Coming From All Directions

(Matt. 8:11-12; Luke 13:28-29)

(Huck 46, 165; Aland 85, 211; Crook 89, 250-251)^[1]

אָמֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָכֶם מְרוּבִּים יָבֹאוּ מִמִּזְרָח וּמִמַּעֲרָב מִצָּפוֹן וּמִיָּם וְיָסֵבּוּ עִם אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב בְּמַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ מֻשְׁלָכִים לַחֹשֶׁךְ בַּחוּץ שָׁם תִּהְיֶה בְּכִיָּה וְחֵירוּק הַשִּׁנַּיִם

“Indeed! I tell you, many will come from east and west and north and south and recline at the banquet with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven. But you will be thrown into the darkness outside, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth.^[2]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Coming From All Directions click on the link below:

“Banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven” complex

Man with Edema ・ Open Invitation ・ Great Banquet parable ・ Closed Door ・ Coming From All Directions ・ First and Last ・ Waiting Maidens parable

Story Placement

The authors of Matthew and Luke place their respective versions of Coming From All Directions in entirely different contexts. In Matthew Coming From All Directions occurs within the story of the Centurion’s Slave and is presented as a commentary on the faith Jesus had found lacking in Israel but had encountered in a Gentile centurion. Scholars have long suspected that the Matthean context of Coming From All Directions is artificial,^[3] and with this judgment we concur. Not only is the saying in the Matthean context apropos of nothing (why should one Gentile’s faith in Jesus’ ability to heal his slave cause the entire people of Israel to be rejected?),^[4] but inserting smaller pericopae into larger ones was one of the author of Matthew’s redactional habits.^[5]

In Luke’s Gospel Coming From All Directions belongs to a discourse of Jesus given in answer to the question “Will only a few be saved?” As with Matthew’s placement, many scholars have suspected that the Lukan setting is contrived. The question appears to have been formulated in order to give an occasion for the discourse that follows, but the parts of the discourse (Narrow Gate, Closed Door and Coming From All Directions) do not completely gel, despite evident redactional activity to help them do so.^[6]

Nevertheless, despite the superficial differences between the Lukan and Matthean placements of Coming From All Directions, there are strong indications both authors knew the pericope order still found in Luke.^[7] This is because, despite the different contexts in which they appear, both Luke and Matthew agree on the general order Narrow Gate→Closed Door→Coming From All Directions, and because both Gospels place these pericopae in relatively close proximity. In Matthew Narrow Gate and Closed Door appear in Matt. 7 as pericopae in the final section of the Sermon on the Mount, while Coming From All Directions occurs only a few verses later in Matt. 8, where it is embedded in Centurion’s Slave. In Luke, on the other hand, the three pericopae appear as a single unit. Thus we may surmise that in the Anthology (Anth.), the pre-synoptic source that, according to Lindsey’s hypothesis, ultimately stands behind all Double Tradition (DT) pericopae, these three pericopae were already grouped together. The author of Matthew, in accordance with his usual editorial methods, wove this Anth. block of sayings into the Sermon on the Mount and the pericopae that followed shortly thereafter. Luke, on the other hand, preserves the block of sayings in Anth.’s order,^[8] but not entirely in Anth.’s form. Someone (we will discuss who in the Conjectured Stages of Transmission section below) evidently attempted to impose unity on the sayings by framing them as an answer to a disciple’s question and by altering the wording so as to better integrate the parts into a single discourse.

Prior to the Anthologizer’s reordering of the pericopae in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua, where did Coming From All Directions belong? We think Coming From All Directions really was the continuation of Closed Door, and therefore the trouble taken in Luke to bind these pericopae more tightly together is somewhat ironic. But since Closed Door and Coming From All Directions had been removed from their original context and lumped together with Narrow Gate to form a collection of sayings about exclusion, it was no longer obvious to a reader of Anth. how Closed Door and Coming From All Directions were related. Instead of forming part of a discourse regarding the number of those to be saved opening with Narrow Gate (Luke’s order), we believe Closed Door and Coming From All Directions were the continuation of the Great Banquet parable, which Jesus delivered to an ambivalent or hostile audience.

In the Great Banquet parable Jesus described how a householder invited certain persons to a feast, but instead of responding positively to the invitation, the guests made excuses to stay away. Others, therefore, were invited in their place. Next, in Closed Door, Jesus identified the unresponsive guests as his audience by incorporating them into the parable. Having been made jealous by those who did respond to the invitation, the original guests show up and beg for admittance. “But the householder will say to you, ‘I don’t know where you come from. Away with you, all you workers of iniquity!’” Then, in Coming From All Directions, Jesus wraps up the application of the parable. People from all over will come in response to the invitation to take part in the Kingdom of Heaven, but you—the hostile or ambivalent audience Jesus addressed—will be left out in the dark.

For an overview of the “Banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven” complex, the context to which we believe Coming From All Directions originally belonged, click here.

.

.

Click here to view the Map of the Conjectured Hebrew Life of Yeshua.

.

.

Conjectured Stages of Transmission

Like all DT pericopae, the author of Matthew took Coming From All Directions from Anth. It appears that he only lightly^[9] —albeit diabolically^[10] —edited the wording of his source in order to transform it into an anti-Jewish declaration.

Our supposition that Luke’s placement of Coming From All Directions together with Narrow Gate and Closed Door agrees with the order of Anth. might be taken as evidence that the author of Luke, like Matthew, based his version of Coming From All Directions on Anth. But there are several reasons for attributing Luke’s version of Coming From All Directions to the First Reconstruction (FR), which Lindsey described as a stylistically improved epitome of Anth.^[11] First, the relatively low level of verbal identity between the Lukan and Matthean versions of Coming From All Directions is an indication that the author of Luke worked from FR.^[12] Second, the framing of Narrow Gate, Closed Door and Coming From All Directions as a discourse concerning the number of those to be “saved” touches a theme (salvation) that recurs in other FR pericopae.^[13] Third, the inverted order of Coming From All Directions in Luke in comparison to the Matthean version is a phenomenon that also occurs in The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing, another pericope we have attributed to FR, so the turning inside out of certain sayings of Jesus seems to have been a redactional technique of the First Reconstructor.^[14] Moreover, we have attributed the Lukan versions of Narrow Gate and Closed Door to FR and, since the author of Luke tended to copy his material in blocks, it is altogether likely that Coming From All Directions came from FR too.

Crucial Issues

1. Who are “the sons of the kingdom” Matthew mentions?
2. Who are the people that come from east and west?
3. Where does the weeping and gnashing of teeth take place?
4. Is Coming From All Directions anti-Jewish?

Comment

L1 ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς (Luke 13:28). The moment one begins the attempt to reconstruct the pre-synoptic version of Coming From All Directions from which both the Lukan and Matthean versions ultimately stem, one is confronted with the question, whose ordering of the saying is original?^[15] Some have argued that Luke’s somewhat disjointed order is original and that Matthew’s more unified and self-contained version is a stylistic improvement.^[16] But we think it is more likely that it was the First Reconstructor who rearranged the saying in order to fuse it to the preceding pericope. Had the author of Matthew known Coming From All Directions in its Lukan form, he would have found it difficult to extract it from its Anth. context. But as we have seen, the author of Matthew had no difficulty separating Narrow Gate from Closed Door and Closed Door from Coming From All Directions in order to parcel them out in chapters 7 and 8 of his Gospel.^[17]

Sensing that Coming From All Directions could easily be separated from the pericopae that preceded it in Anth. (see below, Comment to L9),^[18] the First Reconstructor reordered the saying so as to bind it more closely with Closed Door, just as he had changed “gate” to “door” in Narrow Gate in order to fuse Narrow Gate to Closed Door. To accomplish his purpose, the First Reconstructor opened his version of Coming From All Directions with the clause beginning with the adverb ἐκεῖ (ekei, “there”), which in its new position must refer back to ἔξω (exō, “outside”) in Closed Door (L7), namely “There [outside the closed door] there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”^[19] This move was clever, since in Anth.’s version, too, ἐκεῖ referred back to an ἔξω, but the ἔξω to which Anth.’s version referred was the darkness outside into which the audience Jesus addresses will be thrown (Coming From All Directions, L19).

Having opened with “There [outside the closed door] there will be weeping, etc.,” it became necessary for the First Reconstructor to add the temporal phrase “when you see” (L3)^[20] and to mention the patriarchs being “in the Kingdom of God” (L5) in contrast to “you being thrown outside” (L6-8) before describing the influx of people from all points of the compass to recline in the Kingdom (L9-15). Thus it was the First Reconstructor’s rearranging of the saying that required the Kingdom of God to be mentioned twice (L5, L15)^[21] and that resulted in the distancing of the patriarchs from those who participate in the banquet (since it is never stated in Luke’s version of Coming From All Directions that the patriarchs recline with the other guests). Another effect of the First Reconstructor’s reordering of the saying is that it concludes on a positive note, whereas Matthew’s version ends with weeping and gnashing of teeth. Since the author of Matthew reused this image of weeping and gnashing at the end of other sayings (see below, Comment to L17-20), it is likely that he found this image as the conclusion of Coming From All Directions in Anth. too, for this would mimic his treatment of Sermon’s End, which he found at the end of an Anth. discourse and proceeded to use at the end of several other discourses.^[22]

L2-8 Having determined that Matthew’s order of Coming From All Directions is original, we will restrict comments in L2-8 to Lukan material that has no parallel in the Matthean version.

L3 ὅταν ὄψησθε Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ (Luke 13:28). As we noted above in Comment to L1, we regard the temporal phrase ὅταν ὄψησθε (hotan opsēsthe, “when you see”) as a redactional insertion, which the First Reconstructor added to Coming From All Directions to allow him to rearrange its order. Having moved the weeping and gnashing of teeth to the beginning of the saying, the First Reconstructor had to provide a reason for this behavior. His solution was to make it the sight of the patriarchs in the Kingdom of God that provoked this reaction. Although some such mechanism was necessary for the reordering of the saying, the decision to have the addressees “see” Abraham and the others from where they were thrown out was probably not haphazard. As Harnack noted, this reworking of Coming From All Directions is reminiscent of the Rich Man and Lazar parable, in which the rich man looks up from Hades and sees Lazarus tucked in Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:23).^[23] We have yet to determine from which source (Anth. or FR) the author of Luke copied the Rich Man and Lazar parable, but the resistance of some parts of the parable to Hebrew retroversion and the proximity of this parable (Luke 16:19-31) to an FR “string of pearls” (Luke 16:16-18) may hint that Rich Man and Lazar stems from FR. If so, then the First Reconstructor may have been thinking of this parable when he wrote “when you see Abraham, etc.” in Coming From All Directions.

L4 καὶ πάντας τοὺς προφήτας (Luke 13:28). Luke’s version of Coming From All Directions includes “all the prophets” along with the patriarchs who are seen in the Kingdom of God, whereas in Matthew’s version the prophets are not mentioned. Flusser believed the author of Matthew omitted “and all the prophets,” not intentionally but because the author of Matthew could often be sloppy when redacting a written source.^[24] The reason Flusser thought “all the prophets” was original to the saying is that both 5 Ezra and Justin Martyr include the prophets together with the patriarchs in depictions of the final redemption that are similar to Coming From All Directions:^[25]

Thus says the Lord Almighty: Your house is desolate; I will drive you out as the wind drives straw…. I will give your houses to a people that will come, who without having heard me will believe. Those to whom I have shown no signs will do what I have commanded. …look with pride and see the people coming from the east; to them I will give as leaders Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and Hosea and Amos and Micah and Joel and Obadiah and Jonah and Nahum and Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, who is also called the messenger of the Lord. …Thus says the Lord to Ezra: “Tell my people that I will give them the kingdom of Jerusalem, which I was going to give Israel. Moreover, I will take back to myself their glory, and will give to these others the everlasting habitations, which I had prepared for Israel.” (5 Ezra 1:33, 35, 38-40; 2:10-11; RSV)

And Trypho…replied, “…[D]o you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, will be rebuilt; and do you expect your people [τὸν λαὸν ὑμῶν] to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation [τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους], and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?”

Then I [i.e., Justin] answered, “I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place….” (Dial. §80)^[26]

Flusser is certainly correct that these two passages evince the same type of anti-Jewish replacement theology that is present in Matthew’s version of Coming From All Directions and other redactional portions of Matthew’s Gospel. The declaration in 5 Ezra that “I will give them the kingdom of Jerusalem, which I was going to give Israel” is remarkably similar to Matthew’s “but the sons of the Kingdom will be thrown out” (Matt. 8:12), as well as to his addition to the Wicked Tenants parable that “the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation producing its fruits” (Matt. 21:43). Likewise, Trypho’s summary of Justin’s opinion (viz., that the Christians will be gathered together with the righteous of Israel before Christ came, but that the Jewish people since the coming of Christ will be excluded) has strong affinities with Matthew’s version of Coming From All Directions. But does the fact that Justin and the author of 5 Ezra include the prophets together with the patriarchs and the ingathered Christians prove that the prophets are an original part of Jesus’ saying? We think not. Justin and the author of 5 Ezra probably conflated the Matthean and Lukan versions of Coming From All Directions, and for that reason included the prophets.

It is difficult to believe that the author of Matthew would have omitted the prophets, even accidentally, if they had been mentioned in Anth., since the author of Matthew had a particular interest in the prophets whose prophecies (in his view) were fulfilled by the events in Jesus’ life. Moreover, it cannot escape our notice that Luke’s phrasing in L4 strongly resembles other redactional additions, such as καὶ πᾶν λάχανον (kai pan lachanon, “and every garden herb”; Luke 11:42 [cf. Matt. 23:23]) and καὶ πάντα τὰ δένδρα (kai panta ta dendra, “and all the trees”; Luke 21:29 [cf. Matt. 24:32 ∥ Mark 13:28]),^[27] which occur in FR pericopae. We therefore attribute the reference to “all the prophets” in Luke’s version of Coming From All Directions to the First Reconstructor’s redactional activity.^[28]

L9 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι (GR). If Anth.’s version of Coming From All Directions had opened with “Amen! I say to you…,” it would be easy to understand why the First Reconstructor thought Coming From All Directions could easily be separated from the two pericopae (Narrow Gate and Closed Door) that preceded it, and why he took measures to bind Coming From All Directions more tightly to Closed Door. The first of these measures would have been the omission of ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι (amēn legō hūmin hoti, “Amen! I say to you that…”).^[29] We discussed other measures the First Reconstructor took to bind Coming From All Directions to Closed Door above in Comment to L1.

Matthew’s version of Coming From All Directions opens with λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι (legō de hūmin hoti, “But I say to you that”; Matt. 8:11), but since the author of Matthew had just written ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (amēn legō hūmin) in the previous verse (Matt. 8:10), it is understandable that he might wish to omit ἀμήν (amēn) here in L9.

It is possible that Luke preserves an echo of Anth.’s wording in L9-10, not in his version of Coming From All Directions but in Luke’s version of Narrow Gate (L13), where we find the phrase πολλοί λέγω ὑμῖν (polloi legō hūmin, “Many, I say to you…”; Luke 13:24). In our commentary on Narrow Gate we noted that the words λέγω ὑμῖν (“I say to you”) seem out of place.^[30] Perhaps the First Reconstructor, seeing ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ ἥξουσιν κ.τ.λ. (“Amen! I say to you that many will come, etc.”) in Anth.’s version of Coming From All Directions, decided to move λέγω ὑμῖν up into his version of Narrow Gate, where the connecting word πολλοί (polloi, “many”) occurs, as yet another method of binding the unit consisting of Narrow Gate, Closed Door and Coming From All Directions more closely together.

אָמֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לָכֶם (HR). On reconstructing ἀμήν (amēn, “Amen!”) with אָמֵן (’āmēn, “Amen!”), see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L115.

On reconstructing λέγειν (legein, “to say”) with אָמַר (’āmar, “say”), see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L12.

L10 πολλοὶ (GR). Scholars are divided regarding whether the author of Luke omitted πολλοί (polloi, “many”) from Coming From All Directions or whether the author of Matthew added it.^[31] We think the presence of πολλοί in L10 may be one reason the Anthologizer lumped Narrow Gate together with Closed Door and Coming From All Directions, since πολλοί also occurred in Anth.’s version of Narrow Gate (L13). The First Reconstructor, on the other hand, would have been incentivized to remove πολλοί from Coming From All Directions, since his editorial work emphasized how few are those who will be saved (Narrow Gate, L6). Even when the First Reconstructor used the word “many” in Narrow Gate, it was only to emphasize that many will try but fail to gain entry. Therefore, to have “many” streaming into the Kingdom in Coming From All Directions would be contrary to the First Reconstructor’s redactional emphasis.^[32]

מְרוּבִּים (HR). The adjective מְרוּבֶּה (m^erūbeh, “many,” “numerous”) does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures but belongs rather to the Mishnaic Hebrew lexicon. Therefore, we cannot appeal to LXX to confirm our reconstruction. Nevertheless, מְרוּבֶּה is a semantic equivalent of πολύς (polūs, “many”) and is on that grounds a good candidate for HR. We have also reconstructed πολύς with מְרוּבֶּה in Narrow Gate (L13), Yeshua’s Discourse on Worry (L9) and “The Harvest Is Plentiful” and “A Flock Among Wolves” (L42).

L11 ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν (GR). The authors of Luke and Matthew agree to use the same words in L11, but they arrange them in a slightly different order. Luke’s word order reverts to Hebrew more easily than Matthew’s,^[33] so it is Luke’s order we have adopted for GR in L11.

יָבֹאוּ מִמִּזְרָח וּמִמַּעֲרָב (HR). In LXX the verb ἥκειν (hēkein, “to come,” “to be present”) usually occurs as the translation of בָּא (bā’, “come”),^[34] and although the LXX translators more frequently rendered בָּא with verbs such as ἔρχεσθαι (erchesthai, “to come”) or εἰσέρχεσθαι (eiserchesthai, “to enter”), there are more than a few instances in which the LXX translators rendered בָּא as ἥκειν,^[35] so we can be confident in our reconstruction and be reassured that it is not unusual that ἥκειν should have occurred, at least occasionally, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua.

In LXX most instances of ἀνατολή (anatolē, “rising,” “east”) occur as the translation either of קֶדֶם (qedem, “east”) or מִזְרָח (mizrāḥ, “east”), with מִזְרָח in the lead.^[36] Also, the LXX translators rendered nearly all instances of מִזְרָח as ἀνατολή.^[37] But we can be certain that our choice of מִזְרָח for HR is correct, because here Coming From All Directions alludes to Psalm 107.^[38] This Psalm praises the Lord for redeeming his people and gathering them from the lands:

וּמֵאֲרָצוֹת קִבְּצָם מִמִּזְרָח וּמִמַּעֲרָב מִצָּפוֹן וּמִיָּם

…and from the lands he gathered them, from east and from west, from north and from sea. (Ps. 107:3)

ἐκ τῶν χωρῶν συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν καὶ βορρᾶ καὶ θαλάσσης

…from the regions he gathered them, from east and west and north and sea. (Ps. 106:3)

The four directions mentioned in this verse seem to loosely correspond to the four sections of the Psalm that follow, each of which describes a different predicament Israel found itself in and from which the Lord delivered them. Thus, corresponding to “east” in verse 3 we read of those who wandered in the desert, hungry and without permanent homes, but they cried to the Lord, who sustained them with food and led them on a path to a city in which to dwell (Ps. 107:4-9). The details are vague, but they are reminiscent of Israel’s forty years in the desert, for God provided them with manna and quail when they cried out to be fed, and he brought them into the land from the east of the Jordan. Corresponding to “west” in verse 3 we read of those who sat in darkness as prisoners and were brought low with labor until they cried to the Lord in their distress and he brought them out and burst their bonds (Ps. 107:10-16). These details seem to echo the experiences of Joseph in Egypt, who was placed in prison, and of the Hebrew slaves whom the Lord brought out when their cry went up to him. Although on a map Egypt is south of Israel, it was traditionally thought of as lying to the west. “North” in verse 3 corresponds to fools who suffered the consequences of their sins, becoming unable to eat and drawing near to death until the Lord healed them (Ps. 107:17-22). Does this allude to the exile of the northern tribes? And “sea” in verse 3 corresponds to those who went down to the sea in ships and were caught in a terrible storm, which the Lord calmed when they called to him (Ps. 107:23-32). The rest of the Psalm praises the Lord for his mastery over nature and his sovereignty over human affairs, which he exercises for the protection and welfare of his people (Ps. 107:33-43).

This survey of Psalm 107 is necessary for two reasons. First, and most importantly, it is clear from our survey that the psalm does not concern an ingathering of Gentiles.^[39] In the psalm those who come from all directions are the Lord’s covenant people, Israel.^[40] Matthew’s insertion of Coming From All Directions into Centurion’s Slave is what creates the impression that Jesus’ saying referred to the ingathering of Gentiles and the rejection of Israel, but this impression, though intentional on the author of Matthew’s part, is false. There is no hint of such a meaning in Luke’s version of Coming From All Directions, and the allusion to Ps. 107:3 disproves the thesis that Jesus referred to the ingathering of Gentiles. Second, our survey of Ps. 107 shows, from the correspondence of “sea” in verse 3 with those who weathered a gale on the high seas (Ps. 107:23-32), that the suggestion (discussed below in Comment to L12) that “sea” in verse 3 is a scribal error is unlikely to be correct.

In LXX many instances of δυσμή (dūsmē, “going down,” “west”) refer to the setting of the sun, but when the reference is to a point on the compass, δυσμή usually occurs as the translation of מַעֲרָב (ma‘^arāv, “west”).^[41] The LXX translators rendered nearly all instances of מַעֲרָב as δυσμή.^[42] Once more, however, the allusion to Ps. 107:3, which refers to the west with מַעֲרָב, guarantees that our selection of this noun for HR is correct.

L12 καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ νότου (GR). Despite recognizing that Coming From All Directions alludes to Ps. 107:3, many scholars attribute the phrase “and from north and south” to Lukan redaction.^[43] Rather than recognizing that καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ νότου (kai apo borra kai notou, “and from north and south”) is a continuation of the allusion, these scholars claim that the author of Luke, on his own initiative, added these points of the compass in order to universalize the saying (i.e., to include Gentiles).^[44] Perhaps these scholars were led astray by the fact that Luke’s wording in L12 does not agree with LXX, which reads, καὶ βορρᾶ καὶ θαλάσσης (kai borra kai thalassēs, “and [from] north and sea[ward]”). Nevertheless, Luke’s wording in L12 does agree with an intelligent reading of the Hebrew text of Ps. 107:3, and should therefore be regarded as original to Jesus’ saying.^[45]

In Ps. 107:3 the LXX translators were faced with a conundrum. In Hebrew יָם (yām, “sea”), when used to indicate a direction, usually means “west,”^[46] since the largest sea closest to the land of Israel was the Mediterranean. In Ps. 107:3, however, וּמִיָּם (ūmiyām, “and from sea”) cannot mean “and from the west,” both because מַעֲרָב (“west”) had already been mentioned as the opposite of “east” and because “west” is not the opposite of “north,” with which יָם is coupled in the psalm. This left the LXX translators no option but to translate יָם literally as “sea,” since they did not realize that, in the context of the psalm, וּמִיָּם referred to the Gulf of Eilat, which lies to the south of Israel.^[47]

For several reasons it is unlikely that, as some scholars have suggested, וּמִיָּם (ūmiyām, “from the sea”) in Ps. 107:3 is a scribal corruption of an original text that read וּמִיָּמִין (ūmiyāmin, “and from the right [i.e., south]”).^[48] First, amending the text has no support from LXX or DSS.^[49] Second, as we saw in the previous comment, “from the sea” in Ps. 107:3 corresponds to the section of the psalm that describes how God delivered sailors from a storm on the high seas (Ps. 107:23-32). Third, the exact phrase מִצָּפוֹן וּמִיָּם (mitzāfōn ūmiyām, “from the north and from sea [i.e., south]”; LXX: καὶ…ἀπὸ θαλάσσης [kai…apo thalassēs, “and…from sea”]) is repeated in Isa. 49:12, and it is unlikely that the same confusing corruption would have occurred in two widely separated contexts.^[50]

But even if the LXX translators did not realize that in the context of Ps. 107 וּמִיָּם (“and from sea”) means “and from the south,” other interpreters did. We therefore find in the Psalms Targum that targumists interpreted Ps. 107:3 as “from the east and from the west, from the north and from the southern sea.”^[51] Similarly, it appears the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua correctly rendered וּמִיָּם from Jesus’ allusion to Ps. 107:3 as καὶ νότου (kai notou, “and [from] south”). Thus Luke’s non-conformity with LXX is strong evidence that his source is based on a translation independent of LXX.

Flusser believed Matthew’s omission of καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ νότου (kai apo borra kai notou, “and from north and south”) was simply due to redactional sloppiness,^[52] but it could also be that he omitted “and from north and south” out of a desire for brevity. In any case, his omission of “and from north and south” suggests that the author of Matthew did not recognize the allusion to Ps. 107:3. Undoubtedly, the non-Septuagintal rendering of the psalm in Coming From All Directions made the identification more difficult for him, since evidently the author of Matthew did not know Hebrew.

מִצָּפוֹן וּמִיָּם (HR). In LXX most instances of βορρᾶς (borras, “north”) occur as the translation of צָפוֹן (tzāfōn, “north”).^[53] We also find that the LXX translators rendered nearly all instances of צָפוֹן as βορρᾶς.^[54] In any case, our choice for HR could hardly be otherwise, since the saying alludes to Ps. 107:3, which refers to the north as צָפוֹן.

Likewise, our reconstruction of νότος (notos, “south”) with יָם (yām, “sea”) is determined by the allusion to Ps. 107:3, even though in LXX νότος usually occurs as the translation of נֶגֶב (negev), דָּרוֹם (dārōm), קָדִים (qādim) or תֵּימָן (tēmān), but never as יָם.^[55] As we noted above, the Greek translator of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua correctly understood that the sea referred to in Ps. 107:3 was the Gulf of Eilat, and accordingly rendered “sea” as “south.”

We also noted above that the phrase מִצָּפוֹן וּמִיָּם occurs not only in Ps. 107:3 but also in Isa. 49:12. Since these are the only two instances of this phrase in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is possible that in Coming From All Directions Jesus intertwined these two verses by means of gezerah shavah, an exegetical technique of combining widely separated verses based on distinctive shared vocabulary, which Jesus employed in other sayings as well.^[56] In order to show how and why Jesus might have combined these verses, we present them side-by-side:

Psalm 107:3	Isaiah 49:12
	הִנֵּה אֵלֶּה מֵרָחוֹק יָבֹאוּ
	Behold! / These / from afar / will come.
וּמֵאֲרָצוֹת קִבְּצָם
And from [the] lands / he gathered them,
מִמִּזְרָח וּמִמַּעֲרָב
from east / and from west,
מִצָּפוֹן וּמִיָּם	וְהִנֵּה אֵלֶּה מִצָּפוֹן וּמִיָּם
from north / and from sea [i.e., south].	And behold! / These / from north / and from sea [i.e., south]
	וְאֵלֶּה מֵאֶרֶץ סִינִים
	and these / from [the] land of / Sinim.

As Gundry noted, Isa. 49:12 may have supplied the crucial term “they will come” in Coming From All Directions.^[57] If so, Coming From All Directions once again shows independence from LXX, since the LXX translators rendered יָבֹאוּ (yavo’ū, “they will come”) in Isa. 49:12 as ἔρχονται (erchontai, “they come”), not as ἥξουσιν (hēxousin, “they will come”), the verb found in the Lukan and Matthean versions of Coming From All Directions (L11).

But what would have been the point of combining these two verses? The verse in Isaiah occurs in a context that describes the ingathering of Israel in an עֵת רָצוֹן (‘ēt rātzōn, “a time of favor”; Isa. 49:8). The Isaian concept of “a time of favor” is reminiscent of “the year of the Lord’s favor” (שְׁנַת רָצוֹן לַיי; Isa. 61:2), which Jesus claimed it was his anointed task to proclaim (Luke 4:16-21). By alluding to Isa. 49:12 and its larger context Jesus may have wanted to communicate to his hostile or ambivalent audience that they were excluding themselves, by their unresponsiveness to Jesus’ message, from the Lord’s favor. The result would be that God’s promises would indeed be fulfilled to Israel, but the particular individuals Jesus addressed would sadly find themselves outside the scope of God’s redemption.^[58]

L13 καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται (GR). Since Luke and Matthew agree on the wording of L13, we can be confident that Anth. too read, καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται (kai anaklithēsontai, “and they will recline”).

וְיָסֵבּוּ (HR). The verb ἀνακλίνειν (anaklinein, “to recline”) only occurs once in LXX (3 Macc. 5:16), so we cannot appeal to LXX to justify our reconstruction, but in Call of Levi (L26) we reconstructed the synonymous verb ἀνάκεισθαι (anakeisthai, “to recline”) with הֵסֵב (hēsēv, “recline”), and this Hebrew verb is the best option for HR.^[59]

The reclining referred to here is the reclining for a festive meal. While the elite classes regularly reclined at mealtimes, ordinary folk generally reclined at table only on special occasions.^[60] Reclining at meals implied close fellowship and fraternity. Whereas a person might sit alone (cf. m. Ber. 6:6), those who reclined often shared a divan and ate from the same table (cf. m. Ned. 4:4) and even from the same dishes (cf. Matt. 26:23 ∥ Mark 14:20; Luke 22:17).^[61] The communal aspect of reclining at festive meals is part of what makes the reclining with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Matthew’s version of Coming From All Directions so appropriate.^[62] In Luke’s version the communal aspect of reclining is erased due to the redactional activity of the First Reconstructor. Luke’s version, which reads as though those who stream into the Kingdom from all directions recline in isolation, is not culturally appropriate.

L14 μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ (GR). Luke and Matthew agree on the names Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they place these names in different parts of the saying. Whereas Luke refers to seeing Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of God, Matthew refers to reclining with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. As we stated in the previous comment, Matthew’s depiction of a communal meal that the redeemed of the Lord (cf. Ps. 107:2) will enjoy with the patriarchs is probably original. For this reason we have accepted Matthew’s wording for GR.

עִם אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב (HR). On reconstructing μετά (meta, “with”) as עִם (‘im, “with”), see Call of Levi, Comment to L50.

On reconstructing Ἀβραάμ (Abraam, “Abraham”) with אַבְרָהָם (’avrāhām, “Abraham”), see Yohanan the Immerser Demands Repentance, Comment to L13.

In LXX the name of the patriarch Isaac, יִצְחָק (yitzḥāq), is always given as Ισαακ (Isaak),^[63] the form we encounter in the Lukan and Matthean versions of Coming From All Directions. Josephus, on the other hand, preferred the Hellenized form Ἴσακος (Isakos).^[64]

In LXX the name of the patriarch Jacob, יַעֲקֹב (ya‘^aqov), is always transliterated as Ιακωβ (Iakōb),^[65] whereas Josephus used the Hellenized form Ἰάκωβος (Iakōbos) to refer to the patriarch.^[66] In the Synoptic Gospels we encounter two forms of the name “Jacob,” Ιακωβ usually being reserved for the patriarch,^[67] while Ἰάκωβος is used for contemporaries of Jesus.^[68] The tendency to reserve the form Ιακωβ for the patriarch is also encountered in books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.

L15 ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν (GR). Whereas most scholars regard Luke’s “Kingdom of God” as original and Matthew’s “Kingdom of the Heavens” as redactional,^[69] we believe Matthew’s more Hebraic “Kingdom of the Heavens” preserves the wording of Anth., and that the First Reconstructor changed this idiomatic Jewish expression to “Kingdom of God,” which could be more easily understood by non-Jewish readers.^[70]

בְּמַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם (HR). On reconstructing ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (hē basileia tōn ouranōn, “the kingdom of the heavens”) with מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם (malchūt shāmayim, “the Kingdom of Heaven”), see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, Comment to L39.

What is meant by “the Kingdom of Heaven” in this saying is difficult to determine, although it is the key to understanding the entire pericope. By “Kingdom of Heaven” Jesus usually meant one (or more) of three things: 1) God’s redemptive activity in the present; 2) the community of Jesus’ full-time disciples through whom this redemptive activity was primarily taking place; and 3) the stage of redemption history that had begun with Jesus’ anointing by the Holy Spirit to do God’s redeeming work, a stage that would continue until the final redemption. On rare occasions, however, Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven as though it were synonymous with the final redemption (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:16, 18). Notably, these rare instances involve eating (the Passover lamb; Luke 22:16) or drinking (wine; Matt. 26:29 ∥ Mark 14:25 ∥ Luke 22:18), as does Coming From All Directions.

One way to interpret Jesus’ saying is to suppose that he was speaking of the present. According to this view, Jesus rebuked his listeners for failing to participate in the Kingdom of Heaven by becoming his full-time disciples: You may decline my invitation, but others are heeding my call and flocking from all over to join my band of disciples. They have the honor of dining with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If this view is correct, then Jesus must have believed that his disciples enjoyed a sanctorum communio (“communion of the saints”) such that the patriarchs were spiritually present at their communal meals.^[71] A communion of the saints with the patriarchs is not inconceivable, since Jesus, in his dispute with the Sadducees about the resurrection, declared Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be in some sense already alive (Matt. 22:32 ∥ Mark 12:26-27 ∥ Luke 20:37-38).

Another way to interpret Jesus’ saying is to suppose that he spoke of the future. According to this view, the Kingdom of Heaven in Coming From All Directions refers to the final redemption when the resurrection of the dead and the ingathering of Israel will have taken place.^[72] Jesus envisions the patriarchs’ being physically present and feasting together with the redeemed of Israel from both past and present generations. The ten lost tribes will be restored, and the Jews of the diaspora will be gathered into the land, and there they will rejoice when all God’s promises are fulfilled and Israel’s faithfulness to the covenant is finally vindicated.

How are we to decide between these two interpretations? If we are correct in including Open Invitation (Luke 14:12-14) and the listener’s remark on the blessedness of those who will eat bread in the Kingdom of God (Luke 14:15) in Luke’s version of the Great Banquet parable (Luke 14:15-24) as pieces of the “Banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven” complex, then the scales are tipped somewhat in the direction of the second (eschatological) interpretation. In Open Invitation Jesus recommends honoring marginalized members of society (the poor and the physically disabled) by sharing table fellowship with them. Although they cannot repay you now, Jesus explains, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous (Luke 14:14). In response to Jesus’ instruction, one of the guests blurts out his remark on the blessedness of eating bread in the Kingdom of God (Luke 14:15). Evidently, this listener equated the resurrection with the Kingdom of God/Heaven. Jesus’ use of the Kingdom of Heaven in Coming From All Directions was thus conditioned by the previous use of this term by a non-disciple. This probably accounts for Jesus’ uncharacteristic usage of Kingdom of Heaven as equivalent to the final redemption.

Nevertheless, it may be a mistake to draw too sharp a distinction between the present and future interpretations of Coming From All Directions. In his Mustard Seed and Starter Dough parables Jesus described the Kingdom of Heaven as increasing, spreading its transformative influence throughout the world. The complete transformation had yet to be achieved, but already the seed was planted, and what would be realized in the end was already inherent at the beginning. So perhaps Jesus did believe he and his followers already enjoyed communion with the saints in the present, a communion that would be fully realized at the resurrection. And perhaps Jesus saw his own band of disciples as the nucleus of Israel’s restoration. The ingathering was already beginning as Jesus and his emissaries rescued the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The very appointment of twelve apostles promised the restoration of Israel’s twelve tribes. On the other side of the coin, those who excluded themselves now from Jesus’ redemptive movement were ensuring by their present apathy that they would find themselves locked out of the eschatological banquet when Israel’s redemption was fully realized.^[73]

Whether the present or the future interpretation be correct, or some balancing of the two, Coming From All Directions combines two aspects of redemption we have encountered separately in other pericopae. On the one hand, Coming From All Directions envisions the restoration of the people of Israel through the ingathering of the diaspora and the resurrection of the patriarchs and probably also the resurrection of the lost tribes.^[74] On the other hand, the saying envisions the restoration of the land of Israel, since the people who flock into the Kingdom of Heaven converge in the place where Jesus and his audience are located, i.e., in the Holy Land.^[75] This spatial aspect of Jesus’ saying must be taken seriously.^[76] The banquet Jesus describes is not a “heavenly” banquet in the sense that it is held “in heaven.”^[77] Coming from east and west and north and south describes movement to a central location on a horizontal plane (i.e., movement from one terrestrial location to another), not movement from earth to heaven on a vertical plane. If the banquet were to be held in heaven, the guests would not come from all directions to a central location, but would simply ascend upward. The combining of these two aspects of redemption—the restoration of the people of Israel and the restoration of the land of Israel—in a single saying shows how deeply Jewish was Jesus’ concept of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is tied to the land and the people of Israel, but without the militant nationalism that so often accompanied apocalyptic visions of redemption.

Another aspect of Coming From All Directions that must not be overlooked is the social reckoning it envisions. The privileges enjoyed by the elite classes are nullified as those who flock into the Kingdom of Heaven, including both the economically marginalized (the poor and disabled) and the socially ostracized (toll collectors, sinners and other “lost sheep” of the house of Israel), rub shoulders with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Meanwhile, Jesus’ host and guests, who were both socially advantaged and religiously enfranchised, are excluded from the communion of saints and lose their seat at the table because they pooh-poohed Jesus’ call for radical social justice (tzedakah) as a correct response to the divine favor proclaimed to Israel through the Kingdom of Heaven. The reversal of fortunes Coming From All Directions envisions is in line with Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth, which called for good news to be proclaimed to the poor, freedom to prisoners, etc. (Luke 4:16-21), and also with the Beatitudes, which pronounced blessings on the poor, the hungry and the meek, but woes on the rich, the satisfied and the well-respected (Matt. 5:3-10; Luke 6:20-26). It is also in keeping with the Rich Man and Lazar parable, in which the beggar Lazarus is welcomed into Abraham’s bosom, but the rich man’s wealth and privilege cannot ransom him from torment in Hades (Luke 16:19-31).

Finally, we must refute the argument advanced by some scholars that Jesus’ saying must refer to the ingathering of Gentiles because it is ridiculous to suppose that Jesus would favor diaspora Jews over those living in the land of Israel.^[78] The fallacy of this argument is that it supposes that, according to Coming From All Directions, only Jews coming from the diaspora (i.e., those who come from east and west and north and south) will have a place at the banquet, whereas all Jews in the land of Israel will be rejected. But this is not what Coming From All Directions implies. In the first place, it is addressed to a specific audience, particular individuals who pooh-poohed Jesus’ message, it is not a general statement aimed against all Jews in the land of Israel. In the second place, even those within the borders of the Holy Land must come from north, south, east or west to recline at the table with the fathers. Distance is not the point of the saying but inclusiveness. “Many will come (viz., all those who respond to the invitation to participate in the Kingdom of Heaven)…but you (viz., the few who refuse the invitation) will be thrown into the darkness outside.”

L16 οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας (Matt. 8:12). The author of Matthew’s redaction has, however, transformed Coming From All Directions from a particular statement aimed at certain individuals into a categorical pronouncement, and turned a saying about the ingathering of Israel into a saying about the welcoming of the Gentiles. The author of Matthew achieved this transformation by changing the original address (“you,” i.e., the people at the dinner party who made light of Jesus’ message) to “the sons of the Kingdom” (i.e., the people of Israel) and by inserting Coming From All Directions into Centurion’s Slave. By making these changes the author of Matthew created a novel contrast between Jew and Gentile, such that the Gentiles become those who stream in from east and west to usurp the place of the “sons of the Kingdom,” i.e., Israel.^[79]

Some scholars have maintained that Matthew’s οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας (hoi huioi tēs basileias, “the sons of the kingdom”) is original,^[80] mainly on the grounds that this designation is “Semitic,”^[81] but it is by no means certain that “sons of the Kingdom” is a Semitism or even a pseudo-Semitism (i.e., coined in imitation of Semitic constructions).^[82] While it is true that Semitic languages can use “son” in the sense of “member” of a particular group (e.g., בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל [b^enē yisrā’ēl, “sons of Israel,” i.e., “members of the people of Israel”]; בְּנֵי בְּרִית [b^enē b^erit, “sons of the covenant,” i.e., “members of the covenant”]), it is also true that Greek used υἱός (huios, “son”) in civic titles meant to indicate membership and standing in political bodies. Scholars have noted such civic titles as υἱὸς τῆς πόλεως (huios tēs poleōs, “son of the city”), υἱὸς τοῦ δήμου (huios tou dēmou, “son of the popular assembly”), υἱὸς τῆς γερουσίας (huios tēs gerousias, “son of the council of elders”) and υἱὸς τοῦ δήμου καὶ βουλῆς (huios tou dēmou kai boulēs, “son of the popular assembly and the council of elders”), which appear on inscriptions and in official documents.^[83] Matthew’s οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας (“the sons of the Kingdom”) is formulated in the same style and spirit as these Greek civic titles;^[84] it refers to the people of Israel as citizens of God’s kingdom. But these citizens, according to the author of Matthew, are about to have their citizenship revoked. They are to be cast forth from the kingdom, and the Matthean church of believing Gentiles is to take its place.

Another reason some scholars have defended the originality of “sons of the Kingdom” in Coming From All Directions is that its meaning here (i.e., as a reference to Israel) contradicts its meaning in Darnel Among the Wheat (i.e., as a reference to Matthean Christians), where it is clearly redactional.^[85] Since, they argue, “sons of the Kingdom” in Coming From All Directions conflicts with the Matthean usage there, it must be original.^[86] But this logic is specious. The author of Matthew wanted his readers to understand that the original “sons of the Kingdom” have been rejected, but that the readers themselves are the new “sons of the Kingdom,” a nation that produces the fruit of the Kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 21:43).^[87] The difference in usage, in other words, is intentional.^[88] Israel lost its status as “sons of the Kingdom”; this honor is now enjoyed by the members of the Matthean church.

The fact that the title οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας (“the sons of the Kingdom”) is unique to the Gospel of Matthew (Matt. 8:12; 13:38),^[89] that it is uniquely expressive of the author of Matthew’s theology of Israel’s replacement by the (Matthean) church, and that the unqualified use of “the Kingdom” is characteristic of Matthean redaction^[90] all lead to the conclusion that Matthew’s wording in L16 is redactional.

The author of Matthew’s conception of the banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven is grotesque. How could Abraham, Isaac and Jacob rejoice with strangers and aliens when the people of Israel, their own flesh and blood, were consigned to damnation? It does not do, however, to attempt to make the author of Matthew’s imagery more palatable by claiming that Matthew teaches that “the Gentiles are eligible for the kingdom no less than the Jews,”^[91] that the Gentiles “are given equal place in the Kingdom,”^[92] that “those who have faith, Jew and gentile, will be gathered in,”^[93] or that “Matthew does no more than allow for the inclusion of Gentiles in the gathering of Israel.”^[94] Such whitewashing of the author of Matthew’s anti-Judaism fails on two scores: 1) it fails to take Matthew’s statements seriously, and 2) it fails to provide an antidote to the author of Matthew’s venomous theology.^[95] In doing so it allows Matthew’s anti-Judaism to persist, since there are those who will take Matthew’s statements seriously and be infected by them. Hatred cannot be confronted so long as it is denied. In his redacted version of Coming From All Directions the author of Matthew made it clear that he believed that his Gentile community would inherit the Kingdom instead of, not together with, the people of Israel.^[96] According to the author of Matthew, the rejection of Israel is categorical. Justin Martyr and the author of 5 Ezra understood Matthew correctly when they insisted that Israel had been dispossessed (see above, Comment to L4).

Rather than closing our eyes to the author of Matthew’s anti-Judaism, readers of Matthew’s Gospel have a responsibility to deal with it honestly by contextualizing it within the painful history of Christianity’s separation from Judaism. That history entailed mutual rejection and animosity, but at times also tolerance and mutual respect. Matthew’s Gospel is itself a testimony to that mixed history, containing both authentic Jewish material and highly charged anti-Jewish polemics.^[97]

ὑμεῖς δὲ (GR). The second-person plural address (“you”) in Luke’s version of Coming From All Directions fits our placement of this pericope in the “Banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven” complex, in which Jesus challenges the complacency of his host and fellow guests at a dinner party.^[98] Luke’s wording also is free of obvious tendentiousness (unlike Matthew’s parallel). However, it appears that the First Reconstructor put the second-person plural address into the accusative case as a result of introducing “when you see” in L3. This has the odd effect of Jesus’ audience not only seeing the patriarchs in the Kingdom of God, but also seeing themselves cast outside. For GR we have converted the second-person plural address to the nominative case.

וְאַתֶּם (HR). The LXX translators frequently rendered וְאַתֶּם (v^e’atem, “and you”) as ὑμεῖς δέ (hūmeis de, “but you”). In Genesis alone we encounter this translation in Gen. 9:7; 26:27; 42:16; 44:10, 17.

L17-20 Much like the epilogue to the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:28), which the author of Matthew took from Anth. but stereotyped into the conclusion of all five of his major discourses,^[99] the depiction of the condemned being cast out with weeping and gnashing of teeth is a recurring motif in Matthew’s Gospel.^[100] It appears not only in Coming From All Directions (Matt. 8:12), where the Lukan parallel shows it to be original, it also appears in Darnel Among the Wheat (Matt. 13:42), Bad Fish Among the Good (Matt. 13:50), the Great Banquet Parable (Matt. 22:13), Faithful or Faithless Slave (Matt. 24:51) and the Entrusted Funds parable (Matt. 25:30). None of these additional instances of the motif are paralleled in Luke or Mark.

The table below shows the similarities and differences in wording in the six Matthean passages where the casting out with weeping and gnashing of teeth occurs:

Matt. 8:12	Matt. 13:42	Matt. 13:50	Matt. 22:13	Matt. 24:51	Matt. 25:30
οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας				καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν	καὶ τὸν ἀχρεῖον δοῦλον
the / but / sons / of the / kingdom				and / he will cut in two / him	and / the / useless / slave
ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον	καὶ βαλοῦσιν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν κάμινον τοῦ πυρός	καὶ βαλοῦσιν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν κάμινον τοῦ πυρός	ἐκβάλετε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον	καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν θήσει	ἐκβάλετε εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον
will be thrown out / into / the / darkness / the / outer.	and / they will throw / them / into / the / furnace / of the / fire.	and / they will throw / them / into / the / furnace / of the / fire.	throw / him / into / the / darkness / the / outer.	and / the / piece / of him / with / the / hypocrites / he will put.	throw out / into / the / darkness / the / outer.
ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς	ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς	ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς	ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς	ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς	ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς
There / there will be / the / weeping	There / there will be / the / weeping	There / there will be / the / weeping	There / there will be / the / weeping	There / there will be / the / weeping	There / there will be / the / weeping
καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων	καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων	καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων	καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων	καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων	καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων
and / the / gnashing / of the / teeth.	and / the / gnashing / of the / teeth.	and / the / gnashing / of the / teeth.	and / the / gnashing / of the / teeth.	and / the / gnashing / of the / teeth.	and / the / gnashing / of the / teeth.

Where Matthew’s wording is the most consistent (marked in blue) it is most likely—though not guaranteed—to be based on Anth. On the other hand, at those places where the wording varies we must suspect the author of Matthew adapted the wording to suit the context. For instance, half of these passages refer to being cast “into the darkness,” but in the allegorical interpretation the author of Matthew composed for Darnel Among the Wheat, the author of Matthew omitted darkness and referred instead to “the furnace of fire” (Matt. 13:42), since the parable describes the darnel being burnt. And because Darnel Among the Wheat and Bad Fish Among the Good are twin parables, the author of Matthew also substituted “furnace of fire” for “darkness” (Matt. 13:50) in the allegorical interpretation he composed for Bad Fish Among the Good. Presumably, in these instances the author of Matthew substituted “darkness” with “furnace of fire” because he regarded darkness and fire to be mutually exclusive images.^[101] But his need to make such a substitution probably indicates that “darkness” was present in Anth. The omission of “darkness” in Matthew’s version of Faithful or Faithless Slaves was dictated by the author of Matthew’s source. The description of the slave being cut in two and being apportioned a place with the hypocrites (Matt. 24:51) / faithless (Luke 12:46) left no room for a reference to “darkness.” Instead of the outer darkness, the allotment of the wicked became the place of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Unlike the variation between “darkness,” which seems to be original, and other locations (i.e., “the furnace of fire” or “with the hypocrites”) that fluctuated according to context, the reference to “the sons of the Kingdom” stands out as unique among the stereotyped descriptions of the misery of the damned. That “sons of the Kingdom” is not paralleled in any of the other recurrences of the weeping and gnashing motif is one more reason to regard Matthew’s οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας with suspicion.

L17 ἔσεσθε ἐκβαλλόμενοι (GR). Luke and Matthew agree to use different forms of the verb ἐκβάλλειν (ekballein, “to throw out,” “to put out”), but whereas Matthew has a third-person plural verb, ἐκβληθήσονται (ekblēthēsontai, “they will be thrown out”), Luke has a participle, ἐκβαλλομένους (ekballomenous, “thrown out”). We think each evangelist preserves something of Anth.’s wording. Matthew’s third-person verb is an accommodation due to the author of Matthew’s change of the subject from “you” to “the sons of the Kingdom.” It is possible, however, that Anth. did have a second-person future verb. Luke’s accusative case is an accommodation by the First Reconstructor to his insertion of “when you see” in L3. It is possible, however, that Anth. did have a participial form of ἐκβάλλειν. How could Anth. have had both a second-person future verb and a participial form of ἐκβάλλειν? It could if Anth. had read, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθε ἐκβαλλόμενοι (hūmeis de esesthe ekballomenoi, “but you will be thrown out”). It would be understandable if the author of Matthew had changed future “to be” + participle to future verb at the same time as he changed the second-person address into the third person. Likewise, the First Reconstructor would have needed to drop ἔσεσθε (“you will be”) because of his insertion of ὅταν ὄψησθε (“when you see”) in L3. We will demonstrate why ἔσεσθε ἐκβαλλόμενοι in Anth. makes sense in the next section where we discuss HR for L17.

תִּהְיוּ מֻשְׁלָכִים (HR). In LXX ἐκβάλλειν (ekballein, “to throw out,” “to put out”) usually occurs as the translation of גֵּרֵשׁ (gērēsh, “drive out”),^[102] but there are several instances where ἐκβάλλειν translates verbs formed from the שׁ-ל-כ root, and once it occurs as the translation of שׁ-ל-כ in the hof‘al stem:

מַדּוּעַ הוּטֲלוּ הוּא וְזַרְעוֹ וְהֻשְׁלְכוּ עַל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדָעוּ

Why are he and his offspring hurled and cast [וְהֻשְׁלְכוּ; LXX: καὶ ἐξεβλήθη] upon a land that they did not know? (Jer. 22:28)

More often, the LXX translators rendered הֻשְׁלַךְ (hushlach, “be thrown”) with passive forms of ῥιπτεῖν (hriptein, “to throw”).^[122] Of particular interest for our purposes are the following examples of predictions of someone or something being thrown out:

וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה נִבְּאִים לָהֶם יִהְיוּ מֻשְׁלָכִים בְּחֻצוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם מִפְּנֵי הָרָעָב וְהַחֶרֶב

And the people to whom they prophesy will be thrown [יִהְיוּ מֻשְׁלָכִים] into the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword…. (Jer. 14:16)

καὶ ὁ λαός, οἷς αὐτοὶ προφητεύουσιν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔσονται ἐρριμμένοι ἐν ταῖς διόδοις Ιερουσαλημ ἀπὸ προσώπου μαχαίρας καὶ τοῦ λιμοῦ

And the people to whom they prophesy also will be thrown [ἔσονται ἐρριμμένοι] into the streets of Jerusalem from the face of the sword and of the famine. (Jer. 14:16)

לֹא יִהְיֶה לּוֹ יוֹשֵׁב עַל כִּסֵּא דָוִד וְנִבְלָתוֹ תִּהְיֶה מֻשְׁלֶכֶת לַחֹרֶב בַּיּוֹם וְלַקֶּרַח בַּלָּיְלָה

There will not be to him someone to sit on the throne of David, and his corpse will be thrown [תִּהְיֶה מֻשְׁלֶכֶת] into the heat by day and into the frost by night. (Jer. 36:30)

οὐκ ἔσται αὐτῷ καθήμενος ἐπὶ θρόνου Δαυιδ, καὶ τὸ θνησιμαῖον αὐτοῦ ἔσται ἐρριμμένον ἐν τῷ καύματι τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ ἐν τῷ παγετῷ τῆς νυκτός

There will not be to him someone to sit on the throne of David, and his corpse will be thrown [ἔσται ἐρριμμένον] in the heat of the day and in the frost of the night. (Jer. 43:30)

In these instances we find future verb + participle, just as in GR and HR. Although the Greek verb in these examples is different, these examples show us how to reconstruct “be thrown” in Hebrew and lend support to our reconstruction of Anth.’s wording.

On reconstructing εἶναι (einai, “to be”) with הָיָה (hāyāh, “be”), see Call of Levi, Comment to L30.

L18 εἰς τὸ σκότος ἔξω (GR). Above in Comment to L17-20 we saw that the phrase εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον (eis to skotos to exōteron, “into the outer darkness”) occurs in three of the six instances of the weeping and gnashing motif in Matthew’s Gospel (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). Darkness might have occurred in Matt. 13:42 and Matt. 13:50 as well, except that the author of Matthew felt that “darkness” was incompatible with “furnace of fire.” These repeated references in Matthew to darkness cause us to suspect that the author of Matthew picked up εἰς τὸ σκότος (eis to skotos, “into the darkness”) from Anth., even though Luke’s version of Coming From All Directions does not mention darkness.^[123] It could be that the First Reconstructor omitted εἰς τὸ σκότος because he thought this detail would be inconsistent with the addressees seeing themselves thrown outside, since it is hard to see in the dark. In any case, being cast into the darkness fits the imagery of the Waiting Maidens parable, which we believe was intended to illustrate Jesus’ teachings in Closed Door and Coming From All Directions, since the parable takes place at midnight and the maidens require torches to light their way.^[124]

Both Luke and Matthew refer in L18 to the “outside,” but whereas Luke has the adverb ἔξω (exō, “outside”), which modifies the participle ἐκβαλλομένους (“thrown out”), Matthew has the adjective ἐξώτερον (exōteron, “outer”), which modifies σκότος (“darkness”). Nevertheless, the Lukan-Matthean agreement to include some form of ἔξω ensures that something about “outside” must have occurred in Anth.^[125] Matthew’s “outer darkness” reminds us of the imprisonment of the fallen angels (cf. 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), but ἐξώτερον, a comparative adjective, is difficult to revert to Hebrew and could easily have been a Matthean “improvement,” perhaps made in light of the fallen angels tradition. Luke’s ἔξω, on the other hand, links Coming From All Directions to Closed Door, where the petitioners stand outside the door and knock, pleading to be admitted.^[126] Whether ἔξω occurs in Luke’s version of Closed Door because it was original (as we suppose) or because a redactor inserted it there in order to provide a link with Coming From All Directions, the presence of ἔξω in Closed Door is a strong argument for the originality of ἔξω in Coming From All Directions.^[127] Either the ἔξω connection was there all along or a redactor knew that ἔξω was present in Coming From All Directions and therefore took the trouble to add it to Closed Door.^[128]

לַחֹשֶׁךְ בַּחוּץ (HR). In LXX most instances of σκότος (skotos, “darkness”) occur as the translation of חשֶׁךְ (ḥoshech, “darkness”).^[129] Likewise, the LXX translators rendered most instances of חשֶׁךְ as σκότος.^[130] In MT it is more common to find the participle מֻשְׁלָךְ (mushlāch, “thrown”) followed by the preposition -בְּ (b^e–, “in”),^[131] but we find an example of -מֻשְׁלָךְ לְ in the following verse, which we already cited above in Comment to L17:

וְנִבְלָתוֹ תִּהְיֶה מֻשְׁלֶכֶת לַחֹרֶב בַּיּוֹם וְלַקֶּרַח בַּלָּיְלָה

And his corpse will be thrown [מֻשְׁלֶכֶת] into the heat [לַחֹרֶב] by day and into the frost [וְלַקֶּרַח] by night. (Jer. 36:30)

We also find examples of -מֻשְׁלָךְ לְ in rabbinic sources, for instance:

בשר ודם יש לו פטרון אמרו לו הרי נתפס בן ביתך אמר הרי אני מתקיים עליו אמרו לו הרי יוצא לידון אמר להן הרי אני מתקיים עליו אמרו לו הרי הוא מושלך למים היכן הוא והיכן פטרונו אבל הקב″ה הציל את יונה ממעי הדגה…הרי בשר ודם יש לו פטרון אמרו לו נתפס בן ביתך אמר להן הריני מתקיים תחתיו אמרו לו הרי הוא יוצא לידון אמר להן הריני מתקיים עליו אמרו לו הרי הוא מושלך לאש היכן הוא והיכן פטרונו. אבל הקב″ה אינו כן הציל לחנניה מישאל ועזריה מכבשן האש…הרי בשר ודם יש לו פטרון וכו′ עד הרי הוא מושלך לחיות. אבל הקב″ה הציל את דניאל מגוב אריות…

A mortal person has a protector. They said to him [i.e., to the protector], “Behold! A member of your house was arrested.” He said, “Behold! I am appointed over him [to protect him].” They said to him, “Behold! He is going out to be sentenced.” He said to them, “Behold! I am appointed over him [to protect him].” They said to him, “Behold! He is thrown into the water [מוּשְׁלָךְ לַמַּיִם] [to be executed by drowning].” Where is he [i.e., the mortal person] and where is his protector? But the Holy One, blessed is he, [is not like that], he delivered Jonah from the belly of the fish….

Behold! A mortal person has a protector. They said to him [i.e., to the protector], “Behold! A member of your house was arrested.” He said, “Behold! I am appointed under him [sic] [to protect him].” They said to him, “Behold! He is going out to be sentenced.” He said to them, “Behold! I am appointed over him [to protect him].” They said to him, “Behold! He is thrown into the fire [מוּשְׁלָךְ לָאֵשׁ] [to be executed by burning].” Where is he [i.e., the mortal person] and where is his protector? But the Holy One, blessed is he, is not like that, he delivered Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah from the furnace of fire….

Behold! A mortal person has a protector, etc. etc. “Behold! He is thrown to the wild animals [מוּשְׁלָךְ לַחַיּוֹת] [to be executed by mortal combat].” [etc.] But the Holy One, blessed is he, [is not like that], he delivered Daniel from the den of lions…. (y. Ber. 9:1 [63a])

On reconstructing ἔξω (exō, “outside”) with חוּץ (ḥūtz, “outside”), see Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers, Comment to L18. Just as we reconstructed with בַּחוּץ in Closed Door (L7), so we reconstruct with בַּחוּץ here in Coming From All Directions.

L19 ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς (GR). Since there is word-for-word agreement between Luke and Matthew in L19, we can be certain that they both reflect the wording of Anth. (in Luke’s case, via FR). We have therefore accepted their wording for GR.

שָׁם תִּהְיֶה בְּכִיָּה (HR). On reconstructing ἐκεῖ (ekei, “there”) with שָׁם (shām, “there”), see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L88.

On reconstructing εἶναι (einai, “to be”) with הָיָה (hāyāh, “be”), see above, Comment to L17.

In LXX most instances of κλαυθμός (klavthmos, “weeping”) occur as the translation of בְּכִי (b^echi, “weeping”).^[132] Likewise, the LXX translators rendered most instances of בְּכִי as κλαυθμός.^[133] However, בְּכִיָּה (b^echiyāh, “weeping,” “crying”) is more in accord with reconstructing direct speech in Mishnaic-style Hebrew. The noun בְּכִיָּה, for example, occurs in an account of a murder that occurred in the Temple late in the Second Temple period:

בא רבי צדוק ועמד על מעלות האולם ואמר שמעוני אחינו בית ישראל…געו כול ישראל בבכייה

Rabbi Zadok came and stood on the steps of the porch and said, “Hear me brothers, O House of Israel, ….” All Israel groaned with weeping [בִּבְכִייָּה]. (Sifre Num. §161 [ed. Horovitz, 222]; cf. t. Yom. 1:12)

L20 καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων (GR). Once more, Luke and Matthew are in complete verbal agreement, so there can be no doubt regarding our decision for GR in L20.

וְחֵירוּק הַשִּׁנַּיִם (HR). In LXX the noun βρυγμός (brūgmos, “biting,” “chattering”) only occurs in Prov. 19:12 and Sir. 51:3, neither of which provide us with a suitable option for HR. The verbal cognate βρύχειν (brūchein, “to bite,” “to champ,” “to gnash”), however, occurs several times, and in every instance it serves as the translation of חָרַק (ḥāraq, “gnash”).^[134] Likewise, the LXX translators rendered every instance of חָרַק as βρύχειν.^[135]

In Biblical Hebrew the ח-ר-ק root usually occurred in the sense of “gnash” in the qal stem, but in Mishnaic Hebrew this was usually expressed in the pi‘el stem,^[103] for example:

אָמַר ר′ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: הִתְחִיל מְחָרֵק עֲלֵיהֶם שִׁנָּיו

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai said, “He began grinding his teeth at them….” (Exod. Rab. 5:18 [ed. Merkin, 5:100])

והכנעני אז בארץ, מלמד שהיה הכנעני רואה את אברהם ואומר: ראו זקן זה הולך בארץ ודומה כמשוגע. וכיון ששמע כך, א″ל הב″ה: התהלך בארץ. והיה מחרק את שיניו עליו ואמר: אם אני אראהו בתוכה מיד אני הורגו.‏

And the Canaanite was then in the land [Gen. 12:6]. This teaches that the Canaanite saw Abraham and said, “See this old man walking in the land and appearing like a fool.” And as soon as he heard this, the Holy One, blessed be he, said to him [i.e., Abraham], Walk about in the land [Gen. 13:17]. And he [i.e., the Canaanite] would gnash [מְחָרֵק] his teeth at him and say, “If I see him in it [i.e., in the land], immediately I will kill him.” (Midrash Yelamdenu §60 [35a] [ed. Mann, 294])

The Greek text, however, indicates a noun rather than a verb should be adopted for HR, but no equivalent noun is attested either in Biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew. To get around this difficulty Delitzsch translated βρυγμός in Matt. 8:12 and Luke 13:28 as חֲרוֹק (ḥ^arōq) using an infinitive absolute, but in Mishnaic Hebrew this usage of the infinitive was obsolete.^[104] The phrase חֲרִיקַת שִׁינַּיִם (ḥ^ariqat shinayim, “tooth grinding”) is Modern Hebrew and is based on Biblical rather than Mishnaic Hebrew usage (notice the qal formation of the noun). Nouns from pi‘el verbs like חֵרֵק (ḥērēq, “grind,” “gnash,” “champ”) are formed on the qiṭūl pattern,^[105] which would yield the hypothetical form חֵירוּק (ḥērūq, “grinding,” “gnashing”). Although we are generally wary of adopting unattested forms for HR, Segal noted that qiṭūl nouns “can be formed at will from any [pi‘el] verb,”^[106] which gives us greater confidence in this particular instance. Since there is no better option for reconstructing βρυγμός, we have adopted, with due caution, חֵירוּק for HR.

In LXX the noun ὀδούς (odous, “tooth”) almost always occurs as the translation of שֵׁן (shēn, “tooth”),^[107] and the LXX translators usually rendered שֵׁן as ὀδούς.^[108] In any case, there is no better option for HR than שֵׁן.

The contrast between those participating in the banquet and those who are excluded is portrayed with literary skill. In contrast to a brightly lit banqueting hall doubtless ringing with laughter, the outsiders are cast into darkness and weep.^[109] And in contrast to the happy munching on choice meats among the guests, the outsiders gnash their teeth in bitterness.

Gundry believed the weeping and gnashing of teeth alludes to Ps. 112:10,^[110] which reads:

רָשָׁע יִרְאֶה וְכָעָס שִׁנָּיו יַחֲרֹק וְנָמָס תַּאֲוַת רְשָׁעִים תֹּאבֵד

The wicked person will see and be angry. His teeth he will gnash and he will melt. The desire of the wicked will perish. (Ps. 112:10)

ἁμαρτωλὸς ὄψεται καὶ ὀργισθήσεται, τοὺς ὀδόντας αὐτοῦ βρύξει καὶ τακήσεται· ἐπιθυμία ἁμαρτωλῶν ἀπολεῖται.

The sinner will see and be angry. His teeth he will gnash and he will melt. The desire of sinners will perish. (Ps. 111:10)

But the gnashing of teeth hardly requires a scriptural allusion to make sense, and the wording of the Psalm is not close to that of Coming From All Directions. An allusion to this Psalm, therefore, is unlikely.^[111]

Redaction Analysis

Both the Lukan and Matthean versions of Coming From All Directions show signs of redaction. Although the redaction in Matthew’s version of the saying is less pervasive than in Luke’s version, the few changes the author of Matthew did make so altered its meaning as to make it almost unrecognizable.

Luke’s Version^[112]

Coming From All Directions
Luke		Anthology
Total Words:	47	Total Words:	45
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	31	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	31
% Identical to Anth.:	65.96	% of Anth. in Luke:	68.89
Click here for details.

There are no specific indications of Lukan redaction in Coming From All Directions, but the First Reconstructor had already redacted the pericope to a considerable degree. It was the First Reconstructor who turned the saying inside out, as it were, opening with the weeping and gnashing of teeth and ending with the streaming into the Kingdom from the four points of the compass. Evidently, the First Reconstructor inverted the order of the saying in order to link it more closely to Closed Door, the preceding pericope. Probably it was Anth.’s introduction of the saying with “Amen! I say to you…” (L9) that caused the First Reconstructor to feel that the bond between the two sayings wanted tightening. To him it appeared that this introduction indicated that Coming From All Directions was an independent saying. In fact, “Amen! I say to you…” was probably an original link between Closed Door and Coming From All Directions that was already present in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua. In any case, the First Reconstructor’s reordering of the saying also required such adaptations as the insertion of “when you see” (L3), the separation of the patriarchs from reclining with the ingathered peoples in the Kingdom, a change of case from nominative to accusative in L6-7, and a doubling of the reference to the Kingdom of God. In addition to these adaptations the First Reconstructor added “and all the prophets” (L4) to the list of the patriarchs. He also changed “Kingdom of Heaven” to “Kingdom of God” (L5, L15), probably for the sake of Gentile readers. And, because the First Reconstructor wanted to make Narrow Gate, Closed Door and Coming From All Directions into a single coherent discourse, he dropped “many” in L10 because Narrow Gate emphasized how few are those who will be saved.

Despite these redactional changes, Luke’s version preserves one detail that was lost in Matthew’s parallel, the directions “north” and “south” (L12). This important evidence shows that the allusion to Ps. 107:3/Isa. 49:12 was not based on LXX. More importantly, Luke’s version of Coming From All Directions preserves the original message of the saying. It warns a particular audience that they will be excluded from the redemption of Israel because of their unresponsiveness to Jesus’ message. It does not envision the welcoming of Gentiles, and it certainly does not entertain the possibility of the wholesale rejection of the people of Israel.

Matthew’s Version^[113]

Coming From All Directions
Matthew		Anthology
Total Words:	43	Total Words:	45
Total Words Identical to Anth.:	35	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	35
% Identical to Anth.:	81.40	% of Anth. in Matt.:	77.78
Click here for details.

The wording of Matthew’s version of Coming From All Directions is close to Anth.’s, but by placing this saying inside the Centurion’s Slave narrative and by changing “you” to “the sons of the Kingdom” the author of Matthew radically reinterpreted the saying. The new Matthean context of the saying created a false contrast between believing Gentiles and unbelieving Jews. The context determined that the “many” who come from east and west must be Gentiles and that “the sons of the Kingdom” must refer to Israel. Thus, instead of describing the redemption of Israel, from which a few individuals will be excluded if their unresponsiveness persists, which was the original intention of Coming From All Directions, the author of Matthew described the categorical rejection of Israel in favor of the Gentiles who believe in Jesus.^[114] These Gentiles will stream into the land and disinherit the people of Israel forever.

In addition to these polemically motivated changes, the author of Matthew also dropped “Amen!” from L9, probably because he had just used this exclamation in the previous verse, and he dropped “and from north and south” in L12, perhaps out of a desire for brevity. For stylistic reasons he changed “into the darkness outside” to “into the outer darkness” in L18.

Results of This Research

1. Who are “the sons of the kingdom” Matthew mentions? Some scholars have suggested that “the sons of the kingdom” need not necessarily refer to all Israel but only to those of Jesus’ generation who were complacently assured of their place in the world to come because they trusted in their self-righteousness.^[115] But although such attempts to evade the plain meaning of Matthew’s words may be well intentioned, they fail to honestly confront the author of Matthew’s deep-seated anti-Judaism. An honest and objective reading of Matthew reveals that “the sons of the kingdom” in Coming From All Directions refers to Israel as a whole. The author of Matthew believed, as have many Christians after him, that Israel was rejected in favor of the Gentile Church.

2. Who are the people that come from east and west? In the original form of Jesus’ saying, and even still in the version preserved in Luke,^[116] the people who come from east and west (and north and south) are the people of Israel, whether they be Jews living in the diaspora, or whether they be the members of the lost tribes,^[117] or whether they be Jews from the land of Israel streaming into the eschatological banqueting hall. There are no grounds in Luke for assuming that those who come from all directions are Gentiles.^[118] In Matthew’s version of Coming From All Directions the situation is different. Due to his insertion of this saying into Centurion’s Slave, the author of Matthew created an artificial contrast between Jews and Gentiles.^[119] The “many who come from east and west” are Gentiles, specifically Gentile Christians. These Gentile Christians steam into the Holy Land in order to appropriate what had once been promised to Israel.

3. Where does the weeping and gnashing of teeth take place? Since the great banquet does not take place up in heaven but in the Holy Land when the Kingdom of Heaven is established, it is not safe to assume that the weeping and gnashing of teeth takes place in hell.^[120] Those who excluded themselves from the redemption of Israel are best understood as being sent out into exile beyond the borders of the Holy Land.

4. Is Coming From All Directions anti-Jewish? Neither the original form of the saying nor the version of Coming From All Directions in Luke can fairly be characterized as anti-Jewish. Ancient Jewish sources, too, contain similar discussions concerning who will and who will not have a share in the world to come or the coming redemption (cf., e.g., 1QS I, 24-II, 10; m. Sanh. 10:1-4). Matthew’s version of Coming From All Directions, on the other hand, with its categorical rejection of the Jewish people in favor of the believing Gentiles, is anti-Jewish.^[121] Recognition of this anti-Jewish tendency in the Gospel of Matthew is a first step toward making amends for Christian mistreatment of the Jewish people throughout the Church’s long history. It is also a first step toward recovering a more accurate understanding of Jesus’ message and a less distorted picture of Jesus himself.

Conclusion

In Coming From All Directions Jesus warned his skeptical audience that by excluding themselves from the Kingdom of Heaven in the present they were simultaneously excluding themselves from the final redemption. When that redemption was realized, the poor, the weak, the despised and the dispersed would take their places with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the privileged and self-satisfied members of Jesus’ audience would find themselves left out. The sad irony is that those who declined the Kingdom of Heaven had no need to go off in search of the opportunity for redemption, Jesus had brought it to them. Meanwhile, the Kingdom of Heaven was attracting others from far and wide who gladly accepted the invitation even though Jesus had not reached out to them personally.

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[2] This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩
• ^[3] See A. B. Bruce, 139-140; Bultmann, 61; Kilpatrick, 118; Bundy, 131 §5, 370 §268; Knox, 2:33; Vincent Taylor, “The Original Order of Q,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), 246-269, esp. 266; Beare, Earliest, 74 §46; Kloppenborg, 225; Davies-Allison, 2:25; Luz, 2:9; Catchpole, 284; Hagner, 1:202, 205; Meier, Marginal, 2:309-310; Fleddermann, 687; Culpepper, 170. Schweizer (213) is an outlier in entertaining the possibility that Matthew preserves the original context of Coming From All Directions. ↩
• ^[4] Cf. Luz, 2:11. ↩
• ^[5] On the author of Matthew’s use of interpolation as a redactional method, see Sermon’s End, Comment to L5-7. ↩
• ^[6] For instance, the image in Narrow Gate of a small entrance that is difficult to squeeze through clashes with the image of a householder barring entry through a doorway in Closed Door. ↩
• ^[7] See the “Story Placement” discussions in Narrow Gate and Closed Door. ↩
• ^[8] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:25. ↩
• ^[9] Cf. Kloppenborg, 226-227; Nolland, Luke, 2:735; Luz, 2:9. ↩
• ^[10] Contrast Hagner’s assessment of the author of Matthew’s redaction as “genius” (Hagner, 1:205). We use the word “diabolical” to characterize the author of Matthew’s redaction of Coming From All Directions advisedly. The Greek διάβολος (diabolos), from which the English “diabolical” derives, means “slanderous.” And it was precisely for the purpose of slandering the Jewish people that the author of Matthew redacted Coming From All Directions in the manner he did. ↩
• ^[11] Since FR is a reworking of Anth., FR was fully capable of preserving Anth.’s pericope order, which is what we believe happened with regard to Narrow Gate, Closed Door and Coming From All Directions. ↩
• ^[12] Only 48.84% of Matthew’s wording of Coming From All Directions is identical to Luke’s, and only 44.68% of Luke’s wording is identical to Matthew’s. For these figures and on low verbal identity in DT pericopae as a fairly reliable indicator of Luke’s reliance on FR, see LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae. ↩
• ^[13] The theme of salvation crops up in FR pericopae such as Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven (L86) and Four Soils interpretation (L34). ↩
• ^[14] The author of Matthew’s reordering of the examples in Generations that Repented Long Ago is different from the turning inside out of The Kingdom of Heaven Is Increasing and Coming From All Directions. ↩
• ^[15] In theory, of course, there is a third option, namely that neither Matthew nor Luke’s version of Coming From All Directions preserves Anth.’s order, but that both authors tinkered with their source(s). However, this third option seems unlikely. Just at the points where we considered reordering the saying, Matthew and Luke conspired to agree with one another, thereby confounding our attempts at rearrangement. ↩
• ^[16] Cf., e.g., Taylor, “The Original Order of Q,” 266; Gundry, Matt., 146-147; Davies-Allison, 2:26. ↩
• ^[17] Other scholars who accept the Matthean order of Coming From All Directions as original include Harnack (78), Bundy (370 §268), Kloppenborg (226-227), Meier (Marginal, 2:312), Nolland (Luke, 2:735; Matt., 353) and Luz (2:9). ↩
• ^[18] Cf. Kloppenborg, 225. ↩
• ^[19] Cf. Fleddermann, 687; Wolter, 2:198. ↩
• ^[20] Cf. Harnack, 78; Meier, Marginal, 2:313. ↩
• ^[21] Cf. Meier, Marginal, 2:312; Fleddermann, 687. ↩
• ^[22] See Sermon’s End, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[23] See Harnack, 78. Cf. Bovon, 2:314. ↩
• ^[24] See David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (JOC, 552-560), esp. 557, where the example of sloppy omission he cites is the dropping of “north and south” in L12. ↩
• ^[25] See David Flusser, “Matthew’s ‘Verus Israel’” (JOC, 561-574), esp. 562, 563, 567. ↩
• ^[26] Translation according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols.; ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and Allan Menzies; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980-1986), 1:239. ↩
• ^[27] Cadbury (Style, 115) included these as examples of Lukan generalization. While generalization may also have been a characteristic of the author of Luke’s redactional method, this particular style of expanding narrow categories with καί + πᾶς [+ ὁ] + noun seems to be confined to FR pericopae. See Fig Tree parable, Comment to L12. We also found πάντες οἱ προφῆται (pantes hoi profētai, “all the prophets”) to be redactional in Luke’s version of Innocent Blood (Luke 11:50), another FR pericope. See Innocent Blood, Comment to L14. ↩
• ^[28] Cf. Harnack, 78; Fitzmyer, 2:1026; Davies-Allison, 2:29; Nolland, Luke, 2:735; Meier, Marginal, 2:313; Bovon, 2:314 n. 40; Fleddermann, 688. ↩
• ^[29] Kloppenborg (227 n. 227) was open to the possibility that λέγω ὑμῖν in Matt 8:11 came from a pre-synoptic source. Other scholars tend to regard Matthew’s λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι in L9 as redactional. See Davies-Allison, 2:26; Meier, Marginal, 2:312; Fleddermann, 687. ↩
• ^[30] See Narrow Gate, Comment to L13. ↩
• ^[31] Harnack (79) and Gundry (Matt., 145) regarded πολλοί in L10 as a Matthean insertion. Fitzmyer (2:1026), Kloppenborg (227 n. 227), Meier (Marginal, 2:313) and Fleddermann (689) supposed the author of Luke omitted πολλοί. ↩
• ^[32] Cf. Fitzmyer, 2:1026; Kloppenborg, 227 n. 227; Fleddermann, 689. ↩
• ^[33] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:26. ↩
• ^[34] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:605-606. ↩
• ^[35] See Dos Santos, 22. ↩
• ^[36] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:83-84. ↩
• ^[37] See Dos Santos, 108. ↩
• ^[38] Cf. Kloppenborg, 116 n. 67; Fleddermann, 698. ↩
• ^[39] As even Gundry (Matt., 145) and Hagner (1:205) admit. ↩
• ^[40] Accordingly, we read in Midrash Tehillim:

  אמר ר′ ברכיה בשם ר′ חלבו בשם ר′ שמואל מי אמר יאמרו גאולי ה′ היו אומר ישראל

  Rabbi Berachiah said in the name of Rabbi Helbo, who said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel, “Who are spoken of when it is said, Let the redeemed of the Lord say so [Ps. 107:2]? It speaks of Israel.” (Midrash Tehilim 107:1 [ed. Buber, 3:461])

  ↩

• ^[41] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:357. ↩
• ^[42] See Dos Santos, 117. ↩
• ^[43] Cf., e.g., Harnack, 79; Hagner, 1:205; Fleddermann, 689. ↩
• ^[44] See Meier, Marginal, 2:313; Bovon, 2:315 n. 43; Fleddermann, 688. Cf. François Bovon, “Tracing the Trajectory of Luke 13,22-20 Back to Q: A Study in Lukan Redaction,” in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson (ed. Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 285-294, esp. 290. ↩
• ^[45] Cf. Gundry, Use, 77; idem, Matt., 145; Fitzmyer, 2:1026; Nolland, Luke, 2:735; idem, Matt., 353. Likewise, Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” 557. ↩
• ^[46] See BDB, 410-411. ↩
• ^[47] See Mitchell Dahood, Psalms III (AB 17a; Garden City: Doubleday, 1970), 81. ↩
• ^[48] See BDB, 411; McNeile, 105; Gundry, Use, 77; Fitzmyer, 2:1026. In Ps. 89:13 we do find the pair צָפוֹן וְיָמִין (tzāfōn v^eyāmin, “north and south”). ↩
• ^[49] A single fragmentary text of Ps. 107:3 survives among DSS (4QPs^f). It reads: ממזרח ומ]מערב | [מצפון ומי]ם] (“[from east and from] west, [from north and from se]a”; 4QPs^sup I, 18-19). Despite being so fragmentary, the final mem rules out the emendation וּמִיָּמִין. Cf. Fitzmyer, 2:1026. ↩
• ^[50] See Dahood, Psalms III, 81. ↩
• ^[51] Translation according to David M. Stec, trans., The Targum of Psalms: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (The Aramaic Bible Vol. 16; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004), 197. ↩
• ^[52] See Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” 557. ↩
• ^[53] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:224-225. ↩
• ^[54] See Dos Santos, 178. ↩
• ^[55] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:949-950. ↩
• ^[56] On Jesus’ use of gezerah shavah, see Joseph Frankovic, “Remember Shiloh!” Jerusalem Perspective 46/47 (1994): 24-31 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2714/], esp. 27, under the subheading “The Connection”; R. Steven Notley, “First-century Jewish Use of Scripture: Evidence from the Life of Jesus,” under the subheading “Hebraic Reading Techniques”; idem, “Jesus’ Jewish Hermeneutical Method in the Nazareth Synagogue,” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality (2 vols.; ed. Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2009), 46-59, esp. 52-53; R. Steven Notley and Jeffrey P. García, “Hebrew-Only Exegesis: A Philological Approach to Jesus’ Use of the Hebrew Bible” (JS2, 349-374), esp. 355-356. ↩
• ^[57] See Gundry, Use, 76. ↩
• ^[58] Aside from the shared phrase מִצָּפוֹן וּמִיָּם, Psalm 107 and Isaiah 49 also share other important themes, such as the ingathering of Israel (Ps. 107:3; Isa. 49:6, 12), the feeding of the hungry (Ps. 107:5, 9; Isa. 49:10) and the release of prisoners from darkness (Ps. 107:10, 14; Isa. 49:9). ↩
• ^[59] Cf. Dalman, 112. ↩
• ^[60] See Safrai-Safrai, 55. ↩
• ^[61] On common dishes at communal meals, see R. Steven Notley, Jerusalem: City of the Great King (Jerusalem: Carta, 2015), 50. ↩
• ^[62] On the communal aspect of reclining together at meals, see Gundry, Matt., 145. ↩
• ^[63] See Hatch-Redpath, 3:87. ↩
• ^[64] See Rengstorf, 2:1256. ↩
• ^[65] See Hatch-Redpath, 3:74. ↩
• ^[66] See Rengstorf, 2:2148. ↩
• ^[67] The only exception is in Matt. 1:15, 16, where Ἰακώβ occurs as the name of Jesus’ paternal grandfather. ↩
• ^[68] Cf. Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L23. ↩
• ^[69] Cf., e.g., Davies-Allison, 2:29; Meier, Marginal, 2:313; Luz, 2:9; Nolland, Matt., 353; Fleddermann, 687. ↩
• ^[70] See LOY Excursus: The Kingdom of Heaven in the Life of Yeshua, under the subheading “Which is Correct: ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ or ‘Kingdom of God’?” ↩
• ^[71] On the communion of saints in the Apostles’ Creed, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (3d ed.; New York: Longman, 1972), 388-397. ↩
• ^[72] Cf. Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” 555; Meier, Marginal, 2:317. ↩
• ^[73] We refrain from referring to the eschatological banquet as “messianic” because the saying does not describe a messiah figure as being present at the banquet. ↩
• ^[74] Cf. Theissen, Gospels, 46. ↩
• ^[75] Cf. Theissen, Gospels, 46-47. ↩
• ^[76] Cf. Fitzmyer, 2:1026. ↩
• ^[77] Pace Marshall (568) and Davies-Allison (2:30), who refer to the great banquet as “heavenly.” ↩
• ^[78] Cf. Jeremias, Theology, 246; Gundry, Matt., 145; Catchpole, 306; Meier, Marginal, 2:315-16. ↩
• ^[79] Cf. McNeile, 105. ↩
• ^[80] Cf. Jeremias, Theology, 246; Kloppenborg, 227 n. 227; Catchpole, 306; Luz, 2:9. ↩
• ^[81] Scholars who regard Matthew’s “sons of the Kingdom” as “Semitic” include Allen (78), Jeremias (Theology, 246), Gundry (Matt., 145), Davies-Allison (2:30) and Luz (2:9). ↩
• ^[82] For the possibility that Matthew’s “sons of the Kingdom” is a pseudo-Semitism, see Meier, Marginal, 2:373 n. 91. ↩
• ^[83] See Gustav Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity (trans. Alexander Grieve; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), 165-166; Albert L. A. Hogeterp, “New Testament Greek as Popular Speech: Adolf Deissmann in Retrospect,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 102.2 (2011): 178-200, esp. 186-187. Cf. Moulton-Milligan, 649. ↩
• ^[84] Dalman (95-96) noted that since in Jewish sources מַלְכוּת (malchūt, “kingdom”) always refers to the secular government unless it is qualified by שָׁמַיִם (shāmayim, “heaven”), Matthew’s “sons of the Kingdom” is likely to be the product of the Greek-speaking Church. ↩
• ^[85] On “sons of the Kingdom” in Matt. 13:38 as a product of Matthean redaction, see Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L46. ↩
• ^[86] Cf. Kloppenborg, 227 n. 227; Catchpole, 306 n. 93; Fleddermann, 688. ↩
• ^[87] Cf. Flusser, “Matthew’s ‘Verus Israel,’” 568 n. 16. ↩
• ^[88] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 145-146; Fredriksen, From Jesus, 188; Young, JHJP, 291-292; Meier, Marginal, 2:373 n. 91; Nolland, Matt., 357. ↩
• ^[89] See Hawkins, 168. ↩
• ^[90] On the absolute use of ἡ βασιλεία (hē basileia, “the Kingdom”) as a marker of Matthean redaction, see Four Soils interpretation, Comment to L21. Cf. McNeile, 105; Meier, Marginal, 2:373 n. 91. ↩
• ^[91] Knox, 2:33. ↩
• ^[92] Albright-Mann, 93. ↩
• ^[93] Culpepper, 170. ↩
• ^[94] Nolland, Matt., 357. ↩
• ^[95] Thus Davies and Allison recoiled from the author of Matthew’s anti-Judaism, claiming, “it [is] incredible that…Matthew could have seriously entertained the possibility that Israel as a whole was doomed for hell” (Davies-Allison, 2:27), and Nolland defended Matthew claiming, “The Jewishness of Matthew’s story makes clear that he does not have in mind the exclusion of the whole category of natural heirs” (Nolland, Matt., 357), both statements flatly denying what the author of Matthew plainly said. ↩
• ^[96] Cf. Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages,” 556. ↩
• ^[97] On anti-Judaism in the Gospels, see R. Steven Notley, “Anti-Jewish Tendencies in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[98] Other scholars who regard Luke’s second-person address as likely to be original include Meier (Marginal, 2:313) and Nolland (Luke, 2:735). ↩
• ^[99] See Sermon’s End, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[100] See Hawkins, 170; McNeile, 106; Kilpatrick, 75; Gundry, Matt., 146. ↩
• ^[101] Pace Davies-Allison, 2:30. Although fire produces light, anyone who has sat around a campfire at night knows that darkness and fire are by no means contradictory. Some ancient Jewish sources do combine the notions of darkness and fire, for instance in 1QS II, 8 we encounter the phrase אפלת אש (“darkness of fire”), and, similarly, in 1QS IV, 13 we encounter אש מחשכים (“fire of dark places”). See also 1 Enoch 103:7. Cf. Luz, 2:11 n. 29. ↩
• ^[102] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:420-421. ↩
• ^[103] See Jastrow, 506. ↩
• ^[104] See Segal, 165 §344; Kutscher, 126 §210. ↩
• ^[105] See Segal, 109 §241. ↩
• ^[106] Ibid. ↩
• ^[107] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:966-967. ↩
• ^[108] See Dos Santos, 213. ↩
• ^[109] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 146; Hagner, 1:206; Nolland, Matt., 357. ↩
• ^[110] See Gundry, Use, 77; Matt., 146. Cf. McNeile, 106. ↩
• ^[111] Although perhaps ὅταν ὄψησθε (“when you see”) in Luke 13:28 owes something to Ps. 112:10. ↩
• ^[112]

  Coming From All Directions
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων ὅταν ὄψησθε Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ πάντας τοὺς προφήτας ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμᾶς δὲ ἐκβαλλομένους ἔξω καὶ ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ νότου καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ		ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ νότου καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθε ἐκβαλλόμενοι εἰς τὸ σκότος ἔξω ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων
  Total Words:	47	Total Words:	45
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	31	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	31
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	65.96%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	68.89%

  ↩

• ^[113]

  Coming From All Directions
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν ἥξουσιν καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων		ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ νότου καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθε ἐκβαλλόμενοι εἰς τὸ σκότος ἔξω ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων
  Total Words:	43	Total Words:	45
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	35	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	35
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	81.40%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	77.78%

  ↩

• ^[114] Cf. David Flusser, “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels” (JS1, 17-40), esp. 32. ↩
• ^[115] Cf. McNeile, 105. ↩
• ^[116] Pace Manson, Sayings, 125; Marshall, 568; Fitzmyer, 2:1023; Kloppenborg, 227; Fleddermann, 699. ↩
• ^[117] See Dale C. Allison, “Who Will Come from East and West? Observations on Matt. 8.11-12 – Luke 13.28-29,” Irish Biblical Studies 11.4 (1989): 158-170. Cf. McNeile, 105; Schweizer, 213; Nolland, Luke, 2:735; Wolter, 2:199. ↩
• ^[118] Cf. Malcolm Lowe and David Flusser, “Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,” New Testament Studies 29.1 (1983): 25-47, esp. 28-29. ↩
• ^[119] Cf. Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (trans. S. H. Hooke; London: SCM Press, 1958), 56 n. 3. ↩
• ^[120] Pace Luz, 2:11. ↩
• ^[121] See A. B. Bruce, 140. ↩
• ^[122] The LXX translators rendered הֻשְׁלַךְ as ῥιπτεῖν in 2 Kgdms. 20:21; 3 Kgdms. 13:24, 25, 28; Isa. 14:19; 34:3; Jer. 14:16; 43[36]:30; Ezek. 19:12. ↩
• ^[123] We think scholars such as Harnack (79), Gundry (Matt., 146), Kloppenborg (227 n. 227), Davies-Allison (2:30), Nolland (Luke, 2:735; Matt., 353) and Meier (Marginal, 2:313) were too quick to attribute “into the darkness” to Matthean redaction. See Fleddermann, 688. ↩
• ^[124] It is also noteworthy that “darkness” is mentioned both in Ps. 107 (v. 10, 14) and Isa. 49 (v. 9), which Jesus alluded to in Coming From All Directions (see above, Comment to L12). ↩
• ^[125] Cf. Robinson-Hoffmann-Kloppenborg, 414. ↩
• ^[126] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 146; Nolland, Luke, 2:735. ↩
• ^[127] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 2:735. ↩
• ^[128] By contrast, Luz (2:9 n. 10) and Fleddermann (689) thought ἔξω in Luke 13:28 is redactional precisely because it connects back to Luke 13:25. ↩
• ^[129] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1276-1277. ↩
• ^[130] See Dos Santos, 72. ↩
• ^[131] The participle מֻשְׁלָךְ is followed by the preposition -בְּ in 1 Kgs. 13:24, 25, 28; Jer. 14:16. ↩
• ^[132] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:767. ↩
• ^[133] See Dos Santos, 26. ↩
• ^[134] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:231. ↩
• ^[135] Dos Santos (71) omitted this information, presumably in error. ↩