Interpreters of Matthew 11:25–30 have fallen roughly into two classes. On the one hand, there are those who have been content to explain the passage solely in the light of the Old Testament, and, on the other, those who have traced in it a common pattern, ultimately deriving from Eastern theosophy, which emerges in Ecclesiasticus 51, and elsewhere, and reappears in Matthew 11:25–30, through the agency of certain primitive Christian thiasoi of a ‘mystical’ type. Not far removed from this is the view that, both on account of style and content, the passage is to be understood in the light of Hellenistic Gnosticism.

Following the publication of S. Schechter's Fragments of a Zadokite Work in 1910, some scholars examined the possibility of an Essene origin. This idea was suggested by such points of contact as the stricter observance of the Sabbath, the emphasis on ritual purity, and the avoidance of oaths. One of the main objections to this identification was the recurrence in CDC of laws relating to animal sacrifice and the Temple at Jerusalem. For R. H. Charles this fact alone was decisive: “The Zadokites were not Essenes, since they inculcated the duty of animal sacrifice.” This judgment was based on the widespread belief that the Essenes were unalterably opposed to the sacrificial cult and the priestly tradition.

Recent discussion of the origin and status of the Christian ministry has focused attention on the shaliach in Rabbinical Judaism as a possible precursor of the apostle. The concept, we are told, was primarily a juristic one; the shaliach was delegate for another, he acted as an authorized person to whom a definite commission had been entrusted. As such a representative, he was invested with the authority of the person or group he was charged to represent, in accordance with the oft-quoted maxim: “A man's representative is as the man himself.” Thus, for example, under rabbinic law, marriage by proxy was possible. Again, a man might actually divorce his wife through such a representative, and even in a matter so personal as this, he could not subsequently undo what had been done in his name. On the other hand, the representative could not undertake independent action. It was assumed that he would keep within the commission given to him; his authority was derivative and therefore conditional upon obedience to his instructions.

St. John Chrysostom came, according to Socrates (Hist. Eccl. VI, 3), of a good class Antiochene family (ἐξ ɛὐπατρίδων τῶν ἐκɛῖ). Palladius (Dialogus, 5) gives more specific information — υἱὸς γɛγονὼς τῶν διαπρɛψάντων ɛὐγɛνῶς παρὰ τῇ τάξɛι τοῦ στρατηλάτου τῆς Συρίας. In all commentaries and encyclopedias which I have been able to consult this is taken to mean that his father (Secundus, according to Socrates) had been magister militum per Orientem. The words, however, do mean that Secundus (and his forebears) had served with distinction in the officium of the magister militum per Orientem. The words, however, do mean that Secundus (and his forebears) had served with distinction in the officium of the magister militum per Orientem. Secundus, that is to say, was not a senator of the highest rank, later to be called illustris, but a high grade civil servant. This accords with what John says himself in the de Sacerdotio (I.2) of his fortune and birth, that he was not excessively rich or noble by comparison with his friend Basil. It also accords with the story which his mother tells in the same work (I.5) of the struggle which she had to give him a liberal education; her husband's estate was evidently moderate, since to avoid encroaching on its capital, she was obliged to spend her own dowry.