The Gospel of Matthew offers the theologically richest glimpse into Jesus’s teaching on the eschaton in the New Testament.

Laszlo Gallusz

Despite the masterful character and strong influence of the First Gospel both in Jewish- and Gentile-Christian communities of the early church, its author, Matthew, is not considered by his contemporary authors to be one of the pre-eminent theologians of the first century, in rank with Paul and John. While his literary creativity is beyond discussion, it has been argued that his theological thinking is not hallmarked by innovation, as is that of the above mentioned two apostles. Nevertheless, the Matthean version of the Eschatological Discourse (chapters 24 and 25) provides the theologically richest glimpse into Jesus’ teaching on the eschaton in the New Testament. (The Markan and Lukan versions are significantly shorter; they are respectively 37 and 32 verses long, as compared with the 97 verses of Matthew.)

This much debated text is full of interpretative difficulties. A lot of ink has been spilled over issues such as the cryptic “abomination of desolation” (24:15),1 the relationship of the destruction of the temple and the Parousia, the great tribulation, and the problem of the term “this generation” (24:34). In some Christian circles, the discourse has served and still serves as the foundational text for cataloguing the “signs of the times,” which are seen as heralding the impending Parousia.

While a number of detailed studies have been published in the past several decades on Matthew 24 and 25, the theological exploration of the discourse has been largely neglected. One of the rare exceptions is the work of Barna, who examines the discourse by employing a theological-thematic reading which he sees as a “complementary” and “necessary” step to the exegetical work.2 His study is, however, focused on the discussion of the problem of signs of the Parousia in chapter 24, hence, he gives no attention to the theological investigation of the discourse as a whole. In his commentary, Talbert also explores theological matters related to the Matthean Eschatological Discourse, but his approach is selective: he concentrates mainly on the apocalyptic pattern of Matthew’s eschatology.3 Similar selectivity is characteristic of the work of Luz, whose theological enquiry focuses on Matthew’s judgment theology.4 Furthermore, a number of comprehensive earlier studies, such as those by Ladd, Ridderbos, and Berkouwer, discuss theologically the Eschatological Discourse, but without nuancing carefully the contribution of each of the three synoptic authors.5

This study seeks to break fresh ground in the theological reading of the discourse by paying attention to Matthew 24 and 25 as a literary and theological whole. It aims to identify and investigate the cardinal theological themes of the discourse giving insight into the rhetorical agenda of Matthew. It argues that Jesus’ use of apocalyptic language in the discourse is not given for speculation over the future, but rather for ethical-ecclesial purposes: to help the disciples to live attentively and responsibly in the presence of the One who has come and who will come.

Jesus’ Kingdom Theology and the Eschatological Discourse

According to Matthew, the theological center point of Jesus’ teaching and proclamation was “the good news of the kingdom” (4:23; 9:35). The proclamation of this “good news of the kingdom” is mentioned also in the Eschatological Discourse (24:14), referring to the mission of the church in the post-Easter era. As announced by Jesus, this theme implies the arrival of God’s eschatological kingship with its two distinct aspects: the kingdom as a present reality established in this world (immanent dynamic dominion of God) and its future manifestation (transcendent spatial kingdom). Both aspects of the kingdom have strong eschatological overtones, and they are integral stages in the fulfillment of God’s plan. The human existence between the Christ-event and the Parousia takes place in the tension of the “now-but-not-yet” in which God’s promises are realized, but not fully extended.

In this connection, the Eschatological Discourse is highly significant, because it provides an extended discussion on the coming of the future reign of God. This coming has already been referred to in Matthew’s Gospel in a number of ways: (1) in the “‘Your kingdom come’” petition of the Lord’s Prayer [6:10]; (2) in statements about “‘entry’” into the kingdom [5:20; 7:21; 18:3] and its opposite of “‘being cast out’” [7:2; 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13]; (3) in expressions on inheriting eternal life [19:29]; (4) in the image of the promised land [5:5]; (5) in references to the future judgment [5:3, 10]; (6) in the expression “‘for the sake of the kingdom of heaven’” [19:12]; (7) in using future tenses with “‘in the kingdom’” [5:19; 13:43]; (8) in the statement on the coming of the Son of Man in His glory [16:27]; and (9) in major images such as the great banquet prepared by God [8:11; 22:11–13], the harvest [13:24–30], the catch of fish [13:47] and the leavened mass [13:33]. Clearly, in these images and expressions a culmination in the fulfillment of the coming of God’s perfect kingdom is envisioned and an appeal is made that stresses the value of living in the perspective of the eschatological hope.

Since Matthew portrays Jesus primarily as a teaching Messiah, the “messianic teacher of wisdom,”6 it is natural to expect that his discourses address not only the kingdom life that had arrived already in his earthly ministry, but also the divine purpose that leads to the full realization of the kingdom. The Eschatological Discourse, which is the second longest discourse out of the five discourses in the First Gospel, provides this final capstone in Jesus’s multifaceted kingdom theology. As such, its detailed discussion is of utmost importance for understanding the great divine work of salvation and the human response to it embodied in the idea of entering into or failing to enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Arrangement of the Eschatological Discourse

The complexity of structuring the Matthean Eschatological Discourse is noteworthy. It is almost impossible to find two authors who agree on all the details. The basic problem is that Matthew seems to move freely between describing the impending crisis (the destruction of Jerusalem) and the end of the age (the Parousia). Mounce calls attention to the fact that “it is not uncommon for prophetic material to move between type and antitype without calling attention to exactly what is happening.”7 So, the fluidity of the discourse reflects the author’s own setting, rather than sharing contemporary Western concern for meticulous, orderly continuity.

Still, there are clear structural indicators in the text that signal the flow of the argument and consequently the main sections of the discourse. First, the discourse begins with a narrative introductory scene that provides the setting for what follows: Jesus’ prediction about the destruction of the temple and the double question of the disciples (24:1–3). Second, in a didactic section, Jesus focuses on human history by delineating events on earth and in heaven followed by the Parousia (24:4–31). Third, Jesus exhorts the disciples by stressing the importance of vigilance (24:32–25:30). Fourth, in a scene of the final judgment, human accountability is emphasized, and the theme of living appropriately in the light of the coming eschaton is continued (25:31–46). On the basis of this macro-structure, it seems that Matthew 24:32 constitutes the “hinge” of the Eschatological Discourse, because it draws a line between the didactic and paraenetic sections. In the first one, the emphasis is on the expected events, while in the second one, the church is urged to respond in vigilance and preparation for the coming eschaton. The paraenetic section is longer: 50 verses (and an additional 16 verses of the final judgment scene), as compared to the 28 verses of the didactic section. This difference in length is not insignificant for establishing the rhetorical purpose of the author.

This analysis demonstrates that any comprehensive theological analysis of Matthew 24 and 25, which focuses on the events preceding the eschaton, the eschaton itself, the judgment, or simply on discipleship, is incomplete and one-sided. The structure indicates that while the discourse has an eschatological overtone, end-expectation and  relating it to the church are strictly indivisible. Thus, eschatology and ecclesiology are closely related in the discourse, which is not surprising, because no other Gospel is as strongly shaped by the concept of church as is the First Gospel. Since discipleship is to be understood not only as an ecclesiological concept, but also as an experiential reality linked to the person of Jesus, Christology must also be given some consideration in the theological analysis of Matthew 24 and 25.

Theological Themes

The fairness of God: justice and judgment. The Eschatological Discourse is impregnated with the theme of God’s justice as expressed in judgment. In the Matthean worldview, both the righteous and the wicked are to face consequences for their deeds in this world. On the one hand, seeking first the kingdom and its righteousness results in experiencing God’s care (6:33); moreover, the righteous “‘will inherit the earth’” (5:5, NIV). On the other hand, like Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed because of their wickedness (11:23), Jerusalem must count on judgment (21:18, 19; 22:7; 24:2) because of its history of rejecting messengers sent by God. The deeds-consequences line of reasoning is strongly present in the Eschatological Discourse. Surprisingly, this is overlooked by Reiser, who fails to consider the discourse in constructing the judgment theology of Jesus as reflected in the Synoptic Gospels.8

The wider literary context of the Eschatological Discourse is of vital importance for understanding the judgment theology of Matthew 24 and 25. Indeed, 24:1, 2 functions as the culmination of the theme of God’s judgment upon Israel as foreshadowed in chapters 21 to 23. As the narrative progresses, the emphasis on the judgment on Israel becomes increasingly stronger (21:23, 31, 43), until the judgment oracle of the Woes is uttered in chapter 23. Climactic to it is Jesus’ abandoning of the temple (24:1), which is preceded by the statement: “‘See, your house is left to you, desolate’” (23:38). The account is reminiscent of Ezekiel’s vision of the departing of God’s glory from the temple (Eze. 10:18, 19), particularly since link is made with the Mount of Olives (11:22, 23; Matt. 24:3). So, even if Matthew 23 is a separate discourse from chapters 24 and 25, it is intricately linked to it, providing a theological clue for its interpretation.

Not only is the starting point of the Eschatological Discourse a judgment oracle (24:1, 2), but so is its concluding scene (25:31–46). Namely, the Eschatological Discourse ends with a portrayal of the universal final judgment conducted by the Son of Man sitting “‘on the throne of his glory’” (25:31). This scene reflects an apocalyptic awareness, according to which justice will prevail at the end, and no one will be able to escape it. This provides grounds for confidence in the future, an incentive to look forward to God’s radical transformation of the present order of things, and to the coming of the eschatological kingdom that includes no trace of evil.

In addition to the beginning and the end of the discourse, its heart, the Parousia scene (24:29–31), also resonates with the notion of judgment. Davies and Allison appropriately name this scene “the dramatic zenith” of the discourse.9 The cosmic “shaking,” described in the Day of the Lord language drawn from the Old Testament, implies that all quake, since the Son of Man comes as a judge and ruler over all things (16:27; 19:28; 25:31). The Parousia brings “a mighty reversal of fortunes,” reflecting the materialization of God’s justice (24:31).10

Thus, the Eschatological Discourse sees judgment as integral to God’s plan. It is made clear that there are lesser judgments as well as the final judgment of God, and the two are related. As De Pressensé notes, “Every period has its own decisive event, and receives its own solemn sentence. These partial judgments foretell the great and final judgment.”11 At the end, divine justice is inescapable, because it is the reflection of the moral structure of the universe rooted in God’s fairness.

Time of woes, time of hope: interpretation of history. Matthew portrays a fundamentally apocalyptic picture of history. The present is seen as evil and dark: a time of woes likened to “‘birth pangs’” (24:8). Interpreting the current era and the immediate past in terms of the messianic woes is not unique to Matthew. Allison calls our attention to the fact that such an outlook can be established also in the Testament of Moses, portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4 Ezra, Mark and Revelation.12

The “time of woes” appears to be an extended period that involves continuous suffering, but it is also marked by a worldwide proclamation of the “‘good news of the kingdom’” (24:14). In this age, not only has love grown cold (vs. 12), but the people of God are to live with false prophets (vss. 11, 23–28), experiencing hate and tribulation (vs. 9). Additionally, they are to witness catastrophes including Israel’s national catastrophe. From a phenomenon of “‘“abomination of desolation”’” (vs. 15, NKJV), the fulfillment of a Danielic prediction, one can only try to flee. Essentially, the Eschatological Discourse defines “the character of time as one of ‘crisis.’”13 As Luz notes, “Matthew paints his own present black because he no longer sees a future for the world”14—things have gone beyond the point of repair.

An exclusively negative view of history in Matthew 24 and 25 must be tempered by an often overlooked aspect. Namely, the darkness of evil does not prevail in the narrative, but it is counterbalanced by the great hope for the Parousia of the glorified Christ (24:29–44). While the immediate future is horrific, the ultimate future is glorious. God’s people are prompted by the Eschatological Discourse to relate to the future as combining woes and hope at the same time. Affliction is to be seen as only the prelude to God’s vindication of His people and His transformation of the present evil world. The fact that human history is pictured as moving in the direction of the final solution of the problem of evil, despite the troublesome experiences of God’s people, provides an assurance that would have encouraged Matthew’s original audience to persevere in faithfulness and hope. While they were prepared by the discourse for a dramatic time marked by a long haul, they were also ensured that living in a waiting mode is made possible because of a hope made real—a hope grounded not in illusion, but in the reality of Jesus’ promise.

So, the Eschatological Discourse defines the character of human history by reinforcing hope in the midst of overwhelming despair. The hardships are not indefinite and they will not last forever. While the present evil age inflicts wounds on God’s people, hope is nurtured “by showing how a good future can issue from an evil present.”15

Christ and the eschaton. The Eschatological Discourse presents Jesus not only as a teacher, but also as a prophet who foresees the eschatological future. This Christological perspective is not new. Throughout the entire Gospel, Jesus prophesies events related to the endtime scenario: the activity of false prophets (7:15–23), the persecution of disciples (10:21–39), the coming of the Son of Man (16:27) and the angelic harvest (13:49). The Eschatological Discourse clarifies these details and enlarges them significantly.

In the discourse itself, Jesus appears as a messianic-eschatological figure with a crucial role in history. While the rest of the Gospel emphasizes the “newness of the new situation created by Jesus’ coming”16 and His function in the era which He has inaugurated, in Matthew 24 He is portrayed as the Son of Man “‘coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory’” (24:30). This coming, the Parousia, represents the ultimate triumph of God’s plan. This triumph is strongly grounded in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and it will be made complete by the termination of the order of evil when the Son of Man will publicly reveal His kingly rule over the universe. Although a throne is not specifically mentioned in 24:29–31, the fact that He is “‘coming on the clouds of heaven’” (24:30) is telling. Namely, the Son of Man is pictured as coming “with the clouds of heaven” to the Ancient One in Daniel 7:13. Not less significantly, during the exodus the Shekinah presence of God guided Israel in a cloud by day and in a fire at night (Ex. 13:21, 22; 14:24); later the Shekinah glory covered the sanctuary as a cloud (40:34–38). In the light of these Old Testament backgrounds, the Son of Man’s Parousia “on the clouds of heaven” seems to represent the coming of Yahweh Himself. “‘The throne of his glory,’” the symbol of his kingly rule, is directly mentioned later in Matthew 25:31, in the context of the eschatological judgment scene.

Clearly, in the Eschatological Discourse, Christology is integrated into eschatology. The future holds the coming of the One who has already come and whose “‘good news of the kingdom’” is proclaimed in the present (24:14). Therefore, the hope for humanity is centered on the person of Jesus, the One capable of renewing humanity and its life space, rather than on the future itself. Ultimately, the world is not moving toward chaos, though plenty of it is evident in human history (24:3–31), but rather toward Christ and the future He brings at His Parousia. To that hope Matthew looks Christologically, “with quiet but unshakeable assurance.”17

Vigilance and endurance: church, ethics, and the eschaton. The main concern of the Eschatological Discourse is not the events marking the crisis before the eschaton, but the present existence of the church. The present is a time in which affliction and proclamation take place in parallel—in such a situation the church is called faithfully to follow Christ, enduring to the end (24:13). No discussion of the new world is given in Matthew 24 and 25, but the discourse is rather dominated by an emphasis on the ethical implications of the coming eschaton. Clearly, eschatology, discipleship and ethics are inextricably interwoven, and this link frames the discourse.

This perspective is reflected in the structure of the Matthean Eschatological Discourse, as pointed out in the relevant section above. Namely, the shorter section on the eschatological portrayal of human history (24:3–31) functions only as a preparation for the longer warning section (24:32–25:30), which stresses vigilance. So, the discussion on human history exists in the interest of paraenesis. This feature indicates that Matthew’s primary interest lies in praxis, rather than in speculation along the lines of date-calculating imminent eschatology. Thus, the readers of the discourse are to discover in it how God calls them to live in the light of the coming Parousia.

The paraenetic section consists of two larger parts. First, the unexpectedness of the Parousia is emphasized (24:32–44); this is followed by three Parousia parables, which discuss the character of waiting (24:45–25:30). The resulting picture brings out clearly that a thoughtless and careless attitude toward the Parousia is to be guarded against. Jesus’ followers are rather to demonstrate watchfulness (24:42) and preparedness (24:44). What faithfulness, readiness, and responsibility regarding the assigned tasks in the interim period mean is illustrated by the parables of the faithful and unfaithful servant (24:45–51), the 10 bridesmaids (25:1–13) and the talents (25:14–30). In these parables, the church is urged to understand discipleship in terms of living responsibly in endurance and carrying out duties in a spiritually prepared state, since the followers of Christ do not know the time of the Son of Man’s return (24:36). The warnings “function as catalysts for the disciples’ spiritual wakefulness.”18

The present is also seen in the Eschatological Discourse as a time of worldwide mission. Bearing witness to the “‘gospel of the kingdom’” is directly linked to the coming of the end (24:14, NKJV). As background to the idea is the motif of the nations’ endtime conversion to the Lord, which features eminently in the Old Testament prophetic literature (Isa. 2:2–4; 45:20–22; 49:6; 55:5; 56:6–8; Micah 4:1–3). Though in the future passive construction of 24:14 the subject of the preaching is not specified (“‘will be proclaimed’”), the context indicates that those who endure the trials delineated in the discourse are precisely those who persevere until the end, faithfully bearing witness to “‘the gospel of the kingdom.’” In the wider context of the entire gospel, this missionary task is clearly given to the church, and it has an eschatological overtone (28:19, 20). Ecclesiology, ethics, and eschatology are strongly linked in the theological horizon of the Eschatological Discourse: none ranks above the others, but they are all integral to the realization of the pastoral purpose of the author.

The only crisis that matters: serving while waiting. While the Eschatological Discourse alerts its audience to the time of crisis in the post-Easter era and emphasizes the triumph of God’s plan, its aim is not to inspire a short-term eschatological fervor. On the one hand, the discourse communicates important information about the endtime, listing many of the signs that marked the end in contemporary Jewish literature. Although these prophecies make the suffering of the people of God bearable, they are, however, not of cardinal significance. The exhortative nature of the discourse makes of focal interest the instruction on how to live in the light of the impending Parousia. So, the invitation to the disciples is not so much to discern the future, but rather the present. In practical terms, this means that the expectation of the Parousia does not entail any passivity in the life of the believing community, but rather it requires a careful and dedicated activity in the service of God. This perspective is emphatically reinforced in the concluding scene of the discourse, the parable of the sheep and the goats, which portrays the universal judgment scene taking place in front of (25:32) “‘the throne of his glory’” (25:31). The significance of the location is highlighting the divine authority in serving cosmic justice.

The point of the universal judgment scene (25:31–46) is to emphasize the criterion used at the last judgment. The characteristic of the righteous is that they give food to the hungry, give something to drink to the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the naked, take care of the sick, and visit those in prison (25:35–45). The concept of demonstrating mercy to “‘the least of these’” (25:40, 45) reminds us of Proverbs 19:17: “Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and will be repaid in full.” What is new in Matthew 25 is not the idea of mercy (5:7), but the identification of the needy person with Jesus Himself. According to the judgment scene, Christian piety is directly linked with the love commandment: Serving God takes place when acts of love are extended toward other human beings, including one’s enemies. Vine notes that “this is not a self-imposed status”19—acts of love are rather marked by a genuine, warm fraternity that becomes an extension of the messianic era of shalom. At the end, it seems that this is “the only crisis that matters,”20 the way to remain awake in waiting for the fulfillment of the promise of the glorious Second Coming.

Conclusion

The theology of the Matthean Eschatological Discourse is a pastoral theology: Its primary concern is to guide the community of believers. The author incarnates crucial moral imperatives by setting up a complex interplay of eschatology, judgment theology, philosophy of history, Christology, ecclesiology, and ethics.

Instead of an extended speculation on the question of “‘the sign’” of His coming (24:3), the Matthean Jesus discusses with His disciples how they are to wait in the era between the two advents. Unfortunately, Christians have often been unable to heed Jesus’ warning. They have often made apocalyptic constructs on the basis of the Eschatological Discourse, attempting to determine the end of the age and doing exactly what Jesus warned against: stepping on the territory of the knowledge reserved for the Father only (24:36). The recent COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, also the recent events in Israel, have provided ample evidence of that.

Jesus’ use of apocalyptic language in Matthew 24 and 25, despite its strong judgment theology, is not given for speculation over the future, but rather for ethical-ecclesial purposes: to help the disciples to live attentively and responsibly in the presence of the One who has come and who will come. As such, the discourse helps us to see ourselves and the world in which we are called to live in the light of God’s purposes for His creation. While the discourse undeniably calls attention prophetically to the challenges the followers of Christ face between the two advents, being obsessed with reading “the signs of the times” does not do justice to Jesus’ teaching, which seeks to instruct on how to live in the light of the coming Parousia.

The challenge the church of the 21st century is facing is to bring the study of the Eschatological Discourse out from a purely academic realm into the concerns of everyday life. Our age strongly resonates with apocalyptic dystopia as far as human history is concerned, but this is only part of the story. Our generation has the privilege of learning to recognize and embrace the “seeds of hope” (Henri Nouwen),21 sown with intentionality in the Eschatological Discourse. The church is tasked with carrying forward these “seeds of hope” as “this good news of the kingdom” (24:14) in the conviction that God is at work through the processes of human history and that He will complete His work of restoration in His own time. According to the Eschatological Discourse, such a perspective will materialize in an attitude of watchful expectation of the future that will be brought about by the eschatological intervention of God that goes hand in hand with service to those in need.

Laszlo Gallusz, PhD, is a Principal Lecturer in New Testament Studies at Newbold College, Bracknell, Berkshire, England, U.K.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references in this article are quoted from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

2. Jan Barna, “The Progression in the Signs of the Parousia in the Eschatological Speeches of Jesus,” in Eschatology From an Adventist Perspective: Proceedings of the Fourth International Bible Conference. Rome, June 11–20, 2018, Elias Brasil de Souza et al., eds. (Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Institute, 2021), 139–160.

3. Charles H. Talbert, Matthew, Paideia (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2010), 278–281.

4. Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, New Testament Theology, J. Bradford Robinson, trans. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 125–132.

5. George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974), 3–42; Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, H. de Jongste, trans. (Philadelphia, Penna.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975), 477–497; G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1972), 235–359.

6. Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 73–117.

7. Robert H. Mounce, Matthew (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1991), 222.

8. Marius Reiser, Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish Context, Linda M. Maloney, trans. (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1997).

9. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1997), 3:358.

10. G. B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewish Nation (London: Athlone Press, 1965), 20.

11. Quoted in George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Vancouver, B.C.: Regent, 1993), 129.

12. Dale C. Allison Jr., The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia, Penna.: Fortress, 1985), 7–14, 26–39, 70–73.

13. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 477.

14. Ulrich Luz, Matthew: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1989–2005), 3:206.

15. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:328.

16. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2005), 41.

17. Michael Green, The Message of Matthew: The Kingdom of Heaven, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity, 2000), 49.

18. Talbert, Matthew, 278.

19. Cedric E. W. Vine, Jesus and the Nations: Discipleship and Mission in the Gospel of Matthew (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2022), 52.

20. Stanley Hauerwas, Matthew, A Theological Commentary From Leading Contemporary Theologians (London: SCM, 2006), 212.

21. Henri Nouwen, Seeds of Hope, Robert Durback, ed. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1989).