. Unique to Matthew’s version is the expression kakou;" kakw`" (v. 41) and the saying about giving the reign of God to a nation producing the fruits of it (v. 43). Cf. Mark (12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19.

23.  Luke does not characterize the invitees as evil and good. The emphasis at Luke 14:23 is on compelling all from the highways and hedges to come in.

24.  Matthew adds the descriptive kako;" in v. 48 (cf. Luke 12:45). He has the slave put with the hypocrites (uJpokritw`n) rather than the unfaithful (ajpivstwn, cf. Luke 12:46) and adds his favorite phrase, "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (v. 51).

25.  Matthew adds ojknhrev (v. 26; cf. Luke 19:22) as well as v. 30, which further characterizes the slave as worthless and adds his stock phrase for punishment.

26.  See Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "A Peasant Reading of the Parable of the Talents/Pounds: A Text of Terror?" BTB 23 (1993) 32-39; B. Malina and R. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992)149-50; William R. Herzog II, The Parables as Subversive Speech (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994) 150-68.

27. See Oakman, Economic Questions, 122-23.

28. Bearing good fruit is a prominent Matthean theme, occurring at 3:9, 10; 7:17, 18, 19; 12:33; 13:23; 21:19; 26:29.