Matthew 11:7

11:7 While they were going away, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness ¹  to see? A reed shaken by the wind? ² 

Matthew 13:27

13:27 So the slaves ³  of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Then where did the weeds come from?’

Matthew 13:54

13:54 Then ⁴  he came to his hometown ⁵  and began to teach the people ⁶  in their synagogue. ⁷  They ⁸  were astonished and said, “Where did this man get such wisdom and miraculous powers?

Matthew 21:15

21:15 But when the chief priests and the experts in the law ⁹  saw the wonderful things he did and heard the children crying out in the temple courts, ¹⁰  “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant

Matthew 21:31

21:31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They said, “The first.” ¹¹  Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, ¹²  tax collectors ¹³  and prostitutes will go ahead of you into the kingdom of God!

Matthew 26:55

26:55 At that moment Jesus said to the crowd, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me like you would an outlaw? ¹⁴  Day after day I sat teaching in the temple courts, yet ¹⁵  you did not arrest me.

---

¹ tn Or “desert.”

² tn There is a debate as to whether one should read this figuratively (“to see someone who is easily blown over?”) or literally (Grk “to see the wilderness vegetation?… No, to see a prophet”). Either view makes good sense, but the following examples suggest the question should be read literally and understood to point to the fact that a prophet drew them to the desert.

³ tn See the note on the word “slave” in 8:9.

⁴ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “Then.”

⁵ sn Jesus’ hometown (where he spent his childhood years) was Nazareth, about 20 miles (30 km) southwest of Capernaum.

⁶ tn Grk “them”; the referent (the people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁷ sn See the note on synagogues in 4:23. Jesus undoubtedly took the opportunity on this occasion to speak about his person and mission, and the relation of both to OT fulfillment.

⁸ tn Grk “synagogue, so that they.” Here ὥστε (Jwste) has not been translated. Instead a new sentence was started in the translation.

⁹ tn Or “and the scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 2:4.

¹⁰ tn Grk “crying out in the temple [courts] and saying.” The participle λέγοντας (legontas) is somewhat redundant here in contemporary English and has not been translated.

¹¹ tc Verses 29-31 involve a rather complex and difficult textual problem. The variants cluster into three different groups: (1) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. The second son is called the one who does his father’s will. This reading is found in the Western mss (D it). But the reading is so hard as to be nearly impossible. One can only suspect some tampering with the text, extreme carelessness on the part of the scribe, or possibly a recognition of the importance of not shaming one’s parent in public. (Any of these reasons is not improbable with this texttype, and with codex D in particular.) The other two major variants are more difficult to assess. Essentially, the responses make sense (the son who does his father’s will is the one who changes his mind after saying “no”): (2) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. But here, the first son is called the one who does his father’s will (unlike the Western reading). This is the reading found in (א) C L W (Z) 0102 0281 ˹ 33 Ï and several versional witnesses. (3) The first son says “yes” but does not go, and the second son says “no” but later has a change of heart. This is the reading found in B Θ Ë¹³ 700 and several versional witnesses. Both of these latter two readings make good sense and have significantly better textual support than the first reading. The real question, then, is this: Is the first son or the second the obedient one? If one were to argue simply from the parabolic logic, the second son would be seen as the obedient one (hence, the third reading). The first son would represent the Pharisees (or Jews) who claim to obey God, but do not (cf. Matt 23:3). This accords well with the parable of the prodigal son (in which the oldest son represents the unbelieving Jews). Further, the chronological sequence of the second son being obedient fits well with the real scene: Gentiles and tax collectors and prostitutes were not, collectively, God’s chosen people, but they did repent and come to God, while the Jewish leaders claimed to be obedient to God but did nothing. At the same time, the external evidence is weaker for this reading (though stronger than the first reading), not as widespread, and certainly suspect because of how neatly it fits. One suspects scribal manipulation at this point. Thus the second reading looks to be superior to the other two on both external and transcriptional grounds. But what about intrinsic evidence? One can surmise that Jesus didn’t always give predictable responses. In this instance, he may well have painted a picture in which the Pharisees saw themselves as the first son, only to stun them with his application (v. 32).

¹² tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

¹³ sn See the note on tax collectors in 5:46.

¹⁴ tn Or “a revolutionary.” This term can refer to one who stirs up rebellion: BDAG 594 s.v. λῃστής 2 has “revolutionary, insurrectionist, guerrilla” citing evidence from Josephus (J. W. 2.13.2-3 [2.253-254]). However, this usage generally postdates Jesus’ time. It does refer to a figure of violence. Luke uses the same term for the highwaymen who attack the traveler in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30).

¹⁵ tn Grk “and” (καί, kai), a conjunction that is elastic enough to be used to indicate a contrast, as here.