¹ Note the invitation of Sir 51.23, 25 followed by the exhortation to take up the yoke of Wisdom in v. 26: ‘Put your neck under the yoke (ζυγόν)’, which in turn is followed by the claim in v. 27 that ‘I have laboured (ἐκοπίασα) little and found for myself much rest (ὰνάπαυσιν)’. Similarly, in Sir 6.23–31 the exhortation to bear the yoke of wisdom is coupled with a promise of rest: ‘For at last you will find the rest (εύρήσεις τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν) she gives’ (v. 28).

² When commenting on Matt 11.28–30 Allen, W. C. (The Gospel according to St. Matthew [Edinburgh: T. andT. Clark, 1912] 124)Google Scholar speaks of the ‘undoubted dependence of these words upon Ecclus 50,51’; Hill, David (The Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972] 208)Google Scholar observes that ‘what we have is an echo of Sir 51’. Cf. also Link, Hans-Georg, ‘Yoke’, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (ed. Brown, C.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978) 3.1162Google Scholar: ‘In both form and content, Jesus’ invitation in Matt 11.29f. recalls the language and tradition of the wisdom tradition’; Gnilka, Joachim, Das Matthäusevangelium (Freiburg: Herder, 1988) 1.439Google Scholar: ‘Besonders nahe kommt die … Stelle Sir 51,23ff.’

³ Cf. Betz, H. D., ‘The Logion of the Easy Yoke and of Rest (Matt 11.28–30)’, JBL 86 (1967) 22Google Scholar: ‘We can only assume that here Jesus has taken the place of the hypostasized Wisdom’; Celia, Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987) 130Google Scholar: ‘The presence of these motifs (invitation, yoke, promise of rest) in our passage, indicates that Matthew is presenting Jesus as Wisdom incarnate, thus making explicit the Wisdom tendencies already present in the Q saying of 11.25–27.’

⁴ Cf. Betz, ‘Logion’, 22: 'The revelation of Jesus is directed to the κοπιῶντες and πεφορτισμένοι, which means, according to Matthew's understanding, those who are oppressed with the burden of the Pharisaic law’; Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom, 41: ‘… in our passage κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι… is a reference to legal interpretation, similar to that in 23.4. And as such it accords with the anti-Pharisaic polemic evidenced throughout Matthew's Gospel.’

⁵ Cf. Suggs, M. Jack, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1970) 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘The yoke of Jesus is not some other yoke than the yoke of Torah. Rather, the yoke of the true Torah, of Wisdom, is set over against that of Pharisaic Torah – as the two Sabbath pericopes clearly show.’ Beare, F. W., The Gospel according to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981) 267Google Scholar: ‘Jesus speaks as the incarnate Wisdom (as again in 23.34), and the “yoke” is the yoke of instruction in the Law as it has been interpreted by him.’ There are, of course, a number of scholars who, while not endorsing this interpretation, nevertheless regard the passage as anti-Pharisaic and understand the yoke as referring to Jesus' interpretation of the Law.

⁶ For example, Manson, T. W. (The Sayings of Jesus [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957] 186)Google Scholar remarks that ‘it is not necessary to suppose that there is any reference to Wisdom in the text as it stands. The verbal similarities to Ecclus 51.23ff. may suggest, but they do not necessitate, such a reference.’ Cf. also the discussions in Johnson, M. D., ‘Reflections on a Wisdom Approach to Matthew's Christology’, CBQ 36 (1974) 60–1Google Scholar, and Samuele, Bacchiocchi, ‘Matthew 11.28–30: Jesus' Rest and the Sabbath’, AUSS 22 (1984) 311–13.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Schlatter, Adolf, Der Evangelist Matthäus (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1957) 386Google Scholar: ‘An Entlehnung des Spruchs aus Sirach denkt nur, wer das zeitgenössische Rabbinat nicht kennt und den Gegensatz nicht versteht, in dem sich Jesus zu ihm befand.’ More recently, Graham, Stanton (‘Salvation Proclaimed: X. Matthew 11.28–30: Comfortable Words?’, ExpT 94 [1982] 5)Google Scholar has attempted to show that the repeated attempts to link the logion closely with Sir 51 are ‘probably misguided’.

⁸ It must be regarded as an unfortunate methodological oversight when, in her monograph on Matt 11.25–30, Deutsch (Hidden Wisdom, 19) restricts her investigations to ‘the deutero-canonical literature and the other extant materials of the late Second Temple (pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Philo) and the tannaitic periods’, especially when one reflects on the importance of the prophetic corpus to Matthew's presentation of Jesus. Although scholars have made scattered references to the OT when commenting on Matt 11.28–30, no attempt has been made to interpret this saying of Jesus in the light of OT prophetic expectation.

⁹ Peter, Craigie (The Book of Deuteronomy [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976] 348)Google Scholar notes that ‘the curse of God here reverses the history of salvation: God has brought his people out of Egypt, where they served an enemy; but because in the course of time they rejected God's love, they would be assigned once again to serve an enemy, forfeiting all the privileges of the covenant.’

¹⁰ When commenting on Jer 2.20 William, Holladay (Jeremiah [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] 1.97)Google Scholar observes that Jeremiah's use of the same expression for the nation's servitude to Yahweh as for its servitude to foreign powers is striking. He reflects: ‘The question then is not the presence or absence of a yoke, but which yoke is to be present.’ Holladay further notes that ‘the images here are strong ones: the covenant is a real imposition of the will of Yahweh upon Israel, understood in the image of a domesticated animal’. In Hos 10.11 the nation is similarly likened to a domesticated animal which Yahweh had purposed to ‘put to the yoke’ that it might ‘work the land’. See Mays, James L., Hosea: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969) 145Google Scholar; Douglas, Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (Waco, Texas: Word, 1987) 169.Google Scholar

¹¹ The LXX at this point reads ‘you will find expiation (ἁγνισμόν)’. Note the appearance of the cognate in 31.2; i.e. in a context which looks forward to the restoration of Israel.

¹² Cf. Allen, Leslie C., The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 298Google Scholar: ‘Perhaps here likewise the sense is that there can be no resting place in Canaan for those who have violated the terms of the covenant.’

¹³ The RSV follows Symmachus in supplying ‘yoke’ which does not appear in the MT or LXX. In any event, the portrait matches what has been outlined above: the exiles are weary (; κοπιάω) and without rest ( ἁναπαύω, cf. 1.3, 6). Hillers, Delbert (Lamentations [Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1972] 104)Google Scholar notes that the absence of rest in v. 5 points to more than a physical loss: ‘“We have no rest” means not only “we are very weary” but “one sign of our status as God's people has been removed’

¹⁴ Otto, Kaiser (Isaiah 13–39 [London: SCM, 1974] 26)Google Scholar remarks that when the people are set free the will become.

¹⁵ Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel envisage a future Davidic ruler (Jer 30.9: ‘David their king’; Ezek 34.23–4; ‘my servant David’; cf. Isa 9.6–7).

¹⁶ In the LXX the Hebrew phrase is translated זοῡ δουλούειν αῦτῷ ύὸ ζυγòν ἔνα. In view of the close association between and servitude under a yoke (Isa 9.4; 10.27; 14.25; cf. Gen 49.15; Ps 81.6) this should be regarded as a valid translation.

¹⁷ Compare the phrases in Isa 14.13: ; είς τὸν οὺρανὸν ἀναβήσομαι and Isa 14.15: εἰς ἅδου καταβήσηwith Matt 11.23: μή ἔως οὺρανοῦ ύψωθήση; ἕως ἅδου καταβήση.

¹⁸ It is noteworthy that even though Matthew makes reference to Isa 61 in the beatitudes and in 11.5 this theme of freeing the captives is never mentioned.

¹⁹ A representative statement is that of Gerhard Barth (‘Matthew's Understanding of the Law’, in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, by G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963] 148 n. 2): ‘… it is not those burdened with sin but those burdened with the severe demands of the Pharisaic conception of the law who are meant’.

²⁰ Cf. Konrad Weiss, ‘φορτίζω’ TDNT 9 (1974) 87: ‘Hence the specific signification of the term πεφορτισμένος is to be gathered from the contrast with the φορτία imposed by the rabbis’; M. Maher, ‘“Take My Yoke Upon You” (Matt XI.29)’, NTS 22 (1975) 97:‘… in their present context they [w. 28–30] would seem to have a decidedly anti-pharisaic bias and to contrast the easy yoke of Jesus' new law with the heavy burden of Jewish legalism’.

²¹ I. Abrahams (Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels [New York: KTAV, 1967, reprint ed.] 2.4) when addressing this matter astutely asks: ‘Was Jesus never thinking of anything else but his immediate opponents?’ Stanton (‘Matthew 11.28–30’, 7) affirms that ‘this is almost certainly not a strongly anti-Pharisaic passage’.

²² Daniel Patte (The Gospel according to Matthew [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987] 166) also connects the addressees of 11.28–30 with the crowds of 9.36, although he understands the ‘burden’ exclusively in terms of exploitation by religious leaders.

²³ With respect to the invitation of Jesus one might compare Isa 49.8–13 which, in a context describing the return of the afflicted flock, includes the statement ‘Say to the captives, “Come forth”’ (v. 9).

²⁴ Cf. Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom, 42.

²⁵ Cf. Maher, ‘Yoke’, 103; Roger Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984) 75. It is generally agreed, whichever interpretation is adopted, that a master–disciple relationship is in view.

²⁶ Cf. Paul Gaechter, Das Matthäus Evangelium (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1963) 385–6: ‘Damit soil wahrscheinlich … angegeben werden … als vielmehr der Grund, weshalb Jesus sein Joch in Gegensatz zu jedem andern Joch empfehlen kann.’

²⁷ H. B. Green (The Gospel according to Matthew [Oxford: Oxford University, 1975] 122) connects the statement with the previous paragraph and speaks of learning ‘the meaning of the mysteries he has received from the Father’.

²⁸ Betz (‘Logion’, 23) affirms that the learning demanded is ‘that the disciple himself takes over such πραΰτης and ταπεινότης. He follows Georg Strecker (Der Weg der Ge-rechtigkeit [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966] 174) in attributing to ὅτι ‘eine explikative Bedeutung’. Cf. also Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Berlin: Evangelische, 1968) 318. Of course, some scholars prefer a more synthesized interpretation. Cf. John P. Meier, Matthew (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1980) 128: ‘Since he embodies all he teaches and commands, the pupil must study him’; B. T. Viviano, Study as Worship (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978) 191: ‘On the one hand one learns from Jesus to be gentle and lowly of heart, but that should not exhaust what one learns.’ Admittedly there is nothing wrong with this approach; however, it is perhaps preferable to keep the focus firmly on meekness and humility as the content of what is learned.

²⁹ The context makes it clear that the arrogant will have been removed. On the ‘humility’ of the remnant cf. Isa 14.32; 29.19; 61.6; Micah 4.6–7.

³⁰ The view expressed by Pierre Bonnard (L'Évangile selon Saint Matthieu [2nd ed.; Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1970] 169) is typical: ‘Ce repos eschatologique devient une réalité actuelle pour ceux qui s'attachent à Jésus.’ Many follow Betz (‘Logion’, 24) in relating this promise to that of 28.18–20 and thereby arguing that the rest corresponds to the presence of the risen Lord with his disciples. This argument has been buttressed by Eduard Schweizer (The Good News according to Matthew [Atlanta: John Knox, 1975] 273–4) and Stanton (‘Matthew 11.28–30’, 8); notwithstanding, one must agree with Gnilka (Matthäus-evangelium, 1.440 n. 49) that it fails to convince.

³¹ Cf. J. B. Bauer, ‘Das milde Joch und die Ruhe, Matt 11, 28–30’, TZ 17 (1961) 103; Alexander Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Regensburg: Pustet, 1986) 253.

³² The language of inheritance is, of course, used in the Pentateuch with reference to the promised land (Num 34.2; Deut 4.21, 38). In Matthew inheritance language is used with reference to ‘the land’ (5.5), ‘eternal life’ (19.29), and ‘the kingdom’ (25.34). The term ‘rest’ should be regarded as a counterpart to these other concepts since, even though the vocabulary of inheritance is not present, there is no denying that it belongs to the same conceptual frame. One might also note that in 2 Clem. (5.5), which to a certain extent serves as an early commentary on the synoptic tradition, rest is closely associated with the coming kingdom and eternal life: ‘the promise of Christ is great and wonderful; namely, rest (ἀνάπαυσις) in the coming kingdom (τῆς μελλούσης βασιλείας) and in eternal life (ζωῆςαἰωνίου)’.

³³ Andersen, F. I. and Freedman, D. N. (Hosea [Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1980] 567)Google Scholar translate the Hebrew phrase in Hos 10.11 as ‘I placed upon her neck a fine yoke’ and observe that ‘an бІ-ţûb would then be either a handsome yoke or a well-fitting one, enabling good work, not burdensome and thus like that of Jesus’. If one accepts this translation, then Hosea is describing the nation in its original state as equipped with an ‘easy yoke’.

³⁴ Cf. Gaechter, Matthäus, 385: ‘Jesus setzt voraus, daβ es eine vollkommene Freiheit im sittlichen Bereich nicht gibt; der Mensch muβ zwangsläufig unter einem Joch dienen.’

³⁵ In his criticism of the position that the logion is closely linked with Sirach, Stanton (‘Matthew 11.28–30’, 5) notes that there is nothing in Sirach comparable with the two important clauses ‘all who are weary and burdened’ and ‘meek and humble’. The position adopted in the present discussion treats these phrases in a consistent manner: ‘weary and burdened’ describes the condition of the captives who as yet stand outside of Yahweh's service, while ‘meek and humble’ describes the condition of those who serve Yahweh and receive his promise.