Matthew 11:28 — How This Verse Has Been Interpreted

The Verse

Text (KJV): "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

Immediate context: Jesus speaks these words publicly following his denunciation of unrepentant cities (vv. 20-24) and his prayer thanking the Father for revealing truth to "babes" while hiding it from "the wise" (vv. 25-27). The invitation in v. 28 immediately precedes the yoke metaphor (vv. 29-30). The audience remains unspecified—whether the "babes" just referenced, the crowds who witnessed the denunciations, or a broader public remains contested. This ambiguity about audience creates immediate interpretive options: is this a universal invitation or one directed to a specific subset already responsive to Jesus?

Interpretive Fault Lines

1. Scope of Invitation: Universal vs. Elect-Only

Pole A (Universal): "All" means genuinely all humans without restriction; the invitation extends to every person.

Pole B (Elect-Only): "All" operates within an already-limited audience (the "babes" who can hear); only the elect can respond.

Why the split exists: The word "all" (πάντες) appears absolute, but immediately follows vv. 25-27 where revelation is explicitly selective. The grammatical connection between selective revelation and universal invitation creates tension.

What hangs on it: Universal readings emphasize human agency and general grace; elect-only readings emphasize divine sovereignty and effectual calling. This determines whether the verse supports Arminian or Calvinist soteriology.

2. Nature of Burden: Specific vs. General

Pole A (Torah-Specific): "Labour" and "heavy laden" refer specifically to Pharisaic legal interpretation and the burden of oral tradition.

Pole B (Existential-General): The language describes universal human weariness—sin, suffering, mortality, meaninglessness.

Why the split exists: The terms κοπιῶντες (laboring) and πεφορτισμένοι (burdened) appear elsewhere in both religious-legal contexts (Acts 15:10) and general hardship contexts (2 Cor 11:28). Matthew's Gospel addresses both Jewish legal concerns and broader human need.

What hangs on it: Torah-specific readings make this verse anti-Pharisaic polemic; general readings make it a universal existential offer. The first limits the original audience; the second expands it.

3. Rest as Destination vs. Process

Pole A (Realized Rest): "I will give you rest" (ἀναπαύσω) describes a completed transaction—rest as immediate gift upon coming.

Pole B (Progressive Rest): The rest begins immediately but fully realizes eschatologically; v. 29's "you will find rest" (εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν) suggests ongoing discovery.

Why the split exists: Verse 28 uses future indicative ("I will give"), but v. 29 uses future discovery language ("you will find"). The tension between gift and quest creates interpretive options.

What hangs on it: Realized rest supports instant salvation theology; progressive rest supports sanctification models and mystical traditions emphasizing journey over arrival.

4. Coming as Faith-Commitment vs. Discipleship-Enrollment

Pole A (Faith-Act): "Come" (δεῦτε) means spiritual approach through belief, not physical relocation—an internal conversion.

Pole B (Discipleship-Act): "Come" means becoming a follower in the technical sense—joining Jesus' itinerant disciple community.

Why the split exists: Matthew uses "come" (δεῦτε/ἐλθεῖν) for both belief-responses (e.g., 19:21) and literal following (4:19). Context doesn't resolve which sense operates here.

What hangs on it: Faith-act readings separate justification from discipleship; discipleship-act readings unite them. This affects whether the verse describes conversion or ongoing Christian life.

The Core Tension

The central question is whether Jesus offers unconditional relief from suffering or conditional relief contingent on accepting his authority structure (the "yoke" of v. 29). Those reading v. 28 in isolation hear an unqualified comfort invitation; those reading through v. 30 see rest promised only to those who submit to Jesus' teaching authority. The tension survives because Matthew provides no explicit conditional clause in v. 28 itself, yet immediately follows with yoke language that implies submission. For the unconditional reading to definitively win, vv. 29-30 would need to be demonstrably later additions or redactional seams. For the conditional reading to win, "come" would need to unambiguously mean "become a disciple" rather than "respond in faith." Neither can be conclusively established from the text.

Key Terms & Translation Fractures

κοπιῶντες (kopiontes) — "labour" / "toil" / "work hard"

Semantic range: Physical exhaustion from labor, mental weariness from effort, religious striving (used in Paul for gospel work, 1 Cor 15:10).

Translation options:

"Labour" (KJV) — preserves ambiguity between physical and religious work
"Are weary" (ESV) — emphasizes exhaustion over cause
"Are working hard" (NET) — highlights active striving

Interpretive implications: "Labour" supports Torah-burden readings (religious striving); "weary" supports existential-burden readings (general tiredness). Lutheran traditions favor the former to contrast works-righteousness with grace; therapeutic spirituality movements favor the latter to offer psychological relief.

πεφορτισμένοι (pephortismenoi) — "heavy laden" / "burdened"

Semantic range: Loaded down (literal cargo), oppressed by demands, overwhelmed by responsibilities.

Translation fracture: Perfect passive participle—indicates a state resulting from external action. Key question: who loaded the burden?

Readings:

Pharisees loaded it (Matthew 23:4 parallel) — supports anti-legalism reading
Life/sin loaded it — supports general human condition reading
God's law loaded it (Romans 7) — supports conviction-of-sin reading

What remains ambiguous: Whether the burden is imposed by religious authorities, by existence itself, or by divine law as conviction mechanism. The grammar doesn't specify the agent who imposed the burden.

ἀνάπαυσις (anapausis) — "rest"

Semantic range: Cessation from labor (Sabbath rest), relief from burden, peace/tranquility, eschatological restoration.

Translation choice: All major English versions use "rest," but the conceptual content varies:

Physical rest from labor
Spiritual peace despite circumstances
Eschatological Sabbath fulfillment (Hebrews 4:1-11)

Interpretive split: Sabbatarian readings (Westminster Confession 21.7-8) see Sabbath theology fulfilled; Anabaptist and Quaker readings see liberation from religious ritual itself. The term's connection to Sabbath in LXX Exodus 33:14 fuels the former; its connection to peace in Jeremiah 6:16 LXX fuels the latter.

What remains genuinely ambiguous: Whether rest opposes work itself or merely oppressive work; whether it names an inner state or an objective status change; whether it begins now or arrives eschatologically.

Competing Readings

Reading 1: Anti-Pharisaic Liberation

Claim: Jesus offers freedom from rabbinic oral law's oppressive interpretations to those crushed by impossible religious standards.

Key proponents: Martin Luther (Freedom of a Christian, 1520), John Calvin (Institutes 2.7.13), R. T. France (Matthew, NICNT, 2007)

Emphasizes: Context of Jesus' conflicts with Pharisees (ch. 12 follows immediately with Sabbath controversies); parallel to Matthew 23:4 ("they bind heavy burdens")

Downplays: The fact that Jesus imposes his own yoke (v. 29), which could also be experienced as burden; the invitation's possible extension beyond Jews under Torah

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Universal to all under Pharisaic influence (Jews + God-fearers)
Burden: Torah-specific
Rest: Realized upon rejecting Pharisaic additions
Coming: Faith-commitment to Jesus' simpler interpretation

Cannot adequately explain: Why Jesus would critique Pharisaic burdens while imposing his own "yoke" using the same metaphor; why Gentile audiences found this verse compelling if it addresses specifically Jewish legal concerns

Conflicts with: Existential Comfort reading—that reading requires the burden to be universal human suffering, not specific religious legislation

Reading 2: Existential Comfort Invitation

Claim: Jesus addresses the universal human condition of weariness and suffering, offering spiritual rest to all who respond in faith.

Key proponents: Contemporary therapeutic spirituality movements, Henri Nouwen (The Return of the Prodigal Son, 1992), evangelical worship choruses ("Come to Me" by Jenn Johnson, 2014), Brennan Manning (The Ragamuffin Gospel, 1990)

Emphasizes: "All" as unrestricted; "labour and heavy laden" as universal human exhaustion; emotional/psychological resonance in contemporary suffering

Downplays: Historical context in first-century Jewish legal debates; the discipleship demands of vv. 29-30; the exclusivity claims of vv. 25-27

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Universal
Burden: Existential-general
Rest: Realized (immediate inner peace)
Coming: Faith-act (simple trust)

Cannot adequately explain: Why this verse appears in a context of Jesus' conflict with Jewish authorities rather than in a discourse on general human suffering; how to integrate the yoke-bearing command that immediately follows

Conflicts with: Anti-Pharisaic reading—requires burden to be Torah-specific, not generalized weariness; Mystical Journey reading—requires rest to be process, not immediate gift

Reading 3: Effectual Call to the Elect

Claim: Jesus issues an invitation that only the elect (the "babes" of v. 25) can hear and accept; "all" means "all who are given to me by the Father."

Key proponents: John Owen (The Death of Death, 1647), Jonathan Edwards (Freedom of the Will, 1754), modern Reformed systematic theologies (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 1938)

Emphasizes: Immediate context of vv. 25-27 (selective revelation); John 6:37,44 parallels ("all that the Father gives me will come"); the distinction between general call and effectual call

Downplays: The plain sense of "all" as universal; the absence of explicit limiting language in v. 28 itself

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Elect-only (but "all" the elect without exception)
Burden: Can be either Torah-specific or existential—what matters is who can respond
Rest: Realized at effectual calling
Coming: Faith-commitment enabled by prior regeneration

Cannot adequately explain: Why Jesus would publicly issue an invitation that most hearers cannot possibly accept; why the text doesn't include limiting language ("all whom the Father draws") if limitation is intended

Conflicts with: Universal Invitation reading (Arminian)—that reading requires "all" to mean genuinely all, with real human ability to respond or reject

Reading 4: Mystical Journey Initiation

Claim: Jesus invites seekers into a progressive journey of rest-finding through contemplative practice and yoke-bearing; rest is discovered, not simply received.

Key proponents: Gregory of Nyssa (Life of Moses, 4th c.), Thomas Merton (New Seeds of Contemplation, 1961), Orthodox hesychastic tradition, Dallas Willard (The Divine Conspiracy, 1998)

Emphasizes: Verse 29's "you will find rest" as progressive discovery; yoke-bearing as spiritual discipline; "learn from me" as contemplative apprenticeship

Downplays: Verse 28's "I will give" as suggesting immediate transaction; Protestant emphasis on rest as justification status

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Universal invitation, but few enter the path ("narrow way" of 7:14)
Burden: Existential, but also includes false religious effort
Rest: Process—begins immediately but deepens through practice
Coming: Discipleship-enrollment in contemplative community

Cannot adequately explain: Why v. 28 promises "I will give" (future definite) if rest requires long progressive discovery; how to reconcile "easy yoke" with the difficulty of mystical ascent described in mystical theology

Conflicts with: Realized Rest readings—those readings require v. 28's promise to be fulfilled immediately, not progressively discovered

Reading 5: Eschatological Sabbath Fulfillment

Claim: Jesus announces the arrival of eschatological Sabbath rest; "come to me" means entering the Messianic age/kingdom where God's rest (Genesis 2:2-3, Hebrews 4:1-11) becomes available.

Key proponents: G. K. Beale (The Temple and the Church's Mission, 2004), N. T. Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God, 1996), Dale Allison (The New Moses, 1993)

Emphasizes: Jewish Sabbath theology and its eschatological trajectory; Hebrews 3-4's use of rest theology; Jesus as new Moses offering entry to God's rest like Moses offered entry to Canaan rest

Downplays: Individualistic psychological comfort readings; the present-tense availability ("I will give you rest" now, not only in eschaton)

Handles fault lines by:

Scope: Israel first, then nations—following Matthean salvation-history pattern
Burden: Exile, alienation from God's presence/rest since Genesis 3
Rest: Inaugurated now, consummated eschatologically
Coming: Entering the kingdom/new covenant community

Cannot adequately explain: Why the rest language is individualized ("I will give you") rather than corporate ("I will give Israel"); how Gentiles unaware of Jewish Sabbath theology would have understood this invitation

Conflicts with: Immediate Psychological Comfort reading—that reading requires rest to be present inner peace, not future eschatological condition

Harmonization Strategies

Strategy 1: Two-Stage Rest (Gift + Discovery)

How it works: Verse 28's "I will give" describes positional rest (justification); v. 29's "you will find" describes experiential rest (sanctification).

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Rest as Destination vs. Process—this strategy accepts both poles by assigning them to different theological categories.

Which readings rely on it: Reformed and Wesleyan readings attempting to honor both Protestant justification-by-faith and progressive sanctification.

What it cannot resolve: Why the text would use such subtle different verbs ("give" vs. "find") to communicate a major theological distinction that appears nowhere explicit in the passage; why Jesus wouldn't clarify two different kinds of rest if the distinction matters.

Strategy 2: Audience Layering (Public Invitation, Selective Response)

How it works: "All" genuinely means all (universal invitation), but only the elect/responsive actually come (selective response). The invitation's scope differs from its effectiveness.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Scope (Universal vs. Elect-Only)—this strategy maintains universal language while preserving divine sovereignty.

Which readings rely on it: Calvinist "free offer" theology (John Murray, Collected Writings Vol. 4), some Lutheran interpretations.

What it cannot resolve: Whether an invitation that can only be accepted by those already given ability to accept is genuinely an invitation or simply a mechanism of revelation; the sincerity problem (does Jesus genuinely invite those who cannot come?).

Strategy 3: Burden Specification by Context

How it works: The burden is general (existential weariness), but Jesus addresses it specifically through the Jewish legal context because that's his immediate audience.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Nature of Burden (Torah-Specific vs. Existential-General)—this strategy sees both as true at different levels.

Which readings rely on it: N. T. Wright's "Israel's story fulfills human story" framework, narrative theology approaches.

What it cannot resolve: How to determine when the text speaks to its immediate context only vs. when it speaks through that context to universal human condition; provides no clear method for distinguishing these levels.

Strategy 4: Rest as Both Gift and Task

How it works: Rest is simultaneously given (as status) and achieved (through yoke-bearing practice)—it's a gifted task or assigned grace.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Rest as Destination vs. Process; Coming as Faith vs. Discipleship.

Which readings rely on it: Bonhoeffer (The Cost of Discipleship, 1937—grace is free but not cheap), monastic traditions, some Anabaptist readings.

What it cannot resolve: How rest can require strenuous effort ("take my yoke") while being offered to the "weary and burdened"; appears to rename the problem rather than resolve it.

Non-Harmonizing Option: Canon-Voice Conflict

Brevard Childs (Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 1992) and canonical criticism note that Matthew preserves both grace-gift language (v. 28) and discipleship-demand language (vv. 29-30) without resolving the tension. The canon presents multiple voices on the gift/demand relationship (Romans vs. James, for instance). The tension is canonical, not resolvable. Attempts to harmonize may violate the text's own resistance to systematic resolution.

Tradition-Specific Profiles

Roman Catholic

Distinctive emphasis: Rest comes through incorporation into the Church, where Christ's yoke is mediated through sacramental grace and Magisterial teaching authority.

Named anchor: Catechism of the Catholic Church §1658, §2427 (connects to dignity of work and Sabbath rest); Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth (2007, interprets as invitation to Church's easy yoke vs. burdensome autonomy).

How it differs from: Protestant readings that emphasize individual faith-response apart from ecclesial mediation; Catholic reading requires "come to me" to mean "come into my mystical body" (the Church).

Unresolved tension: Whether the Church's teaching and moral demands constitute the "easy yoke" Jesus promises or whether they function as a new burden; progressive Catholics and traditionalists disagree on whether Church teaching has become lighter or heavier than Jesus' original yoke.

Lutheran

Distinctive emphasis: The burden is the law's condemnation and human attempts at self-justification; rest is the imputed righteousness received by faith alone, completely apart from works.

Named anchor: Formula of Concord (1577), Solid Declaration Article V (law/gospel distinction applied to this verse); Gerhard Forde (On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 1997).

How it differs from: Reformed readings that integrate law-keeping into sanctification; Lutheran reading insists rest opposes all law-keeping, not just Pharisaic distortions. Differs from Catholic integration of faith and works.

Unresolved tension: How to interpret "take my yoke" (v. 29) if the point is freedom from all law; whether "yoke" means gospel (trust-demand) or law (obedience-demand). Lutherans debate whether Jesus offers a "Third Use of the Law" here.

Wesleyan/Arminian

Distinctive emphasis: "All" genuinely means all without restriction; prevenient grace enables all humans to respond; rest is available to any who freely choose to come.

Named anchor: John Wesley, Sermon 110 ("Free Grace," 1739); H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology Vol. 2 (1941, on universal atonement); Kenneth Grider, A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology (1994).

How it differs from: Calvinist readings that limit the effective scope of the invitation to the elect; Wesleyan reading requires genuine human libertarian free will to respond or refuse.

Unresolved tension: How to reconcile the universal invitation with vv. 25-27's clear statement that the Father hides truth from some and reveals it to others; whether v. 28's "all" overrides or operates within v. 25's selective revelation.

Eastern Orthodox

Distinctive emphasis: Rest (anápausis) is theosis (deification)—participation in divine rest through ongoing transformation; the yoke is ascetic practice leading to Christlikeness.

Named anchor: St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew 38.3, 4th c.—emphasizes taking Christ's yoke as ascetic discipline); Kallistos Ware (The Orthodox Way, 1979, on rest as divine participation).

How it differs from: Western legal categories (justification/sanctification); Orthodox reading sees rest not as forensic status change but as ontological transformation through energies; differs from Protestant instant justification models.

Unresolved tension: Whether the "easy yoke" matches the strenuous demands of Orthodox ascetic tradition (fasting, vigils, prayer rules); monks and laity experience different tensions here.

Anabaptist/Radical Reformation

Distinctive emphasis: "Come to me" means joining the visible, countercultural discipleship community that bears Christ's yoke of nonviolent enemy-love and separation from worldly power.

Named anchor: Schleitheim Confession (1527, Article IV on separation); John Howard Yoder (The Politics of Jesus, 1972—Jesus' yoke includes political nonviolence).

How it differs from: State-church traditions (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican) that read this as individual spiritual invitation without necessary communal/political dimensions; Anabaptist reading requires visible ecclesial embodiment.

Unresolved tension: Whether the "easy yoke" matches the historical cost of Anabaptist discipleship (martyrdom, persecution); whether Jesus' yoke is easy in spiritual sense while costly in social sense, or whether this creates category confusion.

Reading vs. Usage

Textual reading (among careful interpreters)

Scholars recognize the verse operates within a complex argument: Jesus has just claimed unique Father-Son knowledge (v. 27), critiqued cities for unbelief (vv. 20-24), and will immediately challenge Sabbath conventions (12:1-14). The "rest" offered must be understood through this theological matrix—it cannot be separated from Jesus' authority claims, his identity as wisdom incarnate, or his redefinition of Sabbath. The invitation is not generic self-help but Christologically specific: rest comes through submitting to Jesus' yoke/teaching, not through generic spirituality or stress relief.

Popular usage

The verse functions in contemporary culture as a universal therapy offer: "Jesus offers stress relief." It appears on:

Coffee mugs and wall art ("Come to me, all who are weary")
Mental health ministries ("Jesus cares about your burnout")
Worship choruses that separate v. 28 from vv. 29-30
Social media graphics offering emotional comfort

What gets lost: The yoke-bearing demand of v. 29; the claim to unique divine authority in v. 27; the first-century Jewish context of Torah interpretation debates; the conditioning of rest on discipleship.

What gets added: Therapeutic psychological categories (stress, burnout, self-care); compatibility with consumer spirituality (Jesus as life-enhancement product); individualism (rest as private inner peace rather than community incorporation).

Why the distortion persists: Modern therapeutic culture values emotional comfort as primary good; psychological suffering is culturally validated while religious/moral demands are suspect. The verse, stripped of context, serves the cultural need for validation without obligation. It functions as "permission to rest" in a culture that values productivity but struggles with sustainable rhythms, allowing Jesus to authorize what culture both demands (productivity) and forbids (rest).

Reception History

Patristic Era (2nd-5th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Gnostic rejection of embodiment and Jewish law; proto-Pelagian debates about grace and free will.

How it was deployed:

Anti-Gnostic use: Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.13.1) used this verse to show Jesus affirms creation goodness (rest from labor echoes Genesis 2:2) against Gnostic world-rejection
Grace emphasis: Augustine (On Grace and Free Will, 426-427 CE) used "come to me" as evidence that humans must be drawn by grace, since the weary cannot come unless enabled

Named anchors: Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180), John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew 38, c. 390), Augustine of Hippo (multiple works, 410s-420s)

Legacy: Established the verse as anti-works-righteousness text (against Pelagianism) while simultaneously emphasizing divine initiative in human response (against absolute free will claims). The Augustinian reading shaped all subsequent Western interpretation.

Reformation Era (16th century)

Conflict it addressed: Justification debate—salvation by faith alone vs. faith+works; authority of Scripture vs. Church tradition.

How it was deployed:

Luther: Used against Catholic penitential system—the burden is impossible Church demands; rest is imputed righteousness by faith alone (Freedom of a Christian, 1520)
Calvin: Used against both Catholic works-righteousness and Anabaptist perfectionism—rest is God's sovereign gift to the elect (Institutes 2.7.13, 1559)
Catholic response: Council of Trent (Session 6, 1547) interpreted "come to me" as requiring cooperation with grace through works, not faith alone

Named anchors: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Council of Trent Session 6

Legacy: Permanently divided Western Christianity on whether this verse teaches salvation by faith alone or faith formed by love/works. Protestant-Catholic polemics continue to read through these Reformation lenses.

Modern Critical Era (19th-20th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Historical-critical questions about Jesus' actual words vs. Matthean redaction; relationship between Jesus' message and Jewish wisdom tradition.

How it was deployed:

Wisdom Christology: Bultmann (History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1921) and subsequent scholars argued this reflects Jewish Wisdom tradition (Sirach 51:23-27—Wisdom invites students to her yoke); Matthew presents Jesus as Sophia incarnate
Social-Scientific reading: Malina and Rohrbaugh (Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 1992) read the burden as peasant economic oppression under Roman taxation, not just religious burden

Named anchors: Rudolf Bultmann, W. D. Davies (The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 1964), Bruce Malina

Legacy: Shifted interpretation from purely theological/soteriological categories to include socioeconomic and literary-tradition dimensions. Enabled liberation theology readings (Jesus offers rest from economic oppression) and feminist readings (Wisdom Christology challenges exclusively male imagery).

Open Interpretive Questions

Scope question: Does "all" in v. 28 override or operate within the selective revelation stated in vv. 25-27, and what grammatical or contextual evidence decides this?
Translation question: Should κοπιῶντες be rendered "laboring" (emphasizing activity) or "weary" (emphasizing state), and does this choice predetermine whether the burden is Torah-obligations vs. existential suffering?
Genre question: Is this verse royal decree ("I will give" as sovereign pronouncement), wisdom invitation (echoing Sirach 51), prophetic oracle, or personal relationship offer—and does genre determine interpretive rules?
Canonical question: How does Matthew 11:28 relate to Matthew 5:17-20 (Jesus comes to fulfill, not abolish law), and can the same Gospel teach both law-intensification and rest-from-law?
Application question: If Jesus' yoke is "easy" (11:30) but the way is "narrow" and "few find it" (7:13-14), is the easiness ontological (the yoke itself is light) or comparative (lighter than alternatives), and what counts as taking the yoke?
Audience question: When Jesus says "come to me," does he address those already believing (discipleship deepening) or those outside faith (evangelistic invitation), and does Matthew distinguish these audiences?
Temporal question: Is the rest Jesus promises available immediately upon coming (realized eschatology), progressively through discipleship (inaugurated eschatology), or only in the eschaton (futurist eschatology)?
Burden agency question: Who imposed the burden—Pharisees, Rome, God's law itself, human sin, existential finitude—and does identifying the burden-imposer determine what rest-provision means?
Yoke continuity question: Is the "yoke" of v. 29 the same entity as the burden of v. 28 (now transformed/lightened) or a different thing entirely (new teaching vs. old law), and does this affect whether Jesus removes burdens or replaces them?
Wisdom parallel question: If this echoes Sirach 51:23-27 ("Put your neck under her yoke, and let your souls receive instruction"), does that identification require reading Jesus as personified Wisdom, and what christological implications follow?

Reading Matrix

Reading	Scope	Burden Nature	Rest Type	Coming Means	Agent of Burden	Yoke Status
Anti-Pharisaic Liberation	Jews + God-fearers	Torah-specific (oral law)	Realized at faith	Faith-commitment	Pharisees	Replaces Pharisaic yoke
Existential Comfort	Universal	General weariness	Realized (inner peace)	Faith-act	Life/existence	Different from burden
Effectual Call (Elect)	Elect only	Either type	Realized at call	Faith (enabled)	Varies	N/A—focuses on who comes
Mystical Journey	Universal (few enter)	Existential + false effort	Process (progressive)	Discipleship-enrollment	Self/false religion	Same burden, transformed
Eschatological Sabbath	Israel → nations	Exile from God's rest	Inaugurated/future	Kingdom entry	Sin/exile	Fulfills Torah yoke

Agreement vs. Disagreement

Broad agreement exists on:

Jesus issues some form of invitation using "come" language and promises some form of "rest"
The invitation addresses people experiencing burden/weariness of some kind
The context (vv. 25-30 as unit) includes both invitation (v. 28) and demand (v. 29—take my yoke)
The verse echoes Jewish Wisdom tradition vocabulary and possibly Sirach 51:23-27
"Rest" (anápausis) carries Sabbath/cessation connotations from LXX usage
The verse has been used historically in soteriological debates (how salvation is obtained)

Disagreement persists on:

Scope of "all": whether genuinely universal or limited to those who can respond (maps to Universal vs. Elect-Only fault line)
Nature of the burden: whether Torah-specific, existential-general, or socioeconomic (maps to Burden Nature fault line)
Timing of rest: whether immediate gift, progressive discovery, or eschatological fulfillment (maps to Rest Type fault line)
Meaning of "come": whether faith-act, discipleship-enrollment, or covenant community entry (maps to Coming Means fault line)
Relationship between v. 28 and vv. 29-30: whether the yoke continues/transforms the burden or introduces something new
Audience of the invitation: whether those already responsive ("babes" of v. 25) or broader public including the resistant

Related Verses

Same unit / immediate context:

Matthew 11:25-27 — Jesus' prayer thanking Father for selective revelation creates the immediate context; determines whether "all" in v. 28 operates within already-limited audience
Matthew 11:29-30 — The yoke-bearing command conditions the rest promise; determines whether rest is gift or task or both

Tension-creating parallels:

Matthew 23:4 — Jesus accuses Pharisees of binding heavy burdens; if this defines the burden of 11:28, how does Jesus' own yoke (11:29) avoid the same critique?
Matthew 7:13-14 — The narrow way that "few find" seems to contradict the "easy yoke"; is easiness comparative or absolute?
John 6:37,44 — "All that the Father gives me will come to me" and "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him" creates tension with universal "all" reading of Matthew 11:28
Acts 15:10 — Peter calls the law "a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear"; if Matthew 11:28-30 offers release from Torah yoke, why does Jesus use yoke language for his own teaching?

Harmonization targets:

Hebrews 4:1-11 — Develops "rest" theology explicitly connecting to Sabbath and Promised Land; interpreters use this to read eschatological Sabbath into Matthew 11:28
Sirach 51:23-27 — Wisdom's invitation to take her yoke for instruction; if Matthew echoes this, does it require Wisdom Christology reading?
Jeremiah 6:16 — "You will find rest for your souls" (LXX: anápausi) parallels Matthew 11:29; does this show Jesus fulfills prophetic call to return to ancient paths?
Romans 7:7-25 — Paul's description of law as good but producing burden through sin; Reformed readings use this to interpret the burden of Matthew 11:28 as conviction under law
Exodus 33:14 — "My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest" (LXX: katapausō)—different verb but same concept; supports eschatological Sabbath reading

Generation Notes

Fault Lines identified: 4
Competing Readings: 5
Sections with tension closure: 11/11