Thoughts

In response to the disciples’ seeking to find out “who is the greatest” (18:1), in this first part of the fourth of Matthew’s great discourses, Jesus speaks about humility and its value, identifying a childlike state of humility as the greatest virtue of the Kingdom (18:4). Green (p191) comments that the word used here for children, παιδια, can, like its Aramaic equivalent, also mean servants, and to be a servant of Jesus is to have the highest status in the Kingdom. While Green focuses almost exclusively on obedience and attentiveness as the meaning here of “become as little children”, Chrysostom (LVIII:3) focuses on a very small child’s freedom from pride and contentiousness, and correspondingly on the virtues of simplicity and unworldliness as being characteristic of the virtue of humility Jesus is praising. Set in the context of Jesus’s other teaching on the nature and life of the Kingdom, all of these meanings are surely included in the picture he was conveying with the little child – especially since Christ finally identifies himself with the little child (18:5).

Having established that life in the Kingdom (and thus, in the Church) is to be made up of those living this life of humility, Jesus goes on to illustrate just how serious a matter it is if such a one is deflected from this life and tempted or encouraged into sin. (Green is not sure whether he is referring here to children or “unimportant people” – p191 – but surely the context has been set to indicate all those living the life of humility, children and adults.[1]) Chrysostom (LVIII:4) notes that if it is “better for him” to have millstone around his neck and be cast into the sea, then this means the actual consequence of this behaviour will be worse. However Chrysostom takes the meaning of “ος δ’αν σκανδαλιση ενα των μικρων τουτων” – σκανδαλιζω (‘scandalise’) can mean either to ‘cause to sin’ or to give offense – differently from most English translations “whoever causes one of these little ones… to sin” (NKJV), suggesting that the offence lies rather acting in a “spirit of arrogance” against the humble and causing them offence. The relationship between ‘scandalising’, ‘causing offence’ and ‘causing to sin’ is a complex one, though the concepts are closely related. Given the close connection between 18:6-7 and 18:8, ‘causing to sin’ is probably the better translation here.

Chrysostom (LIX:4) considers the warning about offenses and the expression about cutting off hands and feet to be a reference to keeping bad company, or ‘peer pressure’ as it is commonly called. One may be in a situation where the offenses are inevitable (18:7), and the important thing then is, being unable to prevent the offenses, not to participate in bringing them about. It is better then to cut oneself off from the group rather than partake in the offenses: Do what you can (as Chrysostom says in several places). If you cannot prevent the offense, at least do not participate in it, or you will lose not only your friends but even yourself (18:9). (Attempt also to prevent any of the ‘little ones’ from being involved, since the consequences for those committing the offenses will be all the greater, as we have seen.)

Green has three further implications arising from this “vivid language” (p192). First, that it is a figurative preparation for the torture and martyrdom that they will undergo who refuse to be dragged into offenses, preferring to remain a child of Jesus. Further, it is a guide for excommunication (though he does not use the word): that there comes a time when for the health and even the continuing life of the whole body, certain members have to be removed. Finally, it is an encouragement to personal priorities and commitment in ‘going the extra mile’ to avoid temptations that could lead to sin.

[1] Green is perhaps misled in his analysis of this passage by his decision to separate v5-6 as a separate section (so that he can have a symbolically-significant seven sections in the discourse). One consequence of this is that v7-9 are no longer seen by him as having anything in particular to do with the mentions of the ‘little ones’ in v1-6 and v10-14.

Immediately after speaking of the passion, Matthew leads us directly into the Transfiguration, thus connecting the suffering and the glory of Christ. Green suggests that specifying the number of days is to emphasise the link between these two pericopes (p184). However, he does not mention that what is six days in Matthew and Mark is eight days in Luke. Chrysostom comments that this is merely a difference in counting, one counting all the days from first to last and the others counting only the days in between (LVI:1). However, it is more likely, especially given Luke’s deliberate change from Mark (then adding ‘about’) that there is a theological meaning. Perhaps Mark had in mind the six days of creation, with God resting on the seventh: the Transfiguration. Perhaps Luke had in mind the eighth day being symbolically eternity, the completion, the day on which the resurrection is celebrated. If true, these are two only very slightly different theological emphases.

The mountain was a fitting place for the Transfiguration to take place, given the history in the Old Testament of God’s manifesting himself on mountain tops. In Matthew’s gospel, there has been a mountain of temptation and a mountain for teaching the righteousness of the Kingdom. Now at the culmination of this section of the Gospel where we have seen unbelief and acknowledgement of Jesus as “Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16), we see Jesus transfigured and his glory made clear. As at the earlier theophany of Jesus’s baptism, here too there is a voice from the cloud acknowledging him (3:17, 17:5).

At a fitting time and a fitting place, there were also fitting guests. Moses and Elijah appear to be with Christ. Why Moses and Elijah? Chrysostom has a host of reasons. First, as some had supposed Jesus to be one of the prophets come back to life, here Jesus is shown with the prophets so the difference could be clearly seen: Peter was right in calling him “Son of the living God”. Second, since Jesus was accused of breaking the Jewish Law and even blaspheming, here he could be seen with Moses, bringer of the Law, and Elijah, jealous for the glory of God. Further, he was with one who had died and one who had never suffered death to show his power over life and death; and having spoken of the passion and death, here he showed the disciples how this was in the context of his glory. Green suggests that Moses was the supreme representative of the Law, and Elijah of the prophets, and that further, both had “something uncanny about the way they left this life” (as he puts it, p185). Moses died, but he was apparently buried by God and his grave was never found (Deut 34:5-6) whereas Elijah was taken away in front of Elisha’s eyes in a chariot and horses of fire (2 Kings 2:11). Certainly there was expectation that Moses and Elijah would be seen again in the last days, and here they stand at the Transfiguration and bear witness to Christ as the eschaton, with all the authority of the Law and Prophets of God’s chosen people. They disappear as suddenly as they came, leaving only Jesus, along with the disciples to wonder at what they had seen.

The Pharisees and Sadducees came, apparently together, making what Green calls a “sinister combination” (p175), in order to ask Jesus for a sign. Apparently they have not been watching him too closely (cf 11:4 and his response to John’s disciples). In response to this demonstration of their unbelief, he offers them only the ‘sign of Jonah’ (as he did 12:39-41), but they apparently show no interest in this (according to Chrysostom LIII:3) and Jesus leaves them. In contrast, shortly afterwards Peter shows a great sign of belief in response to Jesus’s question about who men say he is. Jesus identifies himself as ‘Son of Man’ (16:13) and Peter identifies him as both Messiah (‘Christ’) and ‘Son of God’ – even ‘Son of the living God’ (16:16). Green points out that, although all three of these titles have been used of Jesus previously in Matthew, this is the first conjunction of the three.

Both Green and Chrysostom attempt to make sense of the reason why, when last time the disciples acknowledged Jesus as ‘Son of God’ nothing was made of it, this time the result from Jesus is a blessing, an acknowledgement of divine inspiration, and a place at the root of the Church with powers to bind and loose and the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Chrysostom suggests that the first acknowledgement was as a son of God, “one of the many” (LIV:2) whereas here it was a genuine acknowledgement based on divine inspiration. Green suggests that the first time was in the heat of the moment, after being rescued from the danger of the storm, whereas on this occasion it is a calm, rational statement. Neither of them comment on the difference in the form of the acknowledgement: the first time simply, ‘Son of God’; here, ‘Son of the living God’. Here it is also given in conjunction with ‘Messiah’ or anointed one, strengthening the image. (According to Chrysostom, Jesus’s response, identifying Peter as “Son of Jonas” (16:17) is intended to convey a parallel relationship, making it clear that Jesus’s sonship of his Father is not a figure of speech, but is analogical to Peter’s natural sonship.)

What of Christ’s promise to the newly-named Peter to build his Church on this rock? Green notes that many have seen the use of the word church in the gospels (it only occurs twice, both in Matthew) as an anachronism, a later interpolation. However, he points out that it is appropriate since the Messiah is always accompanied by his people, the congregation. He might also have noted that, since many scholars agree that the Matthean church is an ongoing concern reflected in this Gospel’s teachings, it is not unnatural that the church should be mentioned.

Chrysostom takes for granted that the promise is not to build the Church on Peter per se, but “on the faith of his confession” (LIV:3), making him a shepherd. Although Green considers that the presentation in the Gospel makes it seem more natural that it is Peter himself who is meant, he says that it is Peter “in his confessional capacity”, which is not very different from Chrysostom’s view: building the church on the faith of the confession with Peter as shepherd. However, Green wishes to shift the interlocutor between the statement of the rock (to Peter) and the promises of the keys and binding and loosing (to all the disciples); there is no clear warrant in the text for this; in fact, the interlocutor is specifically changed to all the disciples only in 16:20 when Christ asks them not to tell anyone that he is the Messiah. (On the other hand, in Mt 18:18 the comment about binding and loosing is made again, and in this case it is clear that it is addressed to the disciples in general.) It is not clear here whether Peter receives this new name from Christ here, or whether it is a word play on a name he was already known by. Either way, (especially given the parallel in 18:18) it is perfectly possible that Christ was addressing him as a representative apostle, or even as (at this moment) a representative of the faith of those who needed to be at the base of the church.

Whatever the import of these words to Peter personally, it is remarkable that in the very next pericope Jesus is addressing him as the voice of Satan (16:23): a warning that any human being, no matter how spiritually exalted at one moment, is in danger of a fall the next.

After the great signs of chapter 15, and the faith shown in those coming to him for healing at the end of the chapter, chapter 15 begins again with the scribes and Pharisees bringing their unbelief. This time their question is about why the disciples do not obey “the tradition of the elders” (15:2). Chrysostom comments that here at once they are condemned out of their own lips, since the Jews had been commanded at the giving of the Law (Deut 4:2) neither to take away nor to add anything to the Law they had been given. Appropriately, therefore, Jesus’s response centres on Scripture, first challenging them by a specific example that the ‘tradition of the elders’ they are condemning the disciples over itself contradicts the Law of God, and then quoting the prophet Isaiah to show how their turning to their own traditions and away from God is a vanity, and puts their heart far from God. Jesus goes on to show how the heart should be brought back to God by making the priority purifying the heart inside rather than the externals.

Jesus does not explicitly mention dietary laws in his comments; the discussion both begins and ends with the context of hand-washing. However, his comment about things entering the mouth, going into the stomach and being eliminated could hardly refer to anything else, as both Green and Chrysostom note, both also commenting on how revolutionary a remark this is to make in the context of the Jewish religion, of which the dietary laws were a major plank. Chrysostom notes that this is so strong a conviction that even when God shows Peter a vision of permission to eat, he still refuses at first (Acts 10:14). Chrysostom also suspects that the disciples’ mentioning to Jesus that the Pharisees were offended by his ‘saying’ was really motivated by their own doubts and perplexity.

Green, as usual, sees in this episode an opposition between ‘works’ and ‘grace’[1], saying “Judaism had almost become a religion of ‘works’ designed to win the approval of God” (p171). There is an explicitly stated contrast between ‘commandment of God’ (15:3) and ‘commandments of men’ (15:9) and Chrysostom notes further that although the Pharisees refer to the oral law as ‘the tradition of the elders’ (15:2), Christ himself refers to ‘your tradition’ (15:3). But there is nothing here to suggest that the Pharisees were involved in a religion of ‘works’ that would “win the approval of God”. It is unlikely that the Pharisees saw a need, as the elect people of God, to “win” his approval; they did, however, see a need to be faithful to that election through the keeping of the Law. Their problem (as Jesus points out) was that their priorities were wrong in keeping the details of the oral law above the cries of the prophets (as Green also points out), and in some cases, even allowing the oral law to overrule the Law given by God himself. Green’s extrapolation from the washing of hands before eating to “dead ceremonialism” (p171) also seems somewhat far-fetched.[2]

What is necessary, as Jesus points out, is a constant awareness of the heart. All kinds of evils can be conceived in the heart, and granting space in the heart to these is what defiles. Hence one’s awareness should not be focused on the external matters, but on righteousness in the heart. This whole passage is a continuation of the same teaching Matthew reported in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. 5:17-48) where Jesus asks the disciples to exceed “the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees” (5:20), warns against evils in the heart (e.g. 5:28) and indicates that these are the stages of righteousness leading to perfection (5:48).

[1] This is strengthened by the translation he uses for 15:6, which gives ‘word of God’ rather than ‘commandment of God’ for ‘την εντολην του θεου’. In the reference for εντολη in Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, all of the listed meanings are related to commandment, law, or precept.

[2] … though I am not attempting to defend ‘dead ceremonialism’ where such a thing should be found.

In the conclusion to chapter 13, we again see the response to Jesus as being a combination of wonder and rejection, this time in his home town. Green sees two levels in this home town, or ‘patris’ – first, that he is indeed in the place of his upbringing, among those who know him and knew him as a child. This makes it hard for them to accept him as anything out of the ordinary. Secondly, Green says that ‘patris’ here can also be seen as a call to those in Judaism to receive him, and that when ‘his own’ do not receive him, he will go on to call in the nations. For Green, this passage is the conclusion of ‘Part I’ of Matthew’s Gospel, and he spends some time here, and in his discussion of the beginning of chapter 14, in explaining why he sees it this way (following the work of Elizabeth and Ian Billingham). In doing so, he does not deal with the question of why Jesus should not do “mighty works there because of their beliefs” (my emphasis).

One inference that could be drawn from that statement in 13:58 is that the lack of works serves as a punishment for their unbelief, but this would seem to be out of character. On the other hand, it is common in the healings for Jesus to connect the healing with the faith of the healed, so, rather than seeing it as a punishment, it might be better to see it as an inevitable result: Jesus will not impugn the people’s freedom by forcing his life on those who refuse it. According to Chrysostom (XLVIII:1), it is in fact a mercy that the works are not done there, because of their unbelief. He notes that when such works were done in Capernaum and not accepted, it was said that the town would be “brought down to Hades” (11:23) and that in fact, if such works had been done in Sodom it might have survived “until this day”. If indeed much is expected from those to whom much has been given (Lk 12:48) then, the rejection of Jesus being clear, it is more merciful that he not give to those who are rejecting him more than they can bear.

Chrysostom goes on to consider how it is that those who at first ‘wonder’ (13:54) at Jesus are then ‘offended’ at him (13:57). In other words, just why should it be that a prophet is “without honour” in his own country? According to Chrysostom this is envy: seeing the great wisdom that Jesus has, and seeing that they shared his upbringing and know his family, the people do not understand why they too should not have his wisdom (“where then did this Man get all these things?” 13:56). Their inability to overcome their envy loses them not only their faith in Jesus, but also the miracles that accompany it.

The death of John, at the beginning of chapter 14, is made much of by Green as a structural point at the ‘hinge’ of the Gospel. On the other hand, Chrysostom sees the story of the death of John as a parenthetical explanation of why Herod is worried that Jesus is John come back from the dead. Green does make the point that the often clear structure of Matthew is blurred at this point by his dependence on Mark 6-9. Whatever the structural import of this section, the issue of unbelief and belief as responses to Christ’s ministry is clearly continued in the miracles of the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water. After his rejection by his own people, Jesus prefigures the messianic banquet in the wilderness and the significance of faith in him for the life of the believer in the church is shown by Peter’s attempt to walk on the water: successful while he focuses on Christ, but almost a disaster when he is distracted from Christ. Only calling on Jesus’s name for help saves him.

The parable of the sower is a useful starting point for the discussion of the interpretation of parables, since it is presented in a context where Jesus gives his own interpretation, and also comments on the reason for teaching in parables. Green mentions (p152) the great debate that raged on the interpretation of parables in the last century. While the critique of Dodd and others on an over-allegorical interpretation has validity (Dodd particularly makes much of Augustine’s detailed allegory on the parable of the Good Samaritan with every character and almost every detail given a specific reference to historical people and events[1]), Juelicher and others moved to the opposite extreme of insisting on only one single general point in the interpretation of a parable. Green is right in saying that this is “unnecessarily restrictive”, and the example is right before our eyes: in Mt 13:18-23 Jesus himself interprets the parable of the sower not with the single point only of the seed (word of God) being liberally scattered but not always growing to maturity, but he also gives allegorical interpretations to the specific conditions of the soil in receptivity to the word. In general, it is unwise to tie down the ‘parable’ concept as if it were a fixed form of literature: the genre of ‘parable’ includes a great variety, as Green notes, from a “basic riddle” (such as Jdg 4:14) to the “advanced comparison” of the details in the story of the sower told here.

The quotation from Isaiah (Mt 13:14-15) is also significant. While the parable of the sower and its interpretation was significant enough to be included with very little variation in all three synoptic gospels, this quotation from Isaiah is included in all four Gospels (though the context in Jn 12:39-40 is a little different). The quotation seems to indicate that the purpose of teaching in parables is to conceal truths from the people. Chrysostom refers to this as “a peculiar mode of speech in Scripture”[2] noting its similarity to the statements in Exodus that God ‘hardened’ Pharaoh’s heart. He explains that this is a way of speaking of God as always the active rather than the passive participant, but in this case his activity is to allow the freedom of human persons: to express it in this active way is to emphasise how terrifying it is when we are ‘given up’ by God to our own purposes.

To shed further light on this ‘mode of speech’, Green (p154) quotes Thomas F. Torrance: in parables the message of God was “concealed… lest men against their will should be forced to acknowledge the Kingdom.” He gave them “enough light to convict and convince them” without giving a revelation of God that would overcome their freedom to resist.

[1] C.H. Dodd: The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1936), p.11-12

[2] Homilies on St John in NPNF Vol. 14, Homily LXVIII:2 (p252-253)

From Archimandrite Sophrony’s biography of St Silouan, Chapter III: Monastic Strivings

“‘Our brother is our life,’ the Staretz often said.

Through Christ’s love all men become an inseparable part of our own individual, eternal existence. The Staretz began to understand the commandment, ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ as something more than an ethical imperative. In the word as he saw an indication, not of a required degree of love but of an ontological community of being.

‘The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son… because he is the Son of man.’ This Son of man, Great Judge of the world, will say at the Last Judgment that ‘one of the least of these’ is His very Self. In other words, He assimilates every man’s existence and includes it in His own personal existence. The Son of man has taken into Himself all mankind — He has accepted the ‘whole Adam’ and suffered for him. St Paul said that we, too, ought to think and feel like Christ — having ‘the same mind which was in Christ’.”

The Pharisees accuse Jesus of allowing his disciples to break the Sabbath rest. Green (p144) points out the irony of this, coming immediately after Jesus’s offering in him ‘rest for your souls’. Jesus is quick to answer in a way that not only justifies the actions of the disciples, but also hints at his own identity. First, he draws their attention to a case (1 Sam 21:1‑9) where David and his men ate consecrated loaves from the Temple because of need, even though these were reserved only for the priests (the hint here is that Jesus is greater than David, and so he and his disciples can do likewise). Secondly, he referred to the fact that the priests in the Temple work on the Sabbath because Temple worship takes precedence over Sabbath regulation (the hint here being that now Jesus, greater than the Temple, also takes precedence). Finally he quotes Hosea 6:6 again reminding them that God desires mercy above sacrifice.

In any case, there is nothing in the written Law of Moses that prevents the disciples from doing as they did. They contravened only the oral Law, which to the Pharisees sometimes seemed to take precedence over the Law given by God (e.g. 15:6). What the disciples were doing was specifically permitted in Deut. 23:25, although it is not specified that it is also permitted on the Sabbath. However, the context in Deuteronomy is specifically drawing a contrast between something that could be considered as work (gathering into bowls) and something that is merely to satisfy hunger (plucking grapes to eat), which would certainly imply that in the eyes of God’s Law it would be a permissible act on the Sabbath. In fact, as the purpose of the Sabbath was rest, given as a reflection of God’s seventh day of rest after Creation, the Sabbath rest imitated the Edenic tradition, and in Eden there was cultivating and plucking fruits and grains for food (Gen 1:29, 2:15) as opposed to the harder workaday toil that came afterwards (Gen 3:17-19). In this way, the disciples were in fact resting from their labour (11:28) and celebrating the Sabbath. Chrysostom notes that in any case, keeping company with Jesus was in itself a Sabbath (XXXIX:3).

Chrysostom draws an interesting contrast between the Pharisees’ response to this violation of their beloved oral law, a short rebuke, and their response to the next violation, when Jesus heals the man’s withered hand. Again Jesus defends his action (this time with a comparison with something in their own oral law). Upon this healing, Matthew reports, they plot to have him killed. They see the same violation in two forms, and yet have a different reaction. Chrysostom suggests plausibly that the first was not so infuriating as a simple act of the disciples’ eating, but the second was insupportable as an act of great kindness and mercy (XXXIX:1). Why? Presumably because while the people would not pay a great deal of attention to the first, healing always drew them closer to Jesus as it elevated his status, making him all the more dangerous from the Pharisees’ point of view.

The Pharisees accuse Jesus of allowing his disciples to break the Sabbath rest. Green (p144) points out the irony of this, coming immediately after Jesus’s offering in him ‘rest for your souls’. Jesus is quick to answer in a way that not only justifies the actions of the disciples, but also hints at his own identity. First, he draws their attention to a case (1 Sam 21:1‑9) where David and his men ate consecrated loaves from the Temple because of need, even though these were reserved only for the priests (the hint here is that Jesus is greater than David, and so he and his disciples can do likewise). Secondly, he referred to the fact that the priests in the Temple work on the Sabbath because Temple worship takes precedence over Sabbath regulation (the hint here being that now Jesus, greater than the Temple, also takes precedence). Finally he quotes Hosea 6:6 again reminding them that God desires mercy above sacrifice.

In any case, there is nothing in the written Law of Moses that prevents the disciples from doing as they did. They contravened only the oral Law, which to the Pharisees sometimes seemed to take precedence over the Law given by God (e.g. 15:6). What the disciples were doing was specifically permitted in Deut. 23:25, although it is not specified that it is also permitted on the Sabbath. However, the context in Deuteronomy is specifically drawing a contrast between something that could be considered as work (gathering into bowls) and something that is merely to satisfy hunger (plucking grapes to eat), which would certainly imply that in the eyes of God’s Law it would be a permissible act on the Sabbath. In fact, as the purpose of the Sabbath was rest, given as a reflection of God’s seventh day of rest after Creation, the Sabbath rest imitated the Edenic tradition, and in Eden there was cultivating and plucking fruits and grains for food (Gen 1:29, 2:15) as opposed to the harder workaday toil that came afterwards (Gen 3:17-19). In this way, the disciples were in fact resting from their labour (11:28) and celebrating the Sabbath. Chrysostom notes that in any case, keeping company with Jesus was in itself a Sabbath (XXXIX:3).

Chrysostom draws an interesting contrast between the Pharisees’ response to this violation of their beloved oral law, a short rebuke, and their response to the next violation, when Jesus heals the man’s withered hand. Again Jesus defends his action (this time with a comparison with something in their own oral law). Upon this healing, Matthew reports, they plot to have him killed. They see the same violation in two forms, and yet have a different reaction. Chrysostom suggests plausibly that the first was not so infuriating as a simple act of the disciples’ eating, but the second was insupportable as an act of great kindness and mercy (XXXIX:1). Why? Presumably because while the people would not pay a great deal of attention to the first, healing always drew them closer to Jesus as it elevated his status, making him all the more dangerous from the Pharisees’ point of view.

John the Baptist from prison sends his disciples to ask Jesus whether he is the one expected, or whether they are to wait for another. Green (p137) pictures John sitting in prison and not seeing the revolutionary behaviour from Jesus that he had expected. Chrysostom, in contrast, considers that for John to have such serious doubts now would bring into question all the confidence he had displayed in Jesus before (XXXVI:1) and therefore he is sending his disciples for their own benefit, rather than for his (XXXVI:2). The text does not give an indication of John’s motive, which must therefore remain a matter of conjecture, but a straight reading of the text would indicate that the question was a genuine question of John’s.

Green goes further than to suggest John’s doubts, however. Even after commenting on Jesus’s strong commendation of John that he was “a prophet… and much more than a prophet… there has never been anyone greater than John the Baptist” (11:9-11) Green interprets “the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he” (11:11) to indicate that because of John’s doubts, he does not know the King and is not in the Kingdom (p138), and later (p144) he suggests that John even “rejected him” because of his doubts. This seems to be going a good deal further than the text.

There is another question, here, however. Most (if not all) English translations interpret the word ‘μικροτερος’ here as a superlative (‘least’) though technically it is in the form of a comparative (‘less’). Chrysostom takes it literally as a comparative, and suggests that the one who is ‘less’ in the Kingdom of Heaven than John is now Jesus: less in age, less in repute among the people, thus maintaining John’s standing from the previous verses without dropping it to exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven as Green does.

In fact, even interpreting μικροτερος as ‘less’ still leaves open Green’s interpretation of John’s doubts (though not his rejection of Jesus!), but perhaps it could be modified by comparison with Jesus’s saying in Lk 11:27. In response to a woman’s crying out ‘blessed is the womb that bore you’, Jesus said ‘blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it’. This response clearly does not indicate that the keeper of God’s word should be blessed instead of his mother (see Lk 1:48: “all generations will call me blessed”), instead it means that (1) more important than biological affinity to him is obedience to God’s word and (2) the reason his mother is blessed is not primarily from carrying him in her womb, but because it was out of a life of obedience to God’s word that she received him into her womb. If this is a valid parallel, then, here Jesus would be indicating that (1) John’s great works as a prophet are not as important as the works of one who lives the life of righteousness he has been teaching as descriptive of life in the Kingdom of Heaven and (2) the reason that John will in the end be considered great is for living out the life of repentance and righteousness, not just for proclaiming the message. Thus John’s reputation established by Jesus in the preceding verses still stands – but in the context of Jesus’s teaching on life in the Kingdom of Heaven.