Matthew emphasises the ‘glory’ here. In a notable contrast to 16:27, where he has “in the glory of his Father”, here (25:31) “the son of man comes in his glory and all the angels with him” indicating the significance of what Matthew means by ‘Son of God’. Chrysostom notes that the closer he comes to the cross, the more he speaks of ‘glory’.

The gathering before Jesus to hear his judgement is universal, ‘παντα τα εθνη’ (all the nations, or according to Chrysostom “the whole race of men”). Against those who wish this judgement to be only against pagans, Mt 16:27 and 7:21-23 argue for the inclusion of Christians and Jews also. Green argues (p263) that ‘τα εθνη’ must be “primarily” pagans – those who have never heard the good news. But even this is not so clear, given Jesus’s instruction to his disciples to “make disciples of all the nations”– the same ‘παντα τα εθνη’ (Mt 28:19).

Matthew identifies the ‘sheep’ as “οι δικαιοι” – the righteous. We have seen what Jesus’s definition of ‘righteous’ is in Matthew from the Sermon on the Mount onwards, and it is by living this life of righteousness that judgement will come (the OSB subtitle for the pericope is ‘The Judgement of Works’). Green has already made plain his avoidance of any hint of ‘works righteousness’ and he thus has some difficulty with this passage (p263). While he is right that everything takes place here in the context of a Kingdom life and relation with Christ, it is impossible to take away the fact that Jesus makes the judgement itself explicitly based on works of mercy done for him in the person of “the least of these my brethren” (25:40 etc.). Moreover, the multiple repetition of these desirous acts emphasises them strongly in the narrative and would fix them firmly in the memory of the hearers.

Who are “οι αδελφοι μου οι ελαχιστοι” – “the least of these my brethren”? Green wants these to be “Jewish or Christian” brothers, but a close parallel in Matthew is probably “οι μικροι” – the little ones of 18:6,10,14. The context of this expression closely identifies Christ with his disciples, a much closer identity than a messenger representing his master, since here those in contact with “οι αδελφοι μου οι ελαχιστοι” do not know whom they represent until it is too late. Chrysostom identifies these as the poor, the lowly and the outcast, in fact “every believer… for baptism renders a man a brother, and the divine mysteries” (LXXIX:1).

Judgement sends the ‘sheep’ into the kingdom “prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (25:34) but the ‘goats’ into the eternal fire “prepared for the devil and his angels” – Chrysostom points out the implication that those goats are going to a place that was not prepared for them, but a place that by their own conduct they have chosen (LXXIX:2). And as for the timing of the judgement, Green notes (p264) that in this pericope there is no ‘judgement’ as such, or at least no trial, just a sentence. Instead, as he implies, the judgement itself – the discernment of who is going to be among the sheep, and who among the goats – takes place in the time between Christ’s incarnation and his second coming, when he judges us each time we meet him in one of “the least of these my brethren”.

[1] The opening of John Chrysostom’s Homily LXXIX.

The parable of the wicked tenants is interesting for its use of the imagery of the ‘son’ – in contrast to the parable of the two sons where the sons stand for peoples, in this parable, the son is used in an absolute sense, as ‘heir’ and in contrast to the ‘servants’ (prophets). The ‘Son of God’ is a title for Jesus given particular significance in Matthew’s gospel (e.g. at the baptism 3:17, in the temptations 4:6, at the transfiguration 17:5, in Peter’s confession 16:16).

Green (p227) comments on how restrictive the ‘one point’ exegesis rule for parables would be in the case of the wicked tenants. Both Green and Chrysostom (LXVIII:1) consider it clear that there are many closer and uncontroversial allegories in this parable. Since the chief priests and Pharisees “perceived that He was speaking of them” after this parable, it is clear evidence that Chrysostom and Green are correct to take this approach in this case. The chief priests and Pharisees no doubt perceived that they were represented by the wicked tenants; that the servants that had been sent were the prophets, who had been treated badly as described in the parable. They also presumably perceived the implication that Jesus himself was to be seen as the ‘son’ and ‘heir’ (21:38) of the same Lord who had sent the prophets. Matthew has those hearing the parable themselves give the verdict that the wicked tenants be put to death, and Chrysostom draws the parallel from 2 Sam 12:1-7 of David’s condemning himself out of his own lips in response to Nathan’s parable which he did not perceive was about him. In Mark (12:9) and Luke (20:15-16) the verdict is given as the response to the rhetorical question, presumably by Jesus. Luke uses a hearers’ response “God forbid” (Lk 20:16)[1] to link Jesus’s comment about the ‘stone the builders rejected’ from Ps 118:22-23 and the effect of the stone on both those who stumble upon it, and those upon whom it falls.

The import of the parable is emphasized by the addition of this quotation from Ps 118, referring to Jesus as the stone and the whole context is clarified in Matthew (though not in Mark or Luke) by Jesus’s own explanation of the parable (21:43). Green gives some Old Testament context for Jesus’s comments about those who will stumble on the stone, in comparison to the image of God as both sanctuary and stumbling block (Is 8:14), and the stone that will crush those upon whom it falls, in comparison to the stone as the apocalyptic Kingdom that will destroy the empires of the world (Dan 2:34-45). The stone is also the foundation for life (cf. Is 28:16). He also notes the play on words in a Semitic context from ‘son’ to ‘stone’: Hebrew בֵּן or ben (Mt 21:33-41) becomes אֶבֶן or eben (Mt 21:42-44) – an interpretation of the Psalm text that was also made by the Aramaic targum: “the son which the builders rejected”[2]. Green (p230) notes that Jesus’s use of this Psalm text turns Israel’s understanding on its head: now it is Israel, instead of being rejected by the nations, which is doing the rejecting and thus heading towards a similar judgment. A parallel reversal was noted by Green in this same chapter of Matthew (p220 on Mt 21:12-17, the cleansing of the Temple) from the contemporary Psalms of Solomon speaking of God purging Jerusalem of gentile defilement, to the Son of God purifying the Temple’s Court of the Gentiles of Jewish defilement.

[1] Chrysostom insists that the hearers could have made both responses (LXVIII:2).

[2] Green’s quotation (p229) of the targum.

Green contrasts Judaic theory and practice on marriage (p201-202), noting that the significance and permanence on marriage is clear from Creation, and yet the exception granted by Moses had been extended by some Jewish teachers to a quite liberal degree. He also notes (p203) that God had also said ‘I hate divorce’ (Mal. 2:16).

Green suggests that here the Pharisees were attempting to trick Jesus to take one or another side in the Jewish controversy on the legalities involved in divorce. John Chrysostom suggests that, knowing what Jesus had previously said in strengthening the Law on marriage (Mt 5:31-32), they hoped to catch him contradicting either himself or the Law (LXII:1). But here Jesus responds by quoting Scripture (even, as Green notes, attributing the words of Genesis to ‘the Creator’, p202). The strength of his statement, “what God hath joined together…” and “one flesh”, indicates the seriousness with which God views marriage and the intention that it be a permanent state. Chrysostom notes the continuity with old covenant (LXII:2) in Jesus’s words, noting also how Jesus turns the criticism back on the Pharisees – “for the hardness of your hearts”. This is a common way for Jesus to respond to the Pharisees (e.g. 9:11-13, 12:1-14, 15:1-20). Having stated the law of God, Jesus then gives the law with own authority (as he had also done in previous similar cases, e.g. 5:21-48, 15:10-11). Likewise, again as before (e.g. 9:14, 15:12-20), the disciples ask for clarification on this ‘hard saying’.

The interpretation of 19:11 is also difficult: what is “this saying” – his, or the disciples’? Does this mean that accepting marriage on such terms is hard, and there are those, like the eunuchs, who cannot accept it? Or does it mean that accepting celibacy is hard, but it is given to some, as for the eunuchs, to accept it. Green is ambiguous (p203). Chrysostom understands the second (LVII:3), commenting that the disciples are suggesting celibacy is easier, but Jesus that it is hard; but by seeing the difficulty of marriage they might be encouraged to celibacy (since, like the eunuchs, they will be able to endure it). With regard to the eunuchs, Chrysostom speaks strongly against self-mutilation (even comparing it to murder), and says that “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (19:12) are those who have put away wicked thoughts. He further comments that Jesus’s saying “he who is able to accept it…” means that this teaching about marriage and celibacy is not “shut up in the compulsion of a law” (LVII:3) but that each is called to live out the Kingdom life in the way appropriate to his circumstances. Whichever saying Jesus is referring to, what is clear is that neither marriage nor celibacy is to be a universal rule; both are roads that can lead to the Kingdom, as long as they are lived out in the context of a Kingdom life.

As for the contradiction between Matthew’s account and the parallels in Mark and Luke, one possible explanation is that Matthew’s concern for continuity with the old covenant has caused him to add Moses’s ‘divorce clause’ to Jesus’s saying (Matthew makes an exception for ‘πορνεια’ which means some kind of unlawful sexual behaviour[1], similar to Moses’s exception for a husband to divorce if ‘ευρεν εν αυτη ασχημον πραγμα’ – if he found in her a shameless deed – Deut 24:1 LXX). However Green (p204-5) has an intriguing and plausible way of dealing with it. After discussing the problems of interpreting exactly what the word ‘πορνεια’ means, and the context of the exception, he explains that Jesus was not legislating here but is demonstrating the ideal of marriage, which in the life of the Kingdom and in the purposes of Creation was to be a permanent union. Green suggests that here, Matthew was turning this teaching into a law, and “as soon as you have legislation, you need exceptions to cover hard cases”. In other words, it is clear from Jesus’s teaching what marriage should be, but there is room for economia in specific difficult cases.

[1] Bauer’s Lexicon.

If such an event happens outside the Church, then we are to turn the other cheek, as we do not have the benefit of a shared commitment to the life of the Kingdom (cf. 1 Cor. 5:12-13). But one who has that commitment to the life of the Kingdom needs encouragement to maintain it – even to cutting out the source of the sin (18:8-9). Both Chrysostom (LX:2) and Green (p195) both note that the injured party’s making the first approach alone and quietly is less offensive or embarrassing to the sinner. The purpose after all is not seeking punishment but repentance and reconciliation. When it does come to taking witnesses and then telling it to the church (18:17), Green takes this literally as meaning the whole community, Chrysostom assumes it mean the church in the person of those responsible pastorally, as in confession.

Implicit in Chrysostom’s description of binding and loosing is that what happens in the Church is connected to what happens in eternity (18:18) – that the binding this one brought on himself by unwillingness to repent is not an earthly binding alone. Green also refers anecdotally to a case where a person repented at the second of these stages, and notes that the result of his confession, although involving the consequence of losing his job, did not involve the kind of reparation by law that would likely have happened in a secular environment. He might have added that this is a reference to the passage immediately following on forgiveness, clearly the proper response to the man’s confession of guilt. The binding and loosing is not primarily a gift or power, but a terrible responsibility.

What does it mean to be treated like a heathen and a tax collector (18:17)? Chrysostom points out that Matthew brings up the tax collectors often as an example of the worst kind of criminal. But these examples occur in two contexts: the comparison with one whom you would not wish to be like (e.g. 5:46), and the one who repents and turns to Jesus – such as Matthew himself (10:3). So this is no mere rejection and insult, as Green points out (p196), but still leaves hope of eventual reconciliation.

Chrysostom links the subsequent verse about prayer through the strength of the community: drawing together for prayer to forgive (18:22), to help overcome burdens to repentance (18:16-17) and to be bound together in Christ (18:19) implying that even the ones who were at enmity (18:15), if one is ready to approach in forgiveness and the other ready to repent, will be those who are gathering together with Christ in their midst. It is not the gathering alone that makes it ‘in Christ’, but the gathering in his name (18:20), which, as Chrysostom points out (LXI:3), indicates acceptance of his teaching on life in the Kingdom.

Green adds the interesting historical note (p197) that the rabbis had a saying: when “ten people sit together and occupy themselves with the Torah, the shekinah [the glory of God] abides among them”. In Mt 18:20, Jesus is both the Torah and the glory of God.

“The Holy Scriptures are the word that ‘holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost’ (II Pet. i:21). But the words of the Saints are not completely unaffected by the intellectual level and spiritual state of those to whom they are directed. They were a lively message addressed to real people, and so scientific (historical, archaeological, philological et al.) interpretation of the Gospel will inevitably be unsound.

“The Holy Scriptures have one definite final object but the Prophets, the Apostles and the Church’s other Teachers adapted themselves to the level and understanding of the people around them.

“St. Paul is an especially glowing example here. He never, of course, retreated from his unique vision of God, from his knowledge of God, yet he made himself ‘all things to all men, that he might save some’ (cf. I Cor. ix:19-22). In other words, Paul spoke differently to different people; and if we approach his epistles analytically only, the essential point of his ‘theological system’ will inevitably remain unintelligible.”

So does this mean that there is not a theological system as such, since the Gospel is in its essence relational: it is about my union with God and yours — there is common content, but the relationship will be unique in each specific case? So in the usual argument in the West about how to read Scripture, both sides are wrong: it is wrong to deny that there is a cultural, time-specific aspect to the Scriptures as if everything is universal, but it is also wrong to approach the cultural component as if it were something extraneous, something that should be removed to find the ‘deeper’ ‘spiritual’ truth — there is no deeper, spiritual truth than the relationship with God of any unique, history-bound, culture-bound human person. Archimandrite Sophrony continues…

“The Staretz believed that the way to apprehend the Word of God lay in the fulfilment of Christ’s commandments. This was the Lord’s own teaching.

“‘And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself’ (John vii:15-17). The Lord summed up the whole of the Holy Scripture in one short saying: ‘Love God and thy neighbour’ (cf. Matt. xxii:40). Yet the meaning of Christ’s word love will remain a mystery for the philologist to the end of time. The word love is the very name of God Himself, and its true sense is only revealed by the action of God Himself.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.