| |
REB_INT Chapter 8.
The Gospel according
to Matthew
Summary of Basic Information
General Analysis of the Message
Sources and Compositional Features
Authorship
Locale or Community Involved
Date of Writing
Issues and Problems for Reflection
Summary of Basic Information
Date: 80-90, give or take a decade.
Author by Traditional (2d-century) Attribution:
Matthew, a tax-collector among the Twelve, wrote either the Gospel or
a collection of the Lord's sayings in Aramaic. Some who reject this picture
allow that something written by Matthew may have made its way into the
present Gospel.
Author Detectable from Contents: A Greek-speaker,
who knew Aramaic or Hebrew or both and was not an eyewitness of Jesus'
ministry, drew on Mark and a collection of the sayings of the Lord (Q),
as well as on other available traditions, oral or written. Probably a
Jewish Christian. Locale Involved: Probably the Antioch region.
Unity and Integrity: No major reason to think
of more than one author or of any sizable additions to what he wrote.
Division:
1:1--2:23: Introduction: Origin and Infancy
of Jesus the Messiah
1. The who and how of Jesus' identity (1:1-25)
2. The where and whence of Jesus' birth and destiny (2:1-23)
3:1--7:29: Part One: Proclamation of the Kingdom
1. Narrative: Ministry of JBap, baptism of Jesus, the temptations,
begin ning of the Galilean ministry (3:1-4:25)
2. Discourse: Sermon on the Mount (5:1-7:29)
8:1--10:42 Part Two: Ministry and Mission in Galilee
1. Narrative mixed with short dialogue: Nine miracles consisting
of healings, calming a storm, exorcism (8:1-9:38)
2. Discourse: Mission Sermon (10:1-42)
11:1--13:52 Part Three: Questioning of and Opposition to Jesus
1. Narrative setting for teaching and dialogue: Jesus and JBap,
woes on disbelievers, thanksgiving for revelation, Sabbath controversies
and Jesus' power, Jesus' family (11:1-12:50)
2. Discourse: Sermon in parables (13:1-52)
13:53--18:35 Part Four: Christology and Ecclesiology
1. Narrative mixed with much dialogue: Rejection at Nazareth, feeding
the 5,000 and walking on the water, controversies with the Pharisees,
healings, feeding the 4,000, Peter's confession, first passion predic
tion, transfiguration, second passion prediction (13:53-17:27)
2. Discourse: Sermon on the church (18:1-35)
19:1--25:46 Part Five: Journey to and Ministry in Jerusalem
1. Narrative mixed with much dialogue: Teaching, judgment parables,
third passion prediction, entry to Jerusalem, cleansing the Temple,
clashes with authorities (19:1-23:39)
2. Discourse: Eschatological Sermon (24:1-25:46)
26:1--28:20 Climax: Passion, Death, and Resurrection
1. Conspiracy against Jesus, Last Supper (26:1-29)
2. Arrest, Jewish and Roman trials, crucifixion, death (26:30-27:56)
3. Burial, guard at the tomb, opening of tomb, bribing of the guard,
resurrection appearances (27:57-28:20).
Matthew, with ca. 18,300 words in Greek, is
more than 50 percent longer than Mark (ca. 11,300 words), with much of
the greater length explained by the two chaps, of prefaced infancy narrative
and the long sermons consisting of sayings material absent from Mark.
The healings of the centurion's servant boy and of the blind and mute
demoniac (Mt 8:5-13; Mt 12:22-23), taken from Q, are the only entirely
non Marcan miracle-stories in the Matthean Jesus' ministry. Otherwise
it is estimated that Mt reproduces about 80 percent of Mark.
Although modern Gospel courses tend to give
Mark the most attention among the Synoptics, Mt stood first in the great
ancient biblical codices and has been the church's Gospel par excellence.
Indeed, Matthew has served as the NT foundational document of the church,
rooting it in the teaching of Jesus - a church built on rock against which
the gates of hell would not prevail. Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, the
(eight) beatitudes, and the Lord's Prayer are among the most widely known
treasures in the Christian heritage. Organizational skill and clarity,
plus a penchant for unforgettable images, have given this Gospel priority
as the church's teaching instrument.
Once again we shall begin with a General Analysis
crafted to bring the evangelist's thought and technique to light through
the Gospel text. Here, however, there is a special problem: Much of the
Matthean storyline is parallel to the Marcan storyline, and an Introduction
has neither the space nor the leisure to repeat. More attention will have
to be given to what was not already discussed in the preceding Chapter.
The Analysis is not the place for a debate about Matthew's sources. Yet
all recognize that Matthew has sections parallel to Mark, as well as sections
parallel to Luke but absent from Mark (the Q material of Table 2 in Chapter
6); and attention to what is the same and what is different in those sections
can help to highlight Matthew's own outlook. (This is a form of redaction
criticism, discussed Chapter 2 A above.) Nevertheless, as I caution below
(p. 208), we cannot afford to lose sight of Matthew's highly effective
narrative because of attention to comparative details. By way of procedure,
let me suggest that readers go through a whole subsec- {173} tion of the
Gospel text (the parameters of which are indicated in the Analysis by
boldface), sometimes short, sometimes covering several chaps., in order
to appreciate the storyflow-Matthew's admirable organization facilitates
that. Then my observations about the subsection, calling attention to
what is uniquely Matthean, will be more productive for understanding Matthean
thought.
General Analysis of the Message
Two chaps, of infancy narrative preface Matthew's
account of the ministry. The climax of the Gospel comes in the account
of the passion, death, and resurrection, aspects of which match the infancy
narrative as an inclusion. The Matthean account of Jesus' public ministry
is placed between the infancy and the passion narratives. Notable in that
account is a pattern of five long discourses or sermons, marked off by
similar clauses but not identical features.2 The basic inspiration for
these sermons may have come from the two Marcan discourses (parables in
Mk 4; eschatology in Mk 13). Thus the most popular outline divides the
body of Mt into five parts of alternating narrative and discourse, and
I shall follow that in the Analysis below as the most helpful for initial
understanding. Again the pattern is not perfect, as I have indicated in
Division outlined on the Summary Page. (It is unlikely that Mt was trying
to match the Pentateuch of Moses, as proposed in the classic presentation
of B. W. Bacon.) Though we must be careful to distinguish between a division
that corresponds to modern interests and the document's own rhetorical
structure, there is a good chance that the schema represents the way the
evangelist proceeded, even if he would not necessarily {174} have thought
in terms of formally dividing his work in so detailed a manner.3
Introduction: The Origin and Infancy of Jesus
the Messiah (l:l-2:23)4
The opening Greek phrase of the Gospel, biblos
geneseos (1:1), illustrates the difficulty of being sure of the evangelist's
outlook.5 (a) Most likely it means "the record of the generations
(= birth record) of Jesus Christ," representing the Hebrew phrase
seper toledot of Gn 5:1. Although in the OT that phrase is followed by
a list of descendants, here it would constitute the title of a genealogy
of Jesus' ancestors (Mt 1:2-16, which throughout employs the cognate Greek
verb form egennesen, "begot"), (b) That interpretation does
not exclude a play on genesis, meaning "origin," so that the
opening phrase in Mt 1:1, understood to mean "the story of the origin,"
could cover the whole of chap. 1 and thus include the conception and birth
of Jesus Christ. (Others would include chap. 2, and make the phrase cover
whatever preceded the opening of the ministry, or even include 3:1-4:16
and everything before Jesus began to preach.) (c) Some commentators would
associate the use of genesis in Mt 1:1 with the Greek title given to the
first book of the Scriptures of Israel. Thus, to replace Mark's "The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," Mt would
be using a title for his whole Gospel with a comprehensive echo of Israelite
history: "The Book of Genesis as effected by Jesus Christ, son of
David, son of Abraham." (d) A polyvalent sense of genesis is a possibility:
The phrase prefaces the ancestral origin, birth, and beginnings of Jesus;
but it also encompasses a view of the whole story of Jesus as a new creation,
even greater than the old.
1. The Who and How of Jesus' Identity (1:1-25).
This chapter deals with the genealogy and the conception of Jesus. The
Matthean genealogy (1:2- {175} 17) has sparked an immense literature (discussed
in BBM 57-95, 587-600). How the fourteens are counted in Mt 1:17 is not
clear, but the overall impression is that God has made mathematically
precise preparations for the coming of the Messiah. Given such meticulous
care, plausibly there is a common factor among the four OT women mentioned
(Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Uriah's wife (Bathsheba)), perhaps preparing for
the community's Christian experience and/or for Mary. The first three
women were not Israelites, and the fourth was not married to an Israelite.
Does that factor in the antecedents of the Messiah prepare for non Jews
accepting the proclamation of the Messiah, and thus for Matthew's mixed
congregation of Jews and Gentiles? The backgrounds to the marital unions
of all four women with the #husbands mentioned in the genealogy were irregular,
as we see from Gn 38; Jos 2; Rt 3; and 2Sm 11. Yet the women themselves
were the instruments of God in continuing the messianic line. Does that
prepare for the unusualness of Mary's conceiving and her union with Joseph?
More certain is the theological import of the whole genealogy: It brings
into the story of Jesus a lengthy span of Israelite history, involving
the patriarchs (the first fourteen names), the kings (second fourteen),
and even the unknowns (third fourteen). In this way Matthew has dramatized
Abraham and David motifs found elsewhere in the NT (Ga 3:16; Rm 1:3).
The broken pattern in Mt 1:16 (not "Joseph
begot Jesus" but "of Mary was Jesus begotten") prepares
the way for the extraordinary manner of Jesus' conception (1:18-25). As
in Lk 1, but more clearly, Mary conceives a child not by male seed but
from the Holy Spirit - the virginal conception (for historicity, see Issue
4 below). In Matthew's book of genesis a new creative act brings into
being the Messiah in a way that makes him uniquely related to God. Yet
he is also the kingly Son of David6 because Joseph of the House of David
acknowledges him as his child by taking Mary his wife home and giving
the child a name. Thus Joseph, a Jew most observant of the Law (1:19),
becomes the fulfiller of God's plan begun long ago when Abraham begot
Isaac. This first chap, of Mt tells readers who Jesus is (the Messiah,
the one uniquely conceived from the Holy Spirit, Emmanuel or "God
with us") and how that was brought about.
2. The Where and Whence of Jesus' Birth and
Destiny (2:1-23). After the birth of Jesus, magi come to pay homage to
the King of the Jews (2:1-12), and Herod's plans are foiled as Joseph
takes the family to Egypt and then to {176} Nazareth (2:13-23). The magi
are Gentiles guided by a star (a revelation in nature to those who do
not have the Scriptures); the title "the King of the Jews" will
reappear as Jesus is crucified, when again Gentiles recognize the truth
about him (27:54), while those who have and can read the Scriptures do
not believe. Herod, "all Jerusalem," the chief priests, and
the scribes of 2:3-4 in their troubled reaction and seeking Jesus' life
(2:20: "those" (pl.)) anticipate Pilate, "all the people,"
the chief priests, and the elders of Matthew's passion narrative. In both
instances God frustrates the plans of these hostile adversaries (through
Jesus' return from Egypt, and through the resurrection). Chap. 2 enlarges
the OT background. Chap. 1 highlighted the patriarch Ju-dah, the son of
Jacob/Israel, because he was the ancestor of David. Now the patriarch
Joseph, another son of Jacob/Israel, comes to the fore, because Joseph,
Jesus' legal father, is shaped in his image: Both interpret dreams and
save the family by going to Egypt.
The Moses7 story also comes into the picture
when the wicked ruler (pha-raoh, Herod) tries to slay all the male children
(of the Hebrews, of the Beth-lehemites), only to have one (Moses, Jesus)
escape and become the savior of his people. The magi contribute to the
Moses parallelism, for in Jewish legends of Jesus' time the pharaoh received
information from wise men. Also, later when Moses was leading Israel through
the Transjordan, the wicked King Balak summoned Balaam (whom Philo calls
a magos) from the East to curse Israel; but instead he saw the star of
the Davidic king arise (Nm 22-24).
Finally, to top off his OT coverage, Mt weaves
into his account five formula citations from the prophets,8 showing that
God prepared for a virginal conception, for the birth of the Messiah at
Bethlehem, for the suffering of other children near Rachel's tomb there,
and ultimately for the coming back of God's Son from Egypt and his going
to Nazareth. If chap. 1 of Mt dealt with the who and how of Jesus' identity,
the scriptural citations help chap. 2 to bring out the where of his birth
and the whence or place to which his childhood brought him. When readers
finish the infancy narrative, they have been given a whole OT background
from the Law and the prophets. This is preparatory for the public appearance
of Jesus, the kingly Messiah of the House of David and the unique Son
of God, who will come from Galilee to be baptized by JBap.
{177}
Part One: Proclamation of the Kingdom (Mt 3:1-7:29)
1. Narrative: (3:1-4:25): Ministry of JBap,
baptism of Jesus, the temptations, beginning of the Galilean ministry.9
Mark's opening pattern is followed. The appearance of Jesus is introduced
by JBap's ministry (Mt 3:1-12), preaching in the wilderness as Isaiah
had foretold, and baptizing with water in anticipation of the one who
would baptize with the Holy Spirit. In addition, from Q Matthew has incorporated
JBap's condemnation of the Pharisees and Sadducees and threats of destruction
(3:7-12). He thus makes explicable their rejection of JBap to be reported
in Mt 21:26. There is a noteworthy Matthean insert in the account of Jesus'
baptism (3:13-17) designed to deal with an implicit christological problem:
JBap recognizes that Jesus, who is greater, should be doing the baptizing,
but Jesus accepts baptism from JBap as part of God's salvific plan related
to the kingdom ("righteousness"; see 6:33). Mark's baptismal
heavenly voice was directed to Jesus ("You are my beloved Son");
Matthew's voice, "This is my beloved Son," is more widely directed.
Complementing the mention in Mk 1:12-13 that
Jesus was tempted (tested) for forty days in the wilderness by Satan,
Matthew's narrative of the temptations (4:1-11)10 fills in from Q their
contents, which have been partially shaped from the kinds of testing Jesus
underwent during the ministry. The three temptations try to divert the
proclamation of God's kingdom so that it will become a kingdom according
to the standards of this world. The devil tests Jesus to turn stones into
bread for his personal convenience; Jesus will multiply loaves of bread
but only for others (Mt 14:13-21; Mt 15:32-38). The devil tests Jesus
by offering him all the kingdoms of the earth; Jesus will receive all
power in heaven and earth (Mt 28:18), but not by seeking it and only when
it is given by God.11 Jesus' refusals to have his goals distorted are
all phrased in quotations from Dt 6-8, where during the forty-year testing
of Israel in the wilderness God spoke through Moses to the people who
were tempted to rebel against the divine plan by their complaints and
false {178} worship. At the end (Mt 3:10), after Jesus has demonstrated
that he is the Son of God who completely serves God's will, Satan is dismissed.
Afterwards Jesus goes to Galilee to begin his
ministry and to call his first four disciples to become fishers of "men"
(4:12-22). To this sequence taken from Mark, Matthew adds a geographical
precision relating Capernaum to Zebulun and Naphtali, which prepares for
a formula citation (p. 207 below) from Is 8:23-9:1 that speaks of "Galilee
of the Gentiles." Once more Matthew has in view his mixed congregation
with many Gentiles. The summary of the spread of the Gospel (4:23-25),
although drawn from Mark, makes a special point that his fame went out
"through all Syria," perhaps because the Gospel was written
there (see under Locale below).
2. Discourse: Sermon on the Mount (5:l-7:29).12
This is Matthew's greatest composition. It weaves together Q material13
with uniquely Matthean passages into a harmonious masterpiece of ethical
and religious teaching. More than any other teacher of morality, the Matthean
Jesus teaches with exousia, i.e., divine power and authority, and by this
empowerment makes possible a new existence. There are parallels between
Moses and the Matthean Jesus. The OT conveyer of divine revelation encountered
God on a mountain; the NT revealer speaks to his disciples on a mountain
(Mt 5:1-2). For Christians, next to the Ten Commandments as an expression
of God's will, the eight beatitudes (5:3-12)14 have been revered for expressing
succinctly the values on which Jesus placed priority. In the comparable
Lucan passage from Q (6:20-23) there are only four beatitudes (phrased
more concretely: "you who are poor... hungry now... weep now... when
people hate you"); and it is likely that Matthew has added spiritualizing
phrases ("poor in spirit... {179} hunger and thirst for righteousness)
and four spiritual beatitudes (meek... merciful... pure in heart... peacemakers).
Seemingly Matthew's community has people who are not physically poor and
hungry; and the evangelist wants them to know that there was an outreach
of Jesus for them as well, if they have attitudes attuned to the kingdom.
Jesus teaches these beatitudes to the disciples who are to be the salt
of the earth and the light of the world (5:13-16).
The ethics of the new lawgiver (5:17-48) constitutes
a remarkable section, not only for the way it has shaped the Christian
understanding of Jesus' values but also for its implicit christology.
The Matthean Jesus presents God's demand not by dispensing with the Law15
but by asking for a deeper observance that gets to the reason why its
demands were formulated, i.e., to be "perfect as your heavenly Father
is perfect" (5:48). The polemics of Matthew's time are illustrated
by the evaluation of Jesus' righteousness as exceeding that of the scribes
and Pharisees. In the series of six slightly variant "You have heard
it said... but I say to you" clauses, Jesus dares explicitly to modify
or correct what God said through Moses. He makes the demand of the Law
more penetrating (e.g., by prohibiting not only killing but anger, not
only adultery but lust); he forbids altogether what the Law allows (no
divorce,16 no oath); and he turns from the Law to its opposite (not retaliation
(Dt 19:21), but generosity to offenders; not hating enemies (Dt 7:2) but
loving them). In other words the Matthean Jesus, speaking more confidently
than any lst-century rabbi, implies that he is more authoritative than
Moses, and seems to legislate with all the assurance of the God of Sinai.
In 6:1-18 Jesus reshapes the exercise of piety:
almsgiving, prayer, fasting. His warnings are not against pious practices
but against ostentation, a warning that will be reiterated in Mt 23:1-27,
where the scribes and Pharisees are repeatedly called hypocrites. (For
this term, see Chapter 5 above, n. 19; for an application to our times,
see Issue 8 below.) The Lord's Prayer, taken from Q,17 has been shaped
by Mt partially along the familiar lines of synagogue {180} prayer, e.g.,
the reverential "Our Father who art in heaven." The organization
into six petitions reflects Matthew's love of order. The first three,
"May your name be hallowed, may your kingdom come, may your will
come about on earth as in heaven" are different ways of asking God
to bring about the kingdom definitively. (This prayer then, at least in
its earlier emphasis, was not far from the tone of Marana tha - "Come,
Lord Jesus" (1 Co 16:22; Rv 22:20).) The second three deal with the
fate of the petitioners as they anticipate that future moment. The coming
of the kingdom will involve the heavenly banquet, and so they ask a share
of its food (bread); it will involve judgment, and so they ask forgiveness
on the criterion of forgiving others that Mt emphasizes (25:45); it will
involve a dangerous struggle with Satan, and so they ask to be delivered
from the apocalyptic trial and the Evil One. (The KJV addendum "For
thine is the kingdom..." is discussed in Issue 2 below.)
Drawn from Q, further instructions on behavior
for the kingdom (6:19-7:27) touch on total dedication to God, as opposed
to worrying about things of this world. Examining oneself carefully rather
than examining others is urged; God's generosity in answering prayers
is assured; and the golden rule (7:12) is proposed: "Do to others
what you would have them do to you." Cautions about the narrowness
of the gate (for entering the kingdom) and the danger of false prophets
who misuse "my name" (presumably Christians active within Matthew's
ambiance) lend an apocalyptic tone to the ending of the sermon. The praise
of those who hear Jesus' words (7:24-27) as building a well-founded house
almost constitutes a judgment against those who reject him. The "When
Jesus finished these words" formula (n. 2 above) terminates the sermon,
with the accompanying theme of astonishment at the authority of Jesus'
teaching.
Part Two: Ministry and Mission in Galilee (8:1-10:42)
1. Narrative Mixed with Short Dialogue (8:1-9:38):
Nine miracles18 consisting of healings, calming a storm, exorcism, interspersed
with dia- {181} logues, mostly pertaining to discipleship. Thus far Matthew
has largely presented Jesus as a preacher and teacher of the kingdom -
a Messiah of the word. Now, illustrating his love for the arrangement
of material with a common import, Mt rejoins the Marcan outline (interspersing
a few Q passages) and concentrates on the mighty deeds (miracles) of Jesus
effected by his word.19 First, he performs a series of three healings
(8:1-17), involving: a leper, the centurion's servant boy (from Q), and
Peter's mother-in-law, with a summary about many sick. Amid those attracted
by his power, a scribe who desires to follow causes Jesus to comment on
the severe requirements of discipleship (8:18-22). That the following
of Jesus is a higher demand than burying one's father (in rabbinic thought
a duty beyond most others) again reflects extraordinary implicit christology.
His maxim is probably to be understood as "Let the spiritually dead
(i.e., those who refuse to accept the kingdom) bury the (physical) dead."
Jesus' authority is expressed in another series of three miracles (8:23-9:8)
drawn from Mark: He calms the storm and thus gives rise to amazement that
wind and sea obey him; he drives out demons who recognize him as Son of
God; he heals a paralytic when challenged about his power to forgive sins,
something God alone can do. These miracles too have implications for both
discipleship and christology. They lead into dialogues about Jesus' followers
and discipleship (9:9-17), caused by the call of Matthew, a tax-collector
(Matthew's adaptation of the Marcan call of Levi). Jesus justifies his
behavior by announcing that he has come to call sinners not the righteous,
that his disciples do not have to fast while he (the bridegroom) is with
them, and that new wine should not be put into old wineskins - words reflecting
the startlingly different character of what he is inaugurating. There
follows still another series of three healings (9:18-34), involving: Jairus'
daughter together with the hemorrhaging woman, two blind men, and a mute
demoniac.20 These prepare for the recognition that the harvest of the
crowds needs laborers (9:35-38), and in turn that leads to Jesus' addressing
the laborers whom he has chosen and is going to send on a mission. {182}
2. Discourse: Mission Sermon (10:1-42). Composed
mostly from Mark and Q,21 this is set in a context of sending out twelve
"disciples" with authority over unclean spirits and the power
to heal. Jesus is giving them his power to proclaim the kingdom (cf. 10:7
with 4:17). Mt stops to recite the names of the Twelve "Apostles,"22
thus relating the mission of the disciples in the midst of the ministry
to the apostolic sending after the resurrection (28:16-20). Even before
he was crucified, Jesus knew that others had a role to play in spreading
the good news of the kingdom; and the directives in the sermon have an
ongoing force in the Christian mission known to Matthew's readers. The
sermon begins in Mt 10:5-6 with the warning not to go to the Gentiles
and the Samaritans but to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
As we shall see in the subsection on Locale below, this may reflect the
history of Matthean Christianity where there was at first almost exclusively
a mission to the Jews, and only later a mission to the Gentiles (28:19:
"Make disciples of all nations").23 The demands of Mt 10:9-10
for austerity in the provisions and clothing of the itinerant preachers
have curious minor differences from Mk 6:8-9, e.g., no permission to have
a staff and sandals. (Are those items not necessary in Matthew's situation?)
In describing the reception likely to be given to the missionary preachers,
Mt 10:12-13, 15-16 stresses the hostile judgment on those who refuse.
Mt 10:17-22 warns of the fate of the preachers by shifting to here material
from the eschatological discourse in Mk 13:9-12. Thus in a sending that
takes place during the ministry Mt anticipates the kind of persecution
that will greet the postresurrectional apostles. (The mixing of two time
periods would be recognizable even if we knew nothing about Mark, since
Jesus has forbidden the disciples to go near the Gentiles and yet speaks
of their being put on trial by the Gentile as well as Jewish authorities.)
Although the Spirit of the heavenly Father will enable those on trial
to speak bravely, families will be divided by trials. And the persecuted
disciples are to flee from one town to the next: "Amen, I say to
you, you will not have finished all the towns of Israel before the Son
of Man comes."24 {183}
Words of encouragement assuring divine care
(10:26-33) follow this prediction of persecution. Then Jesus warns that
his coming will bring division and require difficult choices (10:34-39),
indeed sacrifices touching on life itself. The Q passage in Mt 10:32-33
has very high christology, making reaction to Jesus the basis of judgment
in heaven. Matthew's ending of the sermon (10:40-42) extends that correlation
to those whom Jesus sends out: Receiving them is receiving him, and receiving
him is receiving the God who sent him. Thus the mission of the disciples
involves extending God's salvation to all.
Part Three: Questioning of and Opposition to
Jesus (11:1-13:52)
1. Narrative Setting for Teaching and Dialogue
(11:1-12:50): Jesus andJBap, woes on disbelievers, thanks giving for revelation,
Sabbath controversies and Jesus' power, Jesus' family. Since this section
is not one of the five Matthean sermons, it is sometimes listed as narrative.
However, the narrative verses are brief and introductory to teaching.
Mt sets material combined from Mark and Q in the context of Jesus moving
about and entering a synagogue in "their" cities (i.e., of Galilee:
Mt 11:1,20; Mt 12:9). Although we have not been told that the disciples
returned from their mission, they are with him in Mt 12:2,49. Matthew's
treatment ofJBap and Jesus (11:2-19) is introduced by an imprisoned JBap
who has heard of the deeds of the Messiah, so that 11:4-6 explains that
Jesus is the kind of Messiah prophesied by Isaiah (in Is 29:18-19; Is
35:5-6; Is 61:1). Then Jesus reveals who JBap is (Mt 11:7-15). More than
a prophet, he is the angelic messenger sent by God to lead Israel to the
promised land (Ex 23:20) and the Elijah sent to prepare Israel for God's
action (Malachi 3:1, 23-24 (4:5-6)). JBap accomplished this by having
prepared the way for Jesus, thus becoming the greatest human being ever
born before the kingdom of heaven came.25 (Mt 11:12-15 is not clear as
to whether JBap precedes the time of the kingdom (i.e., belongs to the
time of the prophets and the Law) or belongs to it (more likely).) Apocalyptic
{184} struggle introduces the full coming of the kingdom, and the imprisonment
and ultimately the execution of JBap are marks of that. (Of course, in
their experience Matthew's readers would have seen more marks of violence.)
Having spoken about his own identity and that of JBap, in Mt 11:16-19
Jesus criticizes sharply "this generation" for being willing
to accept neither. A combination of 11:2 and 19 suggests that Mt is presenting
Jesus as both the Messiah and divine Wisdom,26 but a disbelieving generation
cannot recognize his works.
The corrective note on which the JBap section
ends leads into the woes addressed to disbelieving cities on or near the
Sea of Galilee (11:20-24). Jesus now switches to a prophetic pattern:
For not having paid attention to Jesus' mighty works (miracles), the Galilean
cities will have a fate worse than those addressed by Isaiah (23:1) or
Ezekiel (26-28), and condemned in Gn 19:24-28.
Yet there are people who have responded; and
in reference to them Jesus speaks in the style of divine Wisdom by thanking
the Father for revelation (11:25-27) given to those who are childlike,
including those who do not count in this world. This jubilant cry, drawn
from Q, represents a type of high christology very close to what we find
in John's Gospel, where Jesus calls himself the divine Son to whom the
Father has given all things (Jn 3:35; Jn 5:22, 26-27), and where no one
knows God except that Son (Jn 1:18; Jn 14:9), and where he reveals the
Father to the chosen (Jn 17:6).27 And the "Come to me" invitation
to the heavy-laden (Mt 11:28-30), which Matthew adds to the Q material,
duplicates both Wisdom and Johannine style (Pr 9:3-5; Si 24:19; Si 51:23;
Jn 1:39; Jn 6:44). Like God in Ex 33:14 and Wisdom in Sirach 6:23-31,
Jesus promises rest to those who take on themselves the obligations of
the kingdom, using some of sweetest words ever attributed to him - words
that make intelligible Paul's appreciation for "the meekness and
gentleness of Christ" (2 Co 10:1).
Next Mt sets Jesus' teaching in a series of
controversies. The first, which involves the disciples' plucking grain
on the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-8), has a christo-logical import since Jesus not
only claims the right to do what David did but declares that his presence
is greater than the Temple and that the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.
Healing on the Sabbath (Mt 12:9-14) leads to another challenge. We are
not sufficiently informed from Jewish sources about the attitude in Jesus'
time toward healing on the Sabbath; but Mt attributes to the Pharisees
a negative attitude so that they are portrayed as more worried {185} about
human precepts than God's intention. In correcting them Jesus is acting
in the spirit of the prophets (12:7 = Ho 6:6). The controversies end on
an ominous note with the Pharisees planning to destroy Jesus. Aware of
that, Jesus withdraws, followed by a multitude; yet he heals many as the
prophet predicted (12:15-21)?* The beautiful Isaian passage (42:1-4) reinforces
Matthew's picture of the tenderness of Jesus, who does not break a bruised
reed or quench a smoldering wick.
A controversy with the Pharisees over Jesus'
power (12:22-37) draws heavily from material in Mk 3:22-30. Previously
(11:2) JBap associated Jesus' deeds with the Messiah; now the same identification
("Son of David") is suggested to the amazed people when Jesus
heals a blind and mute demoniac (a miracle that duplicates 9:32-34; see
n. 20 above). In hostile reaction the Pharisees attribute this power over
the demon to Jesus' subservience to Beelzebul. Jesus refutes the charge,
compares his expulsion of demons to plundering the strong man's house
(i.e., the realm of Satan), and warns that blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit (i.e., obstinately attributing to the devil the power of God) will
not be forgiven. The tone of the condemnation becomes sharper in Mt 12:33-36
(adapted from Q), for Jesus calls the Pharisees a brood of vipers from
whom evil emerges and whose works will condemn them on judgment day. When
the scribes and Pharisees request a sign (12:38-42), Jesus offers them
only the signs of Jonah (who produced repentance at Nineveh) and of the
queen of the South (who appreciated the wisdom of Solomon) - an a fortiori
argument: One who is greater is here, and this generation does not appreciate
him.29 He has driven out evil spirits, but the return of the evil spirits
(12:43-45) will make the last state of this evil generation worse than
the first. The unexpected arrival of Jesus' mother and brothers raises
the issue of Jesus' family (12:46-50). Now that the kingdom is proclaimed,
the disciples who do the will of the heavenly Father are brother, sister,
and mother to Jesus.
2. Discourse: Sermon in Parables (Mt 13:l-52).30
Structurally the center of the Gospel, these parables serve as a varied
commentary on the rejection {186} of Jesus by the Pharisees in the two
preceding chaps. In presenting the parable of the sower and its interpretation
(13:1-23) Matthew adds two elements: a formula citation (13:14-15) of
Is 6:9-10 that was implicitly quoted in Mark, and a Q blessing enlarging
the good fortune of those who have been favored with knowing the secrets
of the kingdom (13:16-17). This parable emphasizes the different kinds
of obstacles and failures encountered by the proclamation of the kingdom.
In Mt 13:13 Jesus speaks in parables "because seeing, they do not
see" - a much easier reading than Mk 4:11-12 (p. 133 above) where
parables are given to those outside "in order that" they may
not see. The next Matthean parable, the weeds among the wheat and its
interpretation (13:24-30, 36-43), seems to move to another level of concern.
After the proclamation has won adherents to ("sons of) the kingdom,
they will be living together in the world with evil people (who are "sons
of" the Evil One).31 Why not eliminate the evil? That could lead
to the good being pulled out as well, and so the separation has to be
left to a future judgment by the Son of Man.
The paired parables of the mustard seed and
the leaven (Mt 13:31-33)32 illustrate the present small beginnings of
the kingdom and its great future by using examples of extraordinary growth
familiar respectively to a man and to a woman. The purpose of the parables
(13:34-35) is glossed by a formula citation from Ps 78:2, so that now
part of the purpose is to fulfill the Scriptures. After the interpretation
of the parable of the weeds come the paired parables of the hidden treasure
and the pearl of great price (13:44-46). They stress the great value of
the kingdom and the necessity of taking the once-for-all opportunity to
gain it, even if that requires selling off everything else. The parable
of the dragnet and its interpretation (13:47-50), like that of the weeds,
postpones the separation of the good and bad in the kingdom till the close
of the age. The sermon ends with a summary parable of the householder
and the new and old treasure (13:51-52). The listeners (13:2) {187} who
reply that they have understood the parables are like trained scribes
who appreciate the new revelation in Jesus and the old revelation in Moses.33
The evangelist probably considered himself in this light.
Part Four: Christology and Ecclesiology (13:53-18:35)
1. Narrative Mixed with Much Dialogue (13:53-17:27):
Rejection at Nazareth, feeding the 5,000 and walking on the water, controversies
with the Pharisees, healings, feeding the 4,000, Peter's confession, first
passion prediction, transfiguration, second passion prediction. In 13:10-11
Jesus said that he spoke in parables because the disciples were to know
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; accordingly, in what now follows,
Jesus turns his main attention to the disciples from whom the church will
develop, especially to Peter the rock on whom the church will be built.
The rejection at Nazareth (13:53-58) helps to explain why Jesus must concentrate
on his disciples since even his townspeople do not accept him. To show
greater reverence for Jesus and his family Mt makes three small changes
in the Nazareth story taken from Mk 6:1-6: He does not report that Jesus
was a carpenter, or was a prophet without honor "among his own relatives,"
or "could do no miracle there." (Matthew's substitution of "son
of a carpenter" for Mark's "carpenter" gave rise to the
artistic custom of depicting Joseph as a carpenter.) The lack of faith
at Nazareth is followed by an account of how Herod killed JBap (14:1-12)
and was superstitiously uneasy about Jesus. In an attempt to get away
from Herod Jesus withdraws to a lonely place where he feeds the 5,000
and subsequently walks on the water (14:13-33).,34 For the main theological
emphases in these two miracles (OT, eucharistic, and christological),
see p. 136 above. The end of the walking-on-the-water scene is remarkable
in Matthew; for in Mt 14:33 the disciples, instead of failing to understand
as in Mk 6:52, worship Jesus as "Son of God." (Mark would have
expected the readers to recognize Jesus' identity; but Mt dots the "i"
and crosses the "t.") Most significant is the added Matthean
scene where Jesus invites Peter to come to him on the water, and as Peter
begins to sink, Jesus helps him (14:28-31). This is the first of three
instances of special Petrine material in Matthew (see PNT 80-83). Peter's
impetuousness, the inadequacy of his faith, and Jesus' individual care
to lead Peter farther are quite character- {188} istic. As a man of little
faith who would sink unless the Lord saved him, Peter is representative
of the other disciples; their faith and his in the Son of God gains strength
from Jesus' powerful, helping hand.
The boat brings Jesus and the disciples to
Gennesaret where Jesus heals all the sick (14:34-36) and then Pharisees
and scribes from Jerusalem debate him over what defiles (15:1-20), a controversy
into which both the people and the disciples enter. The attack on the
Pharisees is sharp in Mt: They are blind guides who will be rooted out
(15:12-14). Whereas in Mk 7:17 the disciples ask him about what defiles,
in Mt 15:15 Peter does the asking; and Mt omits the comment that Jesus
made all things clean (Mk 7:19b) - a comment that not only offers historical
difficulties, as we saw, but also might have offended Mt for whom the
Law is not so easily abolished (Mt 5:17).35 After that, moving on to Tyre
and Sidon, Jesus heals the daughter of the Canaanite woman (15:21-28),36
a story remarkably like that of the healing of the centurion's servant
boy in Mt 8:5-13. As Jesus moves on, passing along the Sea of Galilee,
a summary about the healing of many sick (15:29-31) is used by Mt to replace
Mark's story in Mt 7:31-37 of the spittle healing of a deaf mute (omitted
because it might be understood as magic?). Then we are told of the second
multiplication of loaves, namely, for the 4,000 (15:32-39).
In the Matthean sequence hostile confrontations
with the Pharisees and Sadducees37 (16:1-12) follow the miracles that
Jesus has been doing. Those miracles make intelligible Jesus' response
to the disbelieving request for a sign: The Pharisees and Sadducees cannot
interpret the already present signs of the times.38 Criticizing his disciples
as people who have little faith for they have not fully understood the
bread miracles, Jesus warns them against the leaven or teaching of the
Pharisees and Sadducees, whom he equates with an evil and adulterous generation.
(Presumably this warning was still appropriate for Matthew's readers/hearers
in the 80s who might be influenced by rabbinic teaching; but it is not
easily reconcilable with 23:2-3, where Jesus {189} says that his disciples
are to practice and observe whatever the scribes and the Pharisees tell
them because they sit on the chair of Moses.)
Yet Jesus' disciples have considerable faith
as seen in the climactic confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi and
the first prediction of the passion (16:13-23). Beyond Mark's account
(8:27-30) where, amidst the favorable evaluations of Jesus made by others,
Peter confessed him to be the Messiah, in Mt 16:16b -19 there is more
Petrine material. Peter now confesses that Jesus is the Son of the living
God - a revelation from the Father in heaven, not a matter of human reasoning
("flesh and blood"). The revelation of Jesus' divine sonship
to Paul is phrased in almost the same language (Ga 1:16). If that revelation
constituted Paul an apostle, this one constitutes Peter39 the rock on
which Jesus will build his church, a church that even the gates of hell
(i.e., probably Satanic destructive power) will not prevail against. The
OT background of Peter's acknowledgment of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah,
the Son of God, is the prophecy of 2Sm 7: David's descendant will reign
after him and God will treat him as a son. That promise was provoked by
David's desire to build a house or temple for God; and so Jesus' promise
to build a church on Peter, who acknowledges him as the fulfillment of
the promise to David, is not illogical. Is 22:15-25 describes the establishment
of Eliakim as the new prime minister of King Hezekiah of Judah: God places
on his shoulder "the key of the House of David; he shall open...
and he shall shut." The italicized words are echoed in Mt 16:19 as
Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, so that whatever he binds/looses
on earth is bound/loosed in heaven. There are debates about what is meant
by this binding/loosing. Is it the power to forgive/not forgive sins (as
in Jn 20:23) or to teach what must be observed, with the result that Peter
is the chief rabbi?40 That this section follows a warning against the
teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees may tilt the odds in favor of
the latter, and notice that in Mt 23:13 the scribes and Pharisees are
criticized for locking the kingdom of heaven to human beings. (Issue 7
at the end of this Chapter will discuss the subsequent application of
the Matthean passage to the Roman papacy.) Matthew's picture of {190}
the exaltation of Peter because of his professing what God revealed to
him does not cause the evangelist to eliminate Jesus' subsequent chastisement
of Peter as Satan who thinks on a human level because he does not accept
the notion of Jesus' suffering in the prediction of his passion. If anything,
Mt sharpens the Marcan reproof, for 16:23 adds, "You are a scandal
to me."
This sobering correction leads into directives
to the disciples about the suffering required for discipleship (16:24-28).
Encouragingly, however, the suffering of the present is contrasted with
future glory; and Jesus, as the Son of Man, is to be the key figure in
that glory by bringing with him the kingdom in which his disciples are
to have a role. Some of the differences from Mk 8:34-9:1 should be noted.
For instance, in Mt 16:27 the Son of Man comes with "his" angels,
and in Mt 16:28 instead of seeing the kingdom of God, those standing there
are to see "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." What is Matthew's
interpretation of the timeline in this promised seeing of the coming?
Whatever Mk 9:1 means (p. 139 above), Mt is scarcely referring to the
transfiguration that follows immediately since no angels are mentioned
there. Does he refer to the crucifixion and resurrection where there is
angelic presence? Is that event the coming of the kingdom of the Son of
Man as distinct from the coming of the kingdom of God which will take
place at the end of time? Or is this another parousia passage vaguely
phrased because Jesus had no precise knowledge of when it would occur
(n. 24 above)?
The account of the transfiguration (17:1-13)
also shows unique Matthean features.41 That Jesus' face shone like the
sun (17:2) echoes the description of Moses in Ex 34:29-35 and heightens
the parallelism to the great the-ophany on Sinai. Peter's role is highlighted,
for he himself will make the three booths. The voice from the cloud in
Mt 17:6 repeats more exactly what the voice from heaven said at Jesus'
baptism (3:17: "This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased").
Accordingly this is another step in the Matthean christological sequence
pertaining to divine sonship that runs from the angelic annunciation to
Joseph that the child was conceived through the Holy Spirit (1:20), through
God's revelation about "my Son" (2:15), to the voice from heaven
at the baptism speaking of "my beloved Son" (3:17), to the disciples'
recognition after the walking on the water (14:33), culminating in Peter's
confession (16:16). Clearly "Son of God" is a major Matthean
motif. The question about Elijah, raised by the prophet's presence on
the mountain, terminates the transfiguration as Jesus and the disciples
descend.42 {191}
In the story of the epileptic boy (17:14-21)
Mt shortens almost by half the vivid Marcan account;43 and although he
does not deny that the boy had a demon (17:18), he greatly suppresses
that imagery in favor of a diagnosis of epilepsy (17:15). The explanation
of why the disciples could not cure the boy is improved by the introduction
of a form of a Q passage on their inadequate faith: Faith as small as
a mustard seed could do the impossible, viz., move the mountain (of the
transfiguration). Mt continues with the second prediction of the passion
(17:22-23). That Mt does not eliminate this as a doublet, as he often
does with Marcan repetitions, may indicate the fixed character of the
three-prediction pattern. Then there follows another special Matthean
Petrine scene centered on the (Temple?) tax (17:24-27). This story reflects
oral tradition, with the finding of the stater coin in the fish's mouth
adding almost a folkloric touch. More important is the issue involved.
During Jesus' lifetime Jews would have been expected to pay for the support
of the Temple.44 However, Mt never mentions the Temple, and one could
be dealing with the denarius tax envisioned in Mt 22:15-22. If we think
of the period after ad 70 when Mt wrote, the tax could be the punitive
didrachma (= two denarii) tax imposed on Jews for the support of the temple
of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome, or even a collection to support the rabbinical
academy at Jamnia. Whatever may be meant, significantly Peter is the intermediary
in this story teaching Christians to avoid public offense by paying the
tax on a voluntary basis and thus to be peaceable citizens (Rm 13:6-7;
1 Pt 2:13-16). His role is all the more important if on the Gospel level
Mt is dealing with a problem faced by Christians after Peter was dead.
(See Issue 7 below on the continuation of the Petrine function.)
2. Discourse: Sermon on the Church (18:1-35).
This somewhat disparate collection of ethical teaching, much of it once
addressed to Jesus' disciples, has been given a perspective that makes
it strikingly suited to an established church, the type of church that
only Matthew has Jesus mention (16:18). Mt connects ecclesiology and christology,45
for the apostles are to interpret and teach all that Jesus commanded (28:20).
Nevertheless, even if a structured church becomes the way in which the
tradition and memory of {192} Jesus are preserved, Mt recognizes the danger
that any structure set up in this world tends to take its values from
the other structures that surround it. This chap, is meant to insure that
those values do not smother the values of Jesus. To readers who struggle
with church issues today, this may be the most helpful Matthean discourse.46
The sermon is prefaced by the dispute about
greatness in the kingdom of heaven (18:1-5), seemingly taken over with
considerable adaptation from Mark. In Jesus' ministry this may have pertained
to the ultimate establishment of God's kingdom when the Son of Man comes.
Yet we have seen that Mt speaks of a kingdom of the Son of Man in this
world, so that we are hearing a dispute that would also have meaning for
the church, where inevitably there would arise ambition for authoritative
positions. In Jesus' set of values the humble are more important than
the powerful, for dependence on God is what makes one open to God's rule;
and so the little child is held up as an example. The condemnation of
scandals and temptations (18:6-9) that can cause believers to sin would
be appropriate for the church Mt addressed, if we can judge from disputes
in the Pauline communities (1 Co 8:13; 1 Co 11:19; Rm 8:13). The Matthean
adaptation of the Q parable of the lost sheep (18:10-14), i.e., the straying
sinner, also has institutional application, for by most worldly standards
organizations are successful to the extent that they take care of the
majority. A political leader who could retain 99 percent of his constituency
would have the most favorable poll ratings in history, reflecting the
"Caiaphas principle" of Jn 11:49-50: It is better to let one
person perish than to have the whole institution destroyed. However, Jesus
who came to save the lost (Mt 10:6; Mt 15:24) has different values, which
he phrases in an "impractical" directive that catches his eschatological
outlook, i.e., to leave the ninety-nine and go in search of the one who
is lost.47 No large church (or in our times, no large parish) could follow
that as a regular practice, for the 99 percent of those who had not strayed
would revolt at being neglected. Nevertheless Jesus' values must not be
forgotten; for when they are put in practice, however seldom, at that
moment and in that place God's kingdom has been made a reality.
Matthew now presents a body of material largely
special to this Gospel. The instructions on a procedure for reproving
one's "brother (and sister)" the disciples' access to heaven,
and the frequency of forgiveness (18:15-22) are {193} clearly adapted
to a church situation; for after the unsuccessful efforts of individuals
to win over the reprobate, a report is to be made to the "church"
(= local community, unlike the use of "church" in Mt 16:18).
The process is designed to prevent too early and too frequent use of authority
- a danger in any structured community. The quarantine of the recalcitrant
reprobate in Mt 18:17 "as a Gentile and tax-collector" sounds
very definitive, reinforced by the power to bind and loose in Mt 18:18.48
Yet we must remember that Matthew's community was a mixed one of Jews
and Gentiles, and that Jesus' final instruction was to go out to the Gentiles
and teach them (Mt 28:19). Moreover, Jesus had shown a particular interest
in a tax-collector named Matthew, inviting him to follow (Mt 9:9; Mt 10:3).
Therefore, the repudiated Christian may still be the subject of outreach
and concern. The plausibility of that interpretation is enhanced by 18:21-22
concerning the ongoing forgiveness of the brother (/sister) "who
sins" (the same expression used for the person to be corrected in
Mt 18:15). Peter is once more (see Mt 17:24-27) a figure of authority
getting instruction from Jesus on how he should act. Although he is being
a bit "legalistic" in trying to find out how often he should
forgive, his offer is quite generous - except for the family circle few
people forgive someone seven times. Jesus gives a remarkable answer: Seventy-seven
is an infinite number of times (cf. Gn 4:24). Christian forgiveness, then,
is to imitate the unlimited range of God's forgiveness, as is confirmed
by the eloquent parable of the unforgiving servant (18:23-35) that invokes
divine judgment on those who refuse to forgive. All this has a very real
application in church life, for the number of people who turn away from
the church where they have not found forgiveness is legion. Overall, to
the extent that churches listen to the Jesus who speaks to his disciples
in this chap., they will keep his spirit alive instead of memorializing
him. Then Mt 18:20 will be fulfilled: "Where two or three are gathered
in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Part Five: Journey to and Ministry in Jerusalem
(Mt 19:1-25:46)
1. Narrative Mixed with Much Dialogue (Mt 19:1-23:39):
Teaching, judgment parables, third passion prediction, entry to Jerusalem,
cleansing the {194} Temple, clashes with authorities. Jesus has revealed
his intention to found his church and has given instructions about the
attitudes that must characterize it. With that done, he now goes up to
Jerusalem, where his predictions about the death and resurrection of the
Son of Man will be fulfilled.
The narrative of what happened on the road
to Jerusalem49 begins with an example of Jesus' standards for the kingdom.
The question about divorce (19:1-12) is set in the context of the testing
of Jesus by the Pharisees. The most notable Matthean feature (see p. 141
above) is the addition of the exceptive phrase in Mt 19:9: "Whoever
divorces his wife except for immorality (porneia) and marries another
commits adultery (verb: moichasihai\" an exception that also appeared
in Mt 5:32, but in none of the other three forms of the divorce prohibition
(Luke, Mark, 1 Cor, though the last two have their own adaptations of
Jesus' command). This exception is important mainly for the Christian
churches that regard Jesus' prohibition of divorce as normative. What
is meant by porneia'} The Greek word covers a wide range of immorality,
but to allow divorce for every kind of unchastity would seem to nullify
the force of the prohibition. Some interpret the exception as adultery
and so permit divorce and remarriage of the innocent party in a marriage
where the other was an adulterer. However, moicheia is the proper word
for adultery, as attested in the related Matthean verb for "commits
adultery." A more likely interpretation would find a reference to
marriages within what Jews regarded as forbidden degrees of kindred.50.50
Mt would be insisting that Jesus' prohibition of divorce did not apply
to such marriages contracted by Gentiles who had come to believe in Christ
- indeed those marriages should be dissolved as if they had never occurred
(see FTAG 91-97). The consternation of the disciples at Jesus' severity
is peculiar to Mt (19:10-12). In reply Jesus raises the possibility about
being eunuchs (i.e., totally abstinent) for the sake of the kingdom of
God. Like marriage without the possibility of divorce, such celibacy is
an eschatological value (see Is 56:3-5); both impose demands that this
world regards as impossible.
The passage about the rejection of the children
by the disciples (19:13-15) in Matthew not only lacks the indication in
Mk 10:14 that Jesus Was indignant at the disciples but also supplies a
more ecclesiastical atmosphere for bringing the children: "that he
might lay hands on them and pray." The story of the rich young man
and its aftermath (19:16-30) adds to the commandments of the Decalogue
the demand to love one's neighbor as oneself (19:19); yet 195
even then one is not perfect without sacrificing
all possessions to follow Jesus. Once again the severity of the eschatological
demand creates consternation among the disciples. In the response of Jesus,
Mt 19:28 incorporates an important promise from Q about the exalted future
role of the disciples: In the regeneration (palingenesia) they will sit
on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Whether the twelve
tribes are a reference to the old Israel or to the Christian church is
debated, but more widely the judgment may include all who worship the
Lord God (see also Rv 21:14). The reward at the end has the same upside-down
character as the kingdom: It is not given to the first and most powerful
of this world, but to the last who have left behind precious things for
the sake of Jesus' name (Mt 19:29-30). The themes of the first and last
and of reward also govern the parable of the workers in the vineyard (20:1-16),
which is peculiar to Mt and regarded by some as an interpretative illustration
by the evangelist to highlight God's sovereignty and a graciousness that
is not based on what is earned.51
Amidst these reflections on ultimate reward
the third prediction of the passion (20:17-19) constitutes a paradoxical
consideration of the role of suffering in the victory. That prediction
leads into the misunderstanding represented by the request for the places
in the kingdom (20:20-28). To avoid dishonoring the disciples, Mt shifts
the request from the sons of Zebedee to their mother.52 The Twelve have
been guaranteed thrones of judgment when the Son of Man sits in glory;
evidently that is not the same as sitting at the right and left in the
kingdom. The key difference may lie in the warning against lording it
over others; for whether it be the Son of Man or the Twelve, the necessary
attitude is that of service. The continuing journey to Jerusalem brings
Jesus to Jericho53 and the healing of two blind men (20:29-34). This clearly
is Mart's variant of the Marcan healing of one man, the blind Bartimaeus;
it exemplifies Matthew's preference for two (perhaps reflecting the demand
for two as legal witness).
The entry into Jerusalem (21:1-9) is based
on Mark with the addition in Mt 21:4-5 of a formula citation of Is 62:11
and Zc 9:9 that stresses the {196} meekness and peacefulness of the messianic
king. Famously illogical is the Matthean combination in Mt 21:7 of ass
and colt (originally meant as parallel designations of one animal) so
that Jesus sat "on them."54 The sequence of cleansing the Temple
(21:10-17) and the cursing and withering of the fig tree (21:18-22) reorganizes
Mk 11:12-25, where the cleansing is sandwiched between the cursing and
the withering. The cleansing of the Temple now takes place on the day
on which Jesus entered Jerusalem (rather than on the next day as in Mark)
and is set in the context of the whole city being stirred up and recognizing
Jesus as the prophet (Mt 21:10-11). Also the joining of the cursing and
withering has the effect of heightening the miraculous, for now the fig
tree withers on the spot when Jesus curses it (rather than being discovered
the next day).
To the challenge to Jesus' authority (Mt 21:23-27)
by the priests and the elders, answered in terms of JBap, Mt joins a parable
of his own, the two sons (21:28-32). Comparing the authorities to the
son who says he will obey the father but does not, Jesus fashions a highly
polemic contrast: Tax-collectors and harlots who believed JBap will enter
the kingdom of God before the authorities. The sharpness of the judgment
continues in the parable of the wicked tenants (21:33-46), for in vv.
43:45 the chief priests and the Pharisees understand themselves to be
the target of the warning that the kingdom of God will be taken away and
given to a nation that will produce fruits. Mt is thinking of the church
composed of Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus. The parable of the
marriage feast (22:1-14), seemingly adapted from Q, is another instance
of the rejection of the leaders. Those invited first by the king are unworthy
and do not come; and since they kill the servants sent with the invitation,
the king sends his troops and destroys their city. The once independent
parable about the man without a wedding garment, which has been added
as an ending, deals with a reality that Mt knows well: Into the church
have been brought both bad and good, so that those who have accepted the
initial call have to face further judgment. Those Christians who are not
worthy will suffer the same fate as those who formerly had the kingdom
but were not worthy to keep it (cf. 8:11-12). Thus in none of these three
parables is it simply a question of the replacement of Israel by the church
or of Jews by Gentiles; the issue for Mt is the replacement of the unworthy
in Judaism (especially the leaders) by a community {197} of Jews and Gentiles
who have come to believe in Jesus and have worthily responded to his demands
for the kingdom.
As in Mark there now follows a series of three
trap questions: taxes for Caesar (Mt 22:15-22) proposed by Pharisees and
Herodians; the resurrection (22:23-33) proposed by Sadducees; the great
commandment (22:34-40) proposed by a Pharisee lawyer.55 These are followed
by a question proposed by Jesus to the Pharisees about the Messiah as
David's son (22:41-46). To emphasize the superiority of Jesus, Matthew
adds observations, e.g., in Mt 22:33 about the crowd's astonishment at
Jesus' teaching, and in Mt 22:46 about none daring to ask Jesus any more
questions.
Serving as a bridge to the last great discourse,
the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees (23:1-36) is an extraordinary
Matthean construction.56 The hostility manifested by these authorities
in the trap questions of chap. 22 is returned by Jesus' attack on their
proud behavior and love for titles,57 and by his seven "woes"
against their casuistry - woes that function almost as the antitheses
of the beatitudes in chap. 5. The initial directive (Mt 23:2-3) to observe
whatever the scribes and Pharisees say for they sit on the chair of Moses
is puzzling since elsewhere the Matthean Jesus criticizes their sayings
or teaching (e.g., Mt 15:6; Mt 16:11-12; Mt 23:16-22). It is not totally
satisfactory to contend that Mt preserves this statement simply as past
tradition even though he disagrees with it.58 The scribe and Pharisee
opponents are criticized for talk or pretense not accompanied by action
and also for acting from base motives. (Compare the criticism of Jesus'
followers in {198} 7:21-23 for praising Jesus as Lord but not doing the
will of God, and see under the Issues section below for modern repercussions
in Jewish Christian relations.) Although the seven woes are portrayed
as Jesus' critiques of the Jewish leaders of his time, Matthew's readers
would probably hear them as critiques of synagogue leaders in their time
over a half-century later.59 (And Christians today should hear them as
a critique of what generally happens in established religion and thus
applicable to behavior in Christianity.) Some of the woes involve disputes
about the Law, but the last (23:29-35) associates the scribes and Pharisees
with murderers of prophets, wise men, and scribes.60.60 For the Christians
of Matthew's church the crucifixion of Jesus would have sharpened the
tone of such polemic, and "Amen, I say to you, all these things will
come upon this generation" (23:36) would have been seen as fulfilled
in the capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple in ad 70. The
chap, ends with an apostrophe to Jerusalem (23:37-39), drawn from Q. Jesus
has failed to persuade the city. Therefore her house (the Temple) is forsaken
and desolate, and Jerusalem will not see Jesus again until she says, "Blessed
is he who comes in the name of the Lord."
2. Discourse: Eschatological Sermon (24:l-25:46).61
Thus Matthew has prepared the way for a long speech on the last times
that fittingly is the last of the five great discourses. A series of warnings
(24:1-36) begins with the disciples' question in Mt 24:3. They pick up
the distinction from 23:38-39 by asking about both the destruction of
the Temple buildings and the second coming.62.62 The sequence in Mt 24
preserves the apocalyptic obscurity of Mk 1, which mixed the Gospel present
time with the future. A few adaptations may exemplify the history and
times known to Matthew, e.g., the doubled reference to false prophets
leading people astray (24:11,24) may reflect a struggle with Christian
enthusiasm. In Mt 24:15 the prediction of the desolating sacrilege is
clearly localized in the Temple (cf. the obscurity in Mark {199} Mk 13:14)
and thus is more applicable to the Roman profanation of the Holy Place.
The Jewish background of some of Matthew's audience is reflected in the
prayer that the flight in the last times not be on a Sabbath (Mt 24:20),
a sensitive issue whether they were still observing that day or would
not want to antagonize other Jews who were. Mark had already indicated
that there was no precise timetable for the final events, and the watchfulness
material in Mt 24:37-51 underlines that one cannot know when the Son of
Man is coming. The warning that the servant who is not waiting when the
master comes will be put out with the hypocrites (Mt 24:51) shows that
unfaithful Christians (and perhaps specifically church leaders) will be
judged no less harshly than the scribes and Pharisees. Watchfulness continues
in the uniquely Matthean parable of the ten virgins (Mt 25:1-13).63 The
judgment motif grows stronger in the Q parable of the talents (Mt 25:14-30)
- a parable that shows how far Mt and Luke (Mt 19:12-27) can vary in reporting
the same material. The message for Matthew's readers64 is not one of meriting
reward but of dedicated and fruitful response by the Christian to God's
gift in and through Jesus. The discourse ends with material peculiar to
Mt: the enthroned Son of Man judging the sheep and the goats (Mt 25:31-46).65
Since the Son of Man speaks of God as "my Father," this is the
Son of God in the apocalyptic context of the judgment of the whole world.
The admirable principle that the verdict is based on the treatment of
deprived outcasts is the Matthean Jesus' last warning to his followers
and to the church, demanding a very different religious standard both
from that of those scribes and Pharisees criticized in Mt 23 and from
that of a world that pays more attention to the rich and powerful.
Climax: Passion, Death, and Resurrection (26:1-28:20)
1. Conspiracy Against Jesus, Last Supper (Mt
26:1-29).66 By having Jesus predict at the very beginning that the Son
of Man would be given over at this Passover (a type of fourth passion
prediction), Mt emphasizes the foreknowledge of Jesus. In Judas' disloyalty
and the anointing of Jesus (Mt 26:1-16) the setting of the plot against
Jesus is localized in the palace of the high priest Caiaphas in order
to prepare for the setting of the Jewish trial later on. {200}
The sum paid (not simply promised) to Judas
is specified as thirty pieces of silver to echo Zc 11:12. The preparations
for Passover (Mt 26:17-19) are briefly recounted, leading directly into
the Last Supper account (Mt 26:20-29).67 Mt makes specific the identification
of the one who will give Jesus over (which Mark had left obscure). Judas
is not only named but also answers Jesus by calling him "Rabbi,"
the very title Jesus had forbidden in Mt 23:7-8.
2. Arrest, Jewish and Roman Trials, Crucifixion,
Death (Mt 26:30-27:56).68 In the Gethsemane section (Mt 26:30-56) Matthew's
tendency to avoid duplications causes the omission of Jesus' praying that
if it were possible the hour might pass from him - the twin in Mk 14:35
of the direct discourse prayer that the cup might be removed. Additionally
this omission serves the purpose of making the Matthean Jesus seem less
desperate. Mt also fleshes out the pattern of Jesus' praying three times
by supplying in Mt 26:42 a wording for the second prayer (echoing the
Lord's Prayer of Mt 6:10). In the arrest (Mt 26:49-50) Judas once more
addresses Jesus as "Rabbi," and Jesus responds in a way that
manifests his awareness of what Judas has planned. Since Mt makes it clear
(contrast Mark) that it was one of Jesus' followers who cut off the ear
of the high priest's servant, it is morally important that Jesus comment
unfavorably on such force. That the Father would have sent more than twelve
legions of angels if Jesus appealed (Mt 26:53: some 72,000!) softens the
failure of the Father to answer Jesus' prayer to have the cup removed.
Typically Matthean is the stress in Mt 26:54-56 that what is happening
fulfills the Scriptures, in harmony with the many fulfillment citations
throughout the Gospel.
The Jewish Trial: Jesus is condemned by the
Sanhedrin and mocked while Peter denies him (Mt 26:57-27:1). Mt includes
the name of the high priest Caiaphas, and heightens the iniquity because
the authorities are said to have been seeking false witness from the start.
The indication that two witnesses came forward and the failure to designate
their testimony as false (contrast Mark) means that for Mt Jesus did say,
"I am able to destroy the sanctuary of God, and within three days
I will build (it)." This assertion plus the non-rejection of the
title "Messiah, the Son of God" constitute the basis of the
{201} charge of blasphemy. For the question "Who is it that struck
you?" mocking Jesus as a prophet-Messiah (Mt 26:68), see pp. 114,
116 above. The irony of Peter's denying that he knows Jesus at the very
moment when Jesus confesses to being the Messiah, the Son of God, is heightened
in Matthew, for that is the very title that Peter confessed in Mt 16:16.
Matthew's sense of order has three different agents (not two as in Mark)
provoking Peter's three denials.
The Roman Trial: As Jesus is being handed over
to Pilate, Judas seeks to avoid the bloodguilt; Pilate sentences Jesus
who is then mocked (Mt 27:2-3la). In this section of the passion narrative
we encounter major episodes unique to Mt The storyline remains the same
as in Mark: questioning by Pilate, Barabbas, the intervention of the chief
priests and the crowds, the flogging and handing over to crucifixion,
and the mockery by Roman soldiers. Yet the special Matthean material makes
the account more vivid and dramatizes responsibility for Jesus' death
through the imagery of "innocent blood." (See p. 206 below for
this type of Matthean material, almost every line of which echoes the
OT and is perhaps taken directly from popular oral tradition.) Mt 27:3-10
interrupts the beginning of the Roman trial with the story of Judas' reaction
to the Jewish decision against Jesus. Judas does not want to be responsible
for innocent blood (see Mt 23:34-35; Dt 21:9; Dt 27:25). Neither do the
chief priests, and so they use the thirty pieces of silver for which Judas
had sold Jesus69 in order to buy a Potter's Field (Zc 11:12-13; Jr 19:1-13;
Jr 32:9). Judas' hanging himself echoes the suicide of Ahithophel (David's
trusted advisor who went over to David's rebellious son Absalom), the
only OT figure who hanged himself (2 Sm 17:23).70 Just as in Matthew's
infancy narrative there were dream revelations and the Gentiles were responsive
when the Jewish authorities were not, so here Pilate's wife receives a
dream revelation that Jesus is a just man (Mt 27:19). (The title "the
King of the Jews" is also shared by this scene and the infancy narrative.)
Pilate washes his hands to signify that he is innocent of Jesus' blood;
but finally "all the people" say, "His blood on us and
our children" (Mt 27:24-25). This is not a self-curse by the Jewish
people; it is a legal formula taking responsibility for the death of one
considered a criminal. Mt knows what the people do not, namely, that Jesus
is innocent; and he judges that the responsibility (and punishment) for
the death of this just man was visited on all the Jewish {202} people
later when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple (wherefore the
reference to "children").71
The crucifixion and death (Mt 27:31b-56).72
Matthew specifies (Mt 27:36) that the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus
sat and kept watch over him; thus the Roman centurion had (Gentile) companions
in confessing that Jesus was truly God's Son (Mt 27:54). The challenge
of the Jewish authorities to the crucified Jesus (Mt 27:41-43) is lengthened
to echo the Scriptures (Ps 22:9; Ws 2:17-18). The two drinks offered to
Jesus become wine mixed with gall and vinegary wine (Mt 27:34,48) to match
the gall and vinegar of Ps 69:22. The major Matthean addition, once more
of the vivid, popular type, expands poetically what happened as Jesus
died. Not only was the veil of the sanctuary rent from top to bottom;
but the earth was shaken, the rocks were rent, the tombs opened, and many
bodies of the fallen-asleep holy ones raised, to come out and enter the
holy city after Jesus' resurrection (Mt 27:51-53). This is a scriptural
way of describing the last times. If the birth of Jesus was marked by
a sign in the heavens (a star's rising), his death is marked by signs
on the earth (a quake) and under the earth (tombs). His death brings judgment
on the Temple but also the resurrection of the saints of Israel. Human
relationships to God have been changed, and the cosmos has been transformed.
3. Burial, Guard at the Tomb, Opening of the
Tomb, Bribing of the Guard, Resurrection Appearances (Mt 27:57-28:20).
Although in Mark the burial is part of the crucifixion account, Matthew
has reorganized the sequence to relate the burial more closely to the
resurrection. In a pattern resembling that of the infancy narrative Matthew
has five subsections in an alternating pattern of favorable to Jesus,
unfavorable, favorable, etc.; cf. Mt 1:18-2:23 and the alternating Joseph
and Herod subsections. The burial account (Mt 27:57-61) clarifies that
Joseph from Arimathea was a rich man and a disciple of Jesus. The placing
of the guard at the tomb (Mt 27:62-66), unique to Matthew, reflects apologetics
meant to refute Jewish polemic against the resurrection. The cooperation
of Pilate with the chief priests and the Pharisees73 in using soldiers
{203} to forestall the resurrection/removal of Jesus' body resembles the
cooperation of Herod, the chief priests, and the scribes in sending to
kill the baby Jesus (Mt 2:16-18.)
The middle subsection of the five in both infancy
and burial/resurrection accounts shows a divine intervention to frustrate
the hostile plot, for Matthew's story of the empty tomb (Mt 28:1-10) is
significantly different. There was an earthquake; an angel descended and
rolled back the stone, and the guards were struck with fear like dead
men. The angel's message to the women about Jesus' victory has a different
reaction from the message in Mark; for they run with joy to tell the disciples,
and indeed Jesus himself appears to them. The alternating pattern of subsections
then turns attention to the bribing of the guard (Mt 28:11-15) by the
chief priests and the lie that the disciples stole the body. The finale
comes when Jesus appears to the Eleven (28:16-20) on a mountain in Galilee.
As we shall see with resurrection appearances in Luke and John, there
are typical details: doubt, reverence for Jesus, and a commission. The
mountain is the Matthean symbolic place for Jesus' revelation (Mt 5:1),
and the exalted Jesus who speaks has been given all power in heaven and
earth. (This echoes Dn 7:14; and so Meier, Vision 212, speaks of this
as the Son of Man coming to his church in a proleptic parousia.) The sending
to all nations here at the end revises the restricted sending to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel and not to the Gentiles in the middle of
the Gospel (Mt 10:5-6). The baptismal formula in the name of three divine
agents was presumably in use in the Matthean church at this period,74
having replaced an earlier custom of baptizing in the name of Jesus (Ac
2:38; Ac 8:16; etc.). The instruction to teach all the nations "all
that I have commanded you" probably refers to the contents of Matthew's
five great discourses or even all that Matthew has narrated (see Mt 26:13).
The final verse "I am with you all days until the end of the age"
is an inclusion with God's revelation about Jesus through the prophet
Isaiah at the beginning of the Gospel (Mt 1:23): "His name shall
be called Emmanuel (which means 'God with us')."
Sources and Compositional
Features
Those who accept Marcan priority and the existence
of Q (Chapter 6 above) work with those two written sources of Mt We shall
discuss them first, and then turn to other commonly agreed-on compositional
elements.
(a) Mark. This is Matthew's principal source.
Although the evangelist might {204} have reflected on Mark as it was read
in the community liturgy, the detailed work implies that Mt had a written
form of Mark before him. The idea that a later evangelist rewrote an earlier
Gospel is not foreign to the biblical scene, for the Deuteronomist rewrote
earlier Pentateuchal material, and the Chronicler (1-2 Chron) rewrote
material in Sm and Kings. Mark had been designed to make Jesus intelligible
to a Gentile audience; and Matthew, in order to serve a community that
was becoming more and more Gentile, found Mark a useful framework into
which to incorporate Q, a very Jewish collection of Jesus' teaching.75
Overall Mt is remarkably faithful to Mark,
almost as a scribe copying his source. Nevertheless, in the changes (minor
in length) to what is taken over from Mark, one can detect Matthean thought
and proclivities. The more characteristic changes made by Mt are listed
below with some examples of each:
Ø Mt writes Greek with more polish than
Mark by eliminating difficult phraseology and double expressions and by
smoothing out patterns, e.g., Mt 15:39 changes the unrecognizable place-name
of Mk 8:10, "Dalmanutha"; Mt 26:34 drops the first time indicator
in Mk 14:30, "today, this very night"; Mt 26:45 drops the untranslatable
Greek word apechei of Mk 14:41; Mt 26:42 supplies words for Jesus' second
Gethsemane prayer, contrasted to Mk 14:29.
Ø Mt omits or changes passages in Mark
unfavorable to those whose subse quent career make them worthy of respect,
e.g., the omission of Mk 3:21 where Jesus' family thinks he is beside
himself, of Mk 8:17 where Jesus asks whether the disciples' hearts are
hardened, of Mk 8:22-26 which dra matizes the slowness of the disciples
to see, and of Mk 9:10,32 where the disciples do not understand the concept
of resurrection from the dead; also the change of the ambitious questioner
from the sons of Zebedee in Mk 10:35 to their mother in Mt 20:20.
Ø Reflecting christological sensibilities,
Mt is more reverential about Jesus and avoids what might limit him or
make him appear naive or superstitious, e.g., Mt 8:25-26 changes the chiding
question posed by the disciples to Jesus in Mk 4:38 and eliminates Jesus'
speaking to the wind and sea in the next Marcan verse; Mt 9:22 eliminates
the implication in Mk 5:30-31 that Jesus did not know who touched him
and that the disciples thought he had asked a foolish question; Mt 13:55
changes to "carpenter's son" the description in Mk 6:3 of Jesus
as a carpenter; Mt 15:30-31 omits Mark's account (Mk 7:32-36) of the spittle
healing of the deaf mute; Mt 19:16-17 changes Mk 10:17-18 to avoid the
implication that Jesus cannot be called good, for God alone is good; 21:12-13
omits Mk 11:16 and the picture of Jesus blocading the Temple. {205}
Mt heightens the miraculous element found in
Mark, e.g., Mt 14:21 increases Mark's 5,000 in the multiplication of the
loaves by adding women and children; Mt 14:24 increases the distance of
the boat of the disciples from the shore in the walking-on-the-water scene;
Mt 14:35 insists that Jesus healed all who were sick; Mt 15:28 has the
woman's daughter healed instantly.
(b) Q source. By including Q material, Mt gives
a strong emphasis to Jesus as a teacher. Many would diagnose other Matthean
thought and pro clivities by the changes the evangelist makes in Q; but
since Q is a hypotheti cal construction derived in part from Matthew,
we must recognize uncertainties and be careful of circular reasoning.
In terms of content Mt appears to be reasonably faithful to Q even as
he was to Mark. Yet the way in which Q is used is not consistently the
same, and the order of Q is adapted to Matthew's sense of order. For example,
Mt rearranges the Q material into sermons or discourses. To a group of
four beatitudes (Lk 6:20-23) Mt 5:3-11 adds others to enlarge the number
to eight. Mt 6:9-13 fleshes out the Lord's Prayer by bringing to it additional
petitions lacking in Lk 11:2-4.
(c) Special Matthean material (often called
M). When one discusses material in Matthew not found in Mark or Q, one
enters an area that is not homo geneous and about which scholars seriously
disagree. How much represents the Matthean evangelist's own composition/creation
and how much did he draw from a source or sources (M) known to him alone
among the four evangelists? Certainly the evangelist could create his
own compositions modeled on what he found in Mark and Q;76 yet he does
seem to have had other sources that he followed, e.g., a body of special
material about Peter (Mt 14:28-31; Mt 16:17-19; Mt 17:24-27). Let me illustrate
the issue from the infancy and the passion narratives. BBM 52 contended
that Matthew's infancy narrative drew on several different kinds of raw
materials: lists of names of patriarchs and kings; a messianic family
tree (Mt 1:13-16, to which Mt added Joseph and Jesus); an annunciation
of the Messiah's birth patterned on OT annunci ations of birth; more importantly,
a birth story with several dreams involving Joseph and the child Jesus,
patterned on the patriarch Joseph and the leg ends surrounding the birth
of Moses; and a magi-and-star story patterned on the magus77 Balaam who
came from the East and saw the Davidic star that would rise from Jacob.
The last two items (which I have italicized) are reconstructed as preMatthean
sources in BBM 109, 192 with the warning that this material has been edited
so thoroughly that often we can detect only contents, not the original
wording. Similarly in the passion narrative I maintain {206} that Mt added
source material to what was taken over from Mark (BDM 1:755): Judas hanging
himself (27:3-10), Pilate's wife's dream (27:19), Pilate washing his hands
of Jesus' blood (27:24-25), a poetic quatrain about the extraordinary
events that followed Jesus' death (Mt 27:51b-53), and the story of the
guard at the tomb (Mt 27:62-66; Mt 28:2-4, 11-15). Characteristic of this
birth and passion material are vivid imagination (dreams, murder of infants,
bloodguilt, suicide, plotting, lies), extraordinary heavenly and earthly
phenomena (angelic interventions, star moving to the west and coming to
rest over Bethlehem, earthquake, dead rising), an unusual amount of scriptural
influence (almost as if the stories had been composed on the basis of
the OT, rather than simply glossed by OT references), and (alas) sharp
hostility toward Jews who did not believe in Jesus, matched by sympathetic
presentation of Gentiles (magi, Pilate's wife) - characteristics reflecting
the imagination, interests, and prejudices of ordinary people78 and for
the most part missing elsewhere in Matthew Senior and Neirynck, who stress
almost exclusively Matthew's written dependence on Mark, would regard
much or all of this material as a Matthean creation, perhaps on the basis
of vague tradition. Is it likely that the Matthean evangelist, who elsewhere
has worked closely with Mark and Q, making conservative changes in a scribal
manner, suddenly releases a creative urge producing vivid stories different
in tone from the changes introduced in those two sources? More plausibly,
in my judgment, Mt had a popular, perhaps oral, source consisting of folk
traditions about Jesus (which may have had a historical nucleus no longer
recoverable). In addition to these large blocks of material, there are
minor Matthean passages and phrases not derived from Mark and Q. Some
of these may represent Matthean creativity;79 some of them may represent
a particular type of received tradition. From the oral preaching about
Jesus that gave birth to Christianity, the Matthean evangelist surely
knew about Jesus before he ever read Mark; and so it is possible, nay
even likely, that some minor additions represent his use of oral tradition
and phrases to expand what he found in the written sources.80 In a pericope
taken over from Mark, a key to the preMatthean existence of oral tradition
could be the independent presence in Matthew and Luke of what is lacking
in Mark. (Some of the "minor {207} agreements"; see the example
on p. 116 above of Mt 26:68; Lk 22:64 where there may have been oral influence
on both evangelists.)
(d) Formula or fulfillment citations. In some
ten to fourteen instances where Mt cites the OT (Isaiah in eight of them),
the scriptural passage is accompanied by the following formula (with slight
variants): "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken
by the prophet who said." This is almost a Matthean peculiarity among
the Synoptic Gospels.81 That Jesus is to be related to the Scriptures
is a commonplace in early Christianity, but Matthew has uniquely standardized
the fulfillment of the prophetic word. In finding this fulfillment, Mt
usually makes no attempt to interpret the large contextual meaning of
the cited OT passage; rather there is a concentration on the details where
there is a resemblance to Jesus or the NT event. Some would contend that
there is an apologetic motif in these citations (proofs directed to the
synagogue); but then one would expect to find more of them in the account
of Jesus' passion, which was the "stumbling block to the Jews"
(instead of only Mt 26:56; Mt 27:9-10). More likely the citations have
a didactic purpose, informing Christian readers and giving support to
their faith. Some are attached to the minutiae of Jesus' career, as if
to emphasize that the whole of Jesus' life, down to the last detail, lay
within God's foreordained plan. Probably Mt is continuing the invocation
of Scripture begun in early Christian preaching, but is doing so now when
the primary address is to settled Christian communities who need to be
taught.
Did these citations create the narrative they
accompany, or are they appended to a narrative that already existed? Instances
of each of these processes may exist, but the better arguments favor the
latter as a general pattern. For instance, in the infancy narratives in
four cases out of five (Mt 1:22-23; Mt 2:15b, 17-18,23b) the storyline
makes perfect sense without the citations and even flows more smoothly.
It is hard to imagine how the story in Mt 2:13-23 could have been made
up out of the three formula citations contained therein. In an instance
over which we have outside control, Mk 1:14 and Lk 4:14 agree that after
his baptism Jesus went to Galilee; thus the formula citation in Mt 4:12-16
did not give rise to that story, but colored it with a reference to the
Gentiles. Sometimes Mt may have introduced into material taken from Mark
a citation already being used more widely (Mt 21:4-5 {208} draws on Zc
9:9, which is also echoed in Jn 12:15-16). Many times, however, it is
hard to imagine that the Matthean citations could have been used independently
of their present context. Most likely, therefore, Mt originated the use
of many of the citations introduced by a formula.
As to the linguistic background of Matthew's
formula citations, Gundry, Use, maintains that Matthew, when copying citations
found in Mark (even implicitly), closely adheres to LXX wording. In non
Marcan usage of Scripture, whether in formula citations or not, Mt is
freer. Stendahl, School, reminds us that there was available in the 1st
century a multiplicity of textual traditions of Scripture - not just a
standardized Hebrew (MT) and Greek (LXX) tradition, but variant Hebrew
wordings, Aramaic targums, and a number of Greek translations, including
some closer to the MT than is the LXX. When we add to these the possibility
of a free rendering by the evangelist himself, the process of deciding
what scriptural wording is Matthean and what preMat-thean becomes most
uncertain. In the many instances where the Matthean evangelist was the
first to see the possibilities of an OT fulfillment, he would presumably
choose or even adapt a wording that would best fit his purposes. Matthew's
choice need not have represented the studies of a school of writers as
Stendahl has suggested, but at least we are dealing with a careful and
erudite choice worthy of a Christian scribe. Besides using the formula
citations to fit the general theology of the unity of God's plan, the
Matthean evangelist selected them to serve his particular theological
and pastoral interests in addressing a mixed Christian community of Jews
and Gentiles.
Let me conclude this subsection with a note
of caution. Although the evangelist did draw on previously existing bodies
of written and oral material, he did not produce a collection of glued-together
sources. Working with a developed christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology,
he produced a highly effective narrative about Jesus that smoothly blended
together what he received. That narrative won important parts of the ancient
world to faith in Christ. It may be academically useful to detect the
sources he employed, but to concentrate on the compositional background
and miss the impact of the final product is to miss the beauty of the
forest while counting the trees.
Authorship
If we work backwards, the title "According
to Matthew"82 was attached to this writing by the latter half of
the 2d century (or perhaps earlier; Davies {209} and Allison, Matthew
1:7-8). Ca. 125 Papias wrote, "Matthew arranged in order the sayings
in the Hebrew (= Aramaic?) language, and each one interpreted/translated
as he was able" (EH 3:39.16). On p. 158 above I deliberately printed
the Papias reference to Mt in its actual context following the reference
to Mark, a sequence that would not suggest that Papias thought that Mt
wrote before Mark. (The claim that Mt was the first Gospel appears with
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius.) There has been considerable
debate as to whether in referring to "sayings" (logia) Papias
meant that Matthew wrote a full Gospel (as later writers understood, thinking
of canonical Matthew, e.g., EH 5:8.2-3). Logoi would have been the usual
word for "sayings" in the sense of "words," and so
logia might mean whatever constituted the "revelations" of Jesus
(see Ac 7:38 for the logia or revelations delivered by Moses). Moreover,
since Papias reported that Mark was a follower of Peter who did not make
an orderly account of the Lord's logia and it is widely agreed that Papias
was referring to the Gospel of Mark, plausibly he would have been referring
to a gospel when he says that Matthew arranged in order the logia in Hebrew/Aramaic.83
The meaning of syn-tassein, which I have translated "arranged in
order," is not certain. It need have no connotation of chronological
or even logical order; it could refer to a persuasive or pleasing literary
arrangement or even to a fuller account.
The canonical Matthean Gospel exists in Greek
- was Papias referring to a Semitic original from which it was translated?
Three different observations point in that direction. (1) In antiquity
there was a Jewish gospel probably in Aramaic used by Palestinian Christians
and associated by the Church Fathers with Nazaraean (or Nazorean) Jewish
Christians, especially in the Aleppo area of Syria.84 References to this
gospel relate it closely to Matthew; Jerome claimed that he translated
it into Greek and at times he treats it {210} almost as if it were the
Semitic original behind Mt When compared to the canonical Gospel, however,
the few Nazaraean passages preserved in patristic quotations seem to be
secondary expansions of Mt or interpolations. (2) There are medieval Hebrew
forms of Mt that most scholars think of as retroversions from the Greek
of canonical Matthew, often made to serve in arguments between Christians
and Jews. However, some claim that these texts are a guide to the original
Hebrew of Mt 85 (3) Still other scholars think they can reconstruct the
original Hebrew or Aramaic underlying the whole or parts of the Greek
text of canonical Mt on the assumption that the original was in Semitic.86
The vast majority of scholars, however, contend
that the Gospel we know as Mt was composed originally in Greek and is
not a translation of a Semitic original. As for Papias' attribution of
the logia to Matthew, if canonical Mt drew on canonical Mark, the idea
that Matthew, an eyewitness member of the Twelve, would have used as a
major source a noneyewitness, Greek account (Mark) is implausible. (That
objection is not really met by the thesis that Matthew wrote an Aramaic
gospel that was translated into Greek only after Mark was written and
thus under the influence of Mark - not only the Greek wording of Mt but
also its organization and material content seem to have been influenced
by Mark.) Thus either Papias was wrong/confused in attributing a gospel
(sayings) in Hebrew/Aramaic to Matthew, or he was right but the Hebrew/Aramaic
composition he described was not the work we know in Greek as canonical
Mt
In the latter hypothesis, did what Matthew
wrote in Aramaic/Hebrew play any role in the background of canonical Matthew,
thus explaining the title given to the latter work? Since Papias speaks
of "sayings," was he describing Q, which canonical Mt used?
Yet Q as reconstructed from Mt and Luke is a Greek work that has gone
through stages of editing. Papias could not have been describing that,
but was he referring to the Semitic original of the earliest Greek stage
of Q, a stage that we can reconstruct only with difficulty and uncertainty?
Others posit an Aramaic collection of sayings on which Matthew, Mark,
and Q all drew. One cannot dismiss these suggestions as impossible, but
they explain the unknown through the more unknown.
By way of overall judgment on the "Matthew"
issue, it is best to accept the common position that canonical Mt was
originally written {211} in Greek by a noneyewitness whose name is unknown
to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q. Whether somewhere in
the history of Matthew's sources something written in Semitic by Matthew,
one of the Twelve, played a role we cannot know. It is not prudent for
scholarship 1,900 years later to dismiss too facilely as complete fiction
or ignorance the affirmation of Papias, an ancient spokesman living within
four decades of the composition of canonical Mt
Today a more divisive issue is whether the
unknown canonical evangelist was a Jewish Christian or a Gentile Christian.
Current scholarship runs about four to one in favor of a Jewish Christian;
but significant commentators argue for Gentile authorship.87 For instance,
sometimes they detect mistakes in Matthew that they cannot conceive a
Jew making, e.g., the evangelist's joining the Pharisees and Sadducees
four times in chap. 16 as if they had the same teaching (16:12). Yet that
joining may simply be a shorthand way of putting together Jesus' enemies,88
and 22:34 shows that the evangelist is aware of differences between them.
In support of identifying the evangelist as a Jewish Christian, the Papias
tradition at least suggests a Jewish background for Mt The evangelist's
use of the OT indicates that he knew Hebrew and perhaps even Aramaic -
an unlikely accomplishment for a Gentile. Although not conclusive and
possibly reflecting sources rather than the evangelist himself, there
are many features of Jewish thought and theology in Matthew:89 the infancy
narrative with a genealogy, a Moses parallelism for Jesus, and a knowledge
of Jewish legends; the Sermon on the Mount with modifications of the Law;
debates with the Pharisees; images of Peter's authority (keys of the kingdom,
binding and loosing); a command to obey those who sit in Moses' seat (Mt
23:2-3); worry about flight on a Sabbath (Mt 24:20); and the special material
in the passion narrative that is almost a midrash on OT passages. Overall
likelihood, then, favors the Jewish Christian identity of the evangelist.
Yet what type of Jewish Christian? Matthew's
Greek is probably not translation Greek; the evangelist often corrects
Mark's style, and there are Greek wordplays. This linguistic skill could
suggest diaspora upbringing (witness Paul). {212} Theologically, the evangelist
was neither of the more conservative extreme that opposed the admission
of uncircumcised Gentiles to Christian communities (see 28:19), nor of
the more liberal extreme that deemed the Law irrelevant (see 5:17-18).
Yet the exact Matthean mind-set toward the Law is hard to reconstruct;
for as we shall see in the next subsection, the Gospel reflects a complicated
community history. Many would find the evangelist's self-description in
Mt 13:52: "a scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven... a householder
who brings out of his treasure new things and old." That reverence
for what has gone before is attested in the Matthean addition (Mt 9:17)
to Mk 2:22, which emphasizes that both old and new are preserved. If we
compare the evangelist to Paul, the other great writer on the Law in the
NT, even though on practical issues the two might agree and both reverenced
the Ten Commandments (Mt 19:18-19; Rm 13:9), each might find the other's
slogans too sweeping: "I have not come to abolish the Law" (Mt
5:17); "You are not under the Law" (Rm 6:14-15).
Locale or Community Involved
By the end of the 2d century, church writers
were placing the composition of Mt in Palestine.91 Probably that was a
surmise based on the earlier tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew/Aramaic,
and on the internal evidence of controversies with Jews. However, some
of the proposed Palestinian background (e.g., portrayal of how the Pharisees
behave in public in Mt 23:5) may reflect Jesus' own time, rather than
the situation of the Gospel. The majority view relates Mt to Syria and
specifically to Antioch. "Syria" is added in Mt 4:24 to Mark's
description of the spread of Jesus' activity. The early Jewish Gospel
of the Nazaraeans related to Mt (n. 84 above) circulated in Syria. The
argument drawn from Matthew's use of Greek that we should posit a Syrian
city because Aramaic was spoken in the countryside is uncertain; but urban
locale may be suggested by twenty-six uses in the Gospel of "city,"
compared to four of "village." The dominant influence that Mt
would have in subsequent Christianity suggests that it served as the Gospel
of a major Christian church in an important city, such as Antioch. If,
as noted below in {213} the discussion of dating, Ignatius and the Didache
supply the earliest evidence of knowledge of Matthew, Ignatius (certainly)
and Didache (probably) are associated with Antioch. However, the most
persuasive evidence stems from the correspondence of the internal evidence
with what we know of the church at Antioch, as we shall now see.
The interplay of Jewish and Gentile interests
in Matthew is complex. There are passages that strongly echo the interests
of a Law-abiding Jewish Christianity (Mt 5:17-20; Mt 10:5-6; Mt 23:1-3);
yet other passages revise the Law or Jewish observances (Mt 5:17-48; Mt
23:1-36). Despite all the Matthean discussions centered on points of Jewish
Law, "the Jews" are referred to as alien in Mt 28:15, as are
the synagogues of the Jewish authorities (Mt 10:17; Mt 23:34). Matthew
has taken over Mark, a Gospel addressed to Gentiles, but omitted the explanation
of Jewish customs in Mk 7:3-4, as if the Gentile section of the Matthean
community would know the issue of cleanliness in eating. The most plausible
interpretation is that Mt was addressed to a once strongly Jewish Christian
church that had become increasingly Gentile in composition; and J. P.
Meier (BMAR 45-72) has shown how the history of Christianity at Antioch
fits that situation. There were probably more Jews at Antioch than at
any other place in Syria, and their ceremonies attracted many Gentiles
(Josephus, War 7:3.3; §45). It is not surprising then that when Hellenist
Jewish Christians were scattered from Jerusalem after the martyrdom of
Stephen (ca. ad 36; Ac 8:1) and came to Antioch, they spoke of Christ
to Gentiles there as well (Ac 11:19-20). The list of "prophets and
teachers" in Antioch (Mt 13:1: in the early 40s?) includes a childhood
companion of Herod Antipas, and so the Christian community there may have
had people of prestige and wealth.92 Paul's mission to the Gentiles, begun
with Barnabas, was under the auspices of the Antioch church; and the objections
of some ultra-conservative Jewish Christians to its success led to the
Jerusalem meeting of ad 49. After the agreement there that Gentiles could
be received without circumcision, it was at Antioch that Paul, Peter,
and men from James (the "brother of the Lord") disagreed sharply
over how Jewish food laws affected the table relationships of Jewish and
Gentile Christians. Paul lost this battle and departed from Antioch, so
that for the period immediately after 50 Christianity in that area would
have been dominated by a more conservative outlook on how the Law obliged
Gentile converts (as spelled out in the decree from James and Jerusalem
in Ac 15:28-29, including the avoidance of porneid). Peter played a moderating
role keeping the community together (BMAR 40-41). {214}
In the 60s another major change would have
come. Peter was executed in Rome in that decade, and James in Jerusalem.
Christians were scattered from Jerusalem as the Jewish Revolt (66-70)
began. There and in Antioch the antipathy of Jews for Jewish Christians
may have increased since the latter did not stand with their confreres
in the revolt.93 The Jewish image at Anti-oclrwould have been affected
in this period by the renegade Jew Antiochus who aroused Gentiles to fury
with false tales about Jewish plots to burn the city (Josephus, War 1:3.3;§46-53).
In the 70s after the crushing of the First Jewish Revolt by the Romans
(p. 61 above), at Jamnia on the Palestinian coast an academy of scholars
emerged as a very influential force; they were close to Pharisee thought
and honored as rabbis. In this same post-70 period at Antioch Gentiles
probably became the majority in the Christian group (BMAR 47-52), while
the extreme conservative wing of Jewish Christians broke the koinonia
("unity, communion") and separated. They would become the source
both of the Syrian Ebonites94and of those who were later responsible for
the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions that called on the memory of James
of Jerusalem as the great hero.
This history of shifting relationships between
Jewish and Gentile Christians would fit much of what we find in Matthew
Peter and James were prominent at Antioch. Peter appears more prominently
in this Gospel (Mt 14:28-31; Mt 16:17-19; Mt 17:24-27) than in any other;
and to the list of the Twelve taken over from Mark, Mt 10:2 adds "first"
before Peter's name. The Q material preserved in Matthew is very close
to the epistle attributed to James (p. 734 below).95 As for the variety
of views that marked the history of Antiochene Christianity, a sharp rejection
of a Gentile mission is enunciated in Mt 10:5-6; Mt 15:24; yet later on
a mission to the Gentiles is commanded by Jesus in Mt 28:19. In the opening
chapter's story of the magi such an outcome is foreshadowed as God's plan,
but historically was it the opposition of the synagogue {215} that drove
Christian preachers towards the Gentiles?96 If there were Christian libertines
among the Gentile converts who misunderstood Christian freedom, Mt would
serve as a firm corrective for them. Mt 5:18 affirms a reverence for the
smallest part of a letter of the Law; Mt 5:21-48 shows a very demanding
attitude toward the spirit of the Law; Mt 19:9 introduces into Jesus'
rejection of divorce (cf. Mt 5:32) a clause opposed to porneia. Yet there
are other sections that show sharp hostility toward external Jewish practices
and treat the Pharisees as casuistic legalists (the designation hypokrites
is used over a dozen times, compared to twice in Mark). The Matthean rejection
of the title "Rabbi" (Mt 23:7-8) is unique. Davies, Setting,
has made a strong case that Mt was written as a Christian response to
the Judaism that was emerging after ad 70 at Jamnia where the rabbis were
revered as interpreters of the Law. Perhaps the Matthean Christians lived
in the shadow of a larger Jewish community that resented them. If the
two groups shared the same Scriptures and many of the same convictions,
their differences may all the more have been the subject of dispute. All
this fits the Antioch situation, so that Matthew's church could plausibly
have been the antecedent of the Antiochene church that two or three decades
later would have Ignatius as its bishop (BMAR 73-86).97
Had the Christian audience envisioned by Mt
left or been ejected from the local Jewish synagogues? Much depends on
whether certain statements in the Gospel represent the past (pre-70; see
Dating subsection below) or the final, present status (80s?). Mt 10:17
predicts that Jesus' disciples will be scourged in synagogues; thus Mt
knows of Christians, past or present, who were subject to synagogue authority.
Mt 23:2-3 says that the scribes and the Pharisees have succeeded Moses
and so one must observe what they say (but not what they do). If that
is the present situation, the Matthean Christians would still be under
synagogue obedience. However, five times Mt (Mt 4:23; Mt 9:35; Mt 10:17;
Mt 12:9; Mt 13:54) has Jesus teach in "their synagogue)"; and
in Mt 23:34 Jesus addresses the scribes and Pharisees: "I send to
you prophets and wise men and scribes98.... some of them you will scourge
in your synagogues." In Mt 28:15 we are told: "This story has
circulated {216} among Jews to the present (day)." Such language
of alienation suggests separation from Judaism" on the part of the
Jewish Christians who together with Gentile Christians formed a self-subsistent
church. See also n. 55 above for the possibility that Matthew's church
no longer recited the basic Jewish prayer, the Shema; it has even been
suggested that the Matthean "Our Father" was taught so that
the emerging church would have its own prayer to match what was being
recited in the synagogues.
Date of Writing
The majority view dates Mt to the period 70-100;
but some significant conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 dating.
On the upper end of the spectrum, Papias may have flourished as early
as 115; if he knew of canonical Matthew, a 2d-century date is ruled out.100
Mt betrays no awareness of the problem of gnosticism; therefore, if Mt
was written in the Antioch area, it was probably written before the time
of Ignatius (ca. 110), for whom gnosticism was a threat. Further confirmation
of that is supplied if Ignatius in Ep. 19 shows knowledge of Mt 2, and
in Smyrn. 1:1, of Mt 3:15; and if Didache 1:4 shows knowledge of Mt 5:39-41,
and Did. 8:2, of Mt 6:9-15.101 The Gospel of Peter, plausibly dated about
ad 125, drew on Matthew.
On the lower end of the spectrum most who think
that the apostle Matthew himself wrote the Gospel tend toward a pre-70
dating (although obviously the apostle could have lived till later in
the century).102 There are {217} weighty arguments, however, against positing
such an early composition. For instance, the omission in Mt 21:13 of the
description of the Jerusalem Temple as serving "for all the nations"
(Mk 11:17) and the reference in Mt 22:7 to the king burning the city103
may reflect the destruction at Jerusalem by the Roman armies in ad 70.
In terms of theological development, the triadic formula in Mt 28:19 ("the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") is the
most advanced NT step in a trinitarian direction and easier to understand
as coming at the end of the NT period - so also the stress on the abiding
presence of Jesus in Mt 28:20 rather than on the second coming. The controversies
with the Pharisees in Matthew and the condemnation of free use of the
title "Rabbi" fit well into the atmosphere of the early rabbinic
period after 70. Two passages (Mt 27:8; Mt 28:15) describe items in the
Mat-thean passion narrative that are remembered "to this day,"
using an OT phrase to explain place names from long ago (Gn 26:33; 2 Sm
6:8). Such a description would be very inappropriate if Mt was written
only two or three decades after ad 30/33. Probably the best argument for
a post-70 date is the dependence of Mt on Mark, a Gospel commonly dated
to the 68-73 period.
All this makes ad 80-90 the most plausible
dating; but the arguments are not precise, and so at least a decade in
either direction must be allowed.
Issues and Problems for Reflection
(1) The best-attested reading of 1:16 is "Jacob
was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary; of her was begotten Jesus,
called the Christ." There are variant readings of Mt 1:16 (BBM 61-64),
one designed to avoid call ing Joseph "the husband of Mary,"
another preserving the usual pattern of X begot Y but still calling Mary
a virgin. It is most unlikely that the variant readings represent a different
understanding of Mary's conception; they are awkward copyists' attempts
to straighten out the grammar of the best- attested reading.
(2) The KJV of Mt 6:13 has a doxology or ascription
concluding the Lord's Prayer, "For thine is the kingdom, and the
power, and the glory, for ever. Amen," drawn from the (inferior)
Greek mss. used in the translation history of that version. The clause
was lacking in Jerome's Vulgate on which Roman Catholic translations were
based; and so there developed an ecumenical {218} problem: In the English-speaking
world there were two different ways to end the Lord's Prayer. Today the
great majority of text-critics recognize that the ascription was not written
by the Matthean evangelist but was an ancient expansion for liturgical
use based on 1 Ch 29:11. (Some forms of it end with a reference to the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.) The earliest attestation is in
Didache 8:2, "For yours is the power and glory forever," following
the Lord's Prayer but also appearing two other times (Did 9:4; Did 10:5)
and in a eucharistic context. The ecumenical situation has been partially
solved today; for in the Roman Catholic Mass, after the Lord's Prayer
and a short invocation, the ascription has been incorporated: "For
the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever."
(3) The main theological emphases of Matthew,
especially when compared to Mark, are often listed as christology, ecclesiology,
and eschatology. Let me mention a few aspects under each as an invitation
to readers to pursue the topics at greater depth. Christologically: The
divine revelation concerning Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living
God, comes in the middle of the Gospel (Mt 16:16); the Son of God and
Son of Man motifs are prominent throughout; and the Emmanuel motif appears
at the beginning and the end. Jesus is implicitly compared with Moses
in the infancy narrative and the Sermon on the Mount; and Davidic parallelism
is strong in the genealogy and the last days of Jesus' life. The theme
of Jesus as divine Wisdom also appears (see Mt 11:19,27). The Son is placed
together with the Father and Holy Spirit at the end of the Gospel. Ecclesially:
Not only are there reflections of Matthean community life throughout,
but also the theme of church foundation appears in Mt 16:18-19; and qualities
to be emphasized in church life are found in Mt 18. The kingdom of heaven104
has become quite complex, embracing both a sweep of salvation history
and eschatological consummation. The church is not coterminous with the
kingdom of heaven but has a role as the place where Jesus is confessed
as Lord. In Mt 21:43 the kingdom is transferred from the disbelieving
Jewish authorities to a worthy people producing fruit, who constitute
the church. The concentration on Peter among the Twelve in scenes peculiar
to Mt also has an ecclesial function since he is the rock on which the
church is founded. The discourses that set the tone for discipleship (especially
chap. 18) also function in church life. Eschatologically: The appearance
of Jesus as marking a decisive change of times is already anticipated
in the infancy narrative, where his birth is signaled by a star in the
heavens. Inclusively that motif is picked up by the peculiarly Matthean
events that accompany both Jesus' death (earthquake, {219} raising the
saints, appearance in Jerusalem) and his resurrection (earthquake, angel
descending to open the tomb). In Matthean moral teaching some of the most
difficult demands reflect eschatological morality (n. 47 above). The eschatological
sermon in Mt 24-25 is much longer than the parallel in Mark and terminates
in the great last-judgment parable of the sheep and goats. The appearance
of Jesus that ends the Gospel echoes Daniel's vision of the final triumph,
and the promised presence of Jesus till the end of time brings us already
into the victory of the Son of Man.
(4) Mt 1:16, 18-25 clearly describes a virginal
conception of Jesus. Although Matthew's interest is theological (Jesus
is truly God's Son), there is no reason to think that the evangelist disbelieved
the historicity of this conception. Modern scholars, however, are divided.
On the one hand, many do disbelieve, advancing various arguments that
I report as follows (with my own queries/comments in parentheses): (a)
Such a miracle is impossible. (How does one know that?) (b) This is simply
an imaginative account based on the LXX of Is 7:14: "Behold the virgin
will conceive and will give birth to a son," which Mt 1:23 cites.
(The Hebrew of Is 7:14 clearly and the LXX less clearly do not predict
a virginal conception (see BBM 145-49), and there was no Jewish expectation
of the virginal conception of the Messiah.) (c) This is a Christian adaptation
of Pagan legends in which a god's seed begets a child of a woman. (Those
are not virginal conceptions but divine matings; there is nothing sexual
in Matthew's or Luke's account; Mt 1-2 almost certainly arose in Jewish
Christian circles, which were not likely to have appreciated such alien
legends.) (d) The Matthean evangelist writes symbolically, even as did
Philo, the Jewish philosopher, who described allegorically the birth of
the patriarchs: "Rebekah, who is perseverance, became pregnant from
God." (Philo is describing virtues, not the real birth of people.)
(e) It is a pious Christian attempt to disguise the fact that Mary was
raped and Jesus was illegitimate. (This theory is mostly guesswork with
no explicit NT evidence to support it; moreover, such a cover-up would
have had to take place extremely early since it is common to Mt and to
Luke.)
On the other hand, there are serious scholars
who believe in the literal historicity of the virginal conception: (a)
Independently it is affirmed by Mt and Luke, which suggests a tradition
earlier than either evangelist; (b) In both Gospels the virginal conception
is situated in awkward circumstances: Mary becomes pregnant before she
goes to live with Joseph, to whom she has been married - an unlikely invention
by Christians since it could lead to scandal; (c) As just indicated, the
nonhistorical explanations are very weak; (d) There is theological support
for a virginal conception: Some Protestants would accept it as true on
the basis of inerrancy or biblical {220} authority; Catholics would accept
it on the basis of church teaching; and some theologians relate it closely
to their understanding of Jesus as divine. For full discussion and bibliography,
see BBM 517-33, 697-712.
(5) The Matthean Jesus is often described as
an ethical teacher, e.g., in the Sermon on the Mount. Despite the lst-century
context, most Christians would regard as still binding his critique of
ostentation in almsgiving, prayer, and fasting (Mt 6:1-8, 16-18). Yet
one should also recognize that if Jesus were speaking to some 20th-century
contexts, he might strike out at the opposite vice. Often a highly secular
society would be embarrassed by any pious action, including prayer, and
would see no sense in fasting as self-denial. Jesus might well say in
such a situation: When you pray, pray publicly to challenge those who
never pray and see no sense in prayer; when you fast, let others see it
so that their presuppositions about comfort may be challenged. Readers
may find it fruitful to see if there are other injunctions in Matthew
that might have to be rephrased to make 20th-century audiences catch the
challenge of the kingdom of God. Rephrasing, however, is not without peril
because it may lead to presenting Jesus as permissive of what some Christians
today would want him to permit. The "challenge" of the kingdom
that put stern demands on people should not be rephrased away.
(6) As indicated in Appendix 2 below, some
of Jesus' sayings appear in both the canonical Gospels and the Gospel
of Thomas; and there is a debate whether the GTh sayings are derived from
or independent of the Gospel sayings (or both). Mt 1, with its mixture
of parables derived from Mark, Q, and M, offers a good opportunity for
comparative study that readers are invited to make. GTh 9 can be compared
with Mt 13:3-8, 18-23 (sower and the seed and its interpretation, from
Mark) and GTh 57 with Mt 13:24-30, 36-43 (weeds among the wheat and its
interpretation, from M). In both instances the GTh parable is shorter
and lacks the interpretation. Is that because it is more original or because
the author of the GTh collection rejected the canonical explanation and
wanted the parables left open to gnos tic applications? The paired parables
of the mustard seed and the leaven (Mt 13:31-33, from Q) appear separated
in GTh 20 and 96, in a shorter form but with a somewhat different thrust:
The mustard seed puts forth im mense foliage because it falls upon plowed
terrain, and the leaven produces huge loaves of bread. Are these gnostic
elements (even as in GTh 107, the parabolic lost sheep is the largest
of the flock)? The paired parables of the treasure in the field and the
pearl of great price (Mt 13:44-46, from M) appear separated in GTh 109
and 76 in a lengthier form with much more stress on the hidden aspect
of the treasure and the pearl. Does that reflect the gnostic idea of the
divine hidden in the material world? The canonical pairing may be a secondary
organizing of once independent parables, but {221} can we be sure that
GTh does not represent a further reorganization, stemming from gnostic
usage of Mt?
(7) Mt 16:16-19 ("You are Peter...")
is one of the most discussed passages in the NT,105 largely because Roman
Catholics have used it to support the role of the pope. The unusually
heavy Semitic background of the phraseology makes it likely that this
was not created by Mt but drawn by the evangelist from an earlier source.
Many would deny that it was spoken by Jesus himself, e.g., on the grounds
that it was missing from the presumably older account of the scene in
Mark, and that it contains a reference to "church" (meaning
"church" at large) that is unique in the Jesus tradition. However,
Bultmann, BHST 258, would argue that Mt preserved an older account of
the Caesarea Philippi confession than did Mark. A more widely followed
thesis is that Matthew has added to the Marcan form of Peter's Caesarea
confession of Jesus as the Messiah a Petrine confessional passage that
originally had another setting. A postresurrectional setting would be
appropriate on several scores: It is when provision for the future church
is found in the NT pictures of Jesus, when Paul received a revelation
from God about Jesus as "God's Son," which was not dependent
on flesh and blood (Ga 1:16), and when the power to forgive or retain
sins is given in Jn 20:23. In any case this Petrine passage can be set
alongside Lk 22:31-32 (Jesus promises that Simon (Peter) will not fail
despite Satan's attempt to destroy him and will turn and strengthen his
brothers) and Jn 21:15-17 (Jesus three times tells Simon Peter to feed
his lambs/sheep) as evidence that in the Gospels written in the last third
of the 1st century, after Peter's death, he was remembered as a figure
to whom Jesus had assigned a special role in support of other Christians.
This NT evidence is a manifestation of what many theologians call the
Petrine function in the ongoing church (see PNT 157-68). Obviously it
was a major step from that NT picture to the contention appearing later
in history that the bishop of Rome is successor to Peter. That development
would have been facilitated by various factors: Rome was the capital of
the Roman Empire and thus of the Gentile world to which increasingly the
Christian mission was directed (Ac 28:25-28); the martyrdom of Peter (and
Paul) took place at Rome; and the church there that regarded Peter and
Paul as pillars (I Clement 5) began in its letters to manifest care for
other churches in the Empire (BMAR 164-66). Christians today are divided,
mostly along denominational lines, on whether the development of the papacy
should be considered as God's plan for the church; but given the NT evidence
pertinent {222} to the growth of the image of Peter, it is not easy for
those who reject the papacy to portray the concept of a successor to Peter
as contradictory to the NT.
(8) Matthew's extremely hostile critique of
the scribes and Pharisees as casuistic (especially in chap. 23)106 is
not untypical of the harsh criticism of one Jewish group by another Jewish
group in the 1st centuries bc and ad107 - a criticism that at times crossed
the borderline into slander. Tragically, as Christianity began to be looked
on as another religion over against Judaism, Matthew's critique became
the vehicle of a claim that Christianity was balanced and honest while
Judaism was legalistic and superficial. "Pharisaic" became a
synonym for hypocritical self-righteousness. The Matthean passages have
remained sensitive in relations between Christians and Jews, for many
of the recorded views of the rabbis of the second century ad (often looked
on as the heirs of the Pharisees) are not casuistic but sensitive and
ethical. R. T. Herford's book, The Pharisees (New York: Jewish Theological
Seminary, 1924) was a major contribution in alerting Christians against
a simplistic, prejudiced view. Yet some would note that in the rabbinical
writings we are hearing the intellectual, saintly representatives of Jewish
love of the Law who were not necessarily characteristic of thought and
behavior on a local level (any more than the Church Fathers were characteristic
of Christian thought and behavior on a local level). Be that as it may,
more important is the realization that Mt is using the scribes and Pharisees
to characterize attitudes that he did not want Christians to imitate and
that he would condemn among believers in Jesus as strongly as among their
Jewish opponents. The casuistic approach to law criticized by Mt is inevitable
in any established religion, including the church. Making some adaptations
from the local coloring of the 1st century to that of our century, those
studying Mt might profitably go through chap. 23 seeking parallels in
Christianity and/ or society for the condemned behavior.
|
|
These Courses