The Self-Donation of God. Jack D. Kilcrease

Ibid., 226.

247. Lenski, St. Mark’s Gospel, 724.

248. See the following commentaries: Allen, Critical and Exegetical Commentary; Broadus, Gospel of Matthew; Bruner, Matthew; M. Davies, Matthew; Allison and W. Davies, Saint Matthew; Dickson, Brief Exposition; Erdman, Matthew; Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium; Fenton, Saint Matthew; Filson, Saint Matthew; France, Gospel of Matthew; Gaetcher, Matthäus Evangelium; Gibbs, Matthew 1–11; Grundmann, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Gundry, Matthew; Hagner, Matthew; Harold, Gospel of Matthew; Harrington, Matthew; Jerome, Matthew; Keener, Gospel of Matthew; Keil, Evangelium des Matthäus; Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Matthieu; Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel; Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Michaelis, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Meier, Matthew; Nolland, Gospel of Matthew; Overman, Church and Community; Rienecker, Evangelium des Matthäus; T. Robinson, Gospel of Matthew; Sabourin, St. Matthew; Sand, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Scaer, Discourses in Matthew; Scaer, Sermon on the Mount; Schanz, Evangelium des Heiligen Matthäus; Schlatter, Evangelist Matthäus; J. Schmid, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Schniewind, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Staab, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Schweizer, Evangelium nach Matthäus; D. Turner, Matthew; Wiefel, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Witherington, Matthew; Zahn, Evangelium des Matthäus.

249. Harrington, Matthew, 35; Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel, 49; Meier, Marginal Jew, 207.

250. Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel, 54–55.

251. Ibid., 1168.

252. David Scaer considers these to be highly significant for the structure of Matthew. See Scaer, Discourses in Matthew.

253. Allison, New Moses.

254. N. T. Wright, Christian Origins, 1:236–37.

255. G. Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding,” 135.

256. Gieschen, “Divine Name,” 130–48.

257. See similar argument in Scaer, Discourses in Matthew, 157–99.

258. Ibid., 172.

259. Gieschen, “Divine Name,” 124–25.

260. Scaer, Discourses of Matthew, 202.

261. See discussion of the incident in the context of Matthew’s gospel in Maccoby, “Jesus and Barabbas,” 55–60; H. Rigg, “Barabbas,” 417–56.

262. Leithart, Four, 90.

263. We offer this interpretation against the claim of many that this passage has to do with anti-Judaism (or anti-Semitism). See discussions in the following authors: Crossan, “Anti-Semitism,” 189–214; Fitzmyer, “Anti-Semitism,” 667–71; Gaston, “Messiah of Israel,” 40; Harrington, Matthew, 388–93; Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 148–57. First, claiming the passage is anti-Semitic is absurd insofar as it is not only an anachronism (prior to the modern period, hatred of the Jews was for the most part not racial, but religious), but also the author and the gospel hero are both Jews. Secondly, Matthew does not portray Pilate tremendously well either (while he pretends to shuck responsibility, but ultimately allows an innocent man to die). Similarly, many of Jesus’s negative statements about Gentiles are reported through the gospel. Ultimately, Matthew’s polemic is not against the Jews as such, but against unbelieving humanity that rejects Christ. Jews who do not accept Christ are no worse than Gentiles who do the same.

264. Leithart, Four, 118–20; Scaer, Discourses of Matthew, 123.

265. See 1 Enoch 93:2; Ezra 7:4, 12:34; 2 Baruch 24:1–4, 30:1–5, 39:3–8, 40:1–4; Jubilees 1:4–29, 23:14–31.

266. See different opinion in Harrington, Matthew, 269. Actually the phrase can be translated as either “seventy-seven” or “seven times seventy.” Both have symbolic significance. On the one hand, “seventy-seven” is the number of times that Lamech states that he is avenged in Gen 4:24. If this is the case, Jesus’s forgiveness counteracts human revenge and self-justification as embodied by Cain and his descendents. (See criticism of this reading in Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel, 709–10.) Or it could be a symbolic representation of the age of Jubilee that Jesus brings as we suggested above. Both carry the same essential message of forgiveness in the new age.

267. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus and the High Priest,” 43–45. Fletcher-Louis makes substantially the same point about the Markan parallel text.

268. Leithart, Four, 118–20.

269. Harrington, Matthew, 44; Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel, 77–79.

270. Gibbs, “Son of God,” 211.

271. Ibid., 213–16.

272. Farrer, Triple Victory.

273. Ibid., 61–73.

274. Scaer, Christology, 54–55.

275. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:128.

276. See Allison and W. Davies, Saint Matthew, 3:497; France, Gospel of Matthew, 1005; Hagner, Matthew, 783; Gundry, Matthew, 533; Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 683.

277. See the following commentaries: Bock, Luke; Bovon, Evangelium nach Lukas; Caird, St. Luke; Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke; Craddock, Luke; Alexandria, Saint Luke; Danker, Jesus and the New Age; C. Evans, Saint Luke; Fendt, Christus der Gemeinde; Geldenhuys, Gospel of Luke; Gooding, Luke; J. Green, Luke; Hobbs, Gospel of Luke; L. Johnson, Luke; Just, Luke; H. Klein, Lukasevangelium; Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Luc; Leaney, Saint Luke; Lenski, St. Luke’s Gospel; Lieu, Gospel of Luke; Manson, Luke; I. Marshall, Luke; D. Miller,