Wilfrid J. Harrington: Matthew, Sage Theologian
Chapter 7. The Kingdom Develops 14-18
Unless you change and become like children (Mt 18:3)
Formation of Disciples 13:53-17-27
After the Sermon in parables (ch 13) Jesus' ministry in Galilee resumes (13:54-58). From this point on, Matthew follows closely the sequence of Mark. Coming to his hometown, Nazareth, Jesus entered 'their' synagogue. At first his teaching caught his townsfolk's surprised attention. Quickly they concluded that he was nothing more than one of themselves. Matthew then (14:1-12) gives a much abbreviated version of Mark's dramatic narrative of the death of the Baptist (Mk 6:14-29).
Feeding of Five Thousand 14:13-21
This miracle of 'the loves and fishes' should be seen as a sign. Our preoccupation with miracle as a happening beyond the laws of nature and (for a gospel miracle) as an event which 'proves' that Jesus was God's envoy - or, worse, that he is Son of God - would seem incredibly naive to the New Testament writers. The miracle stories of the gospels are addressed to people who know that Jesus was God's envoy, who worship the risen Lord. The miracle stories are meant to strengthen and elucidate the faith of the readers and hearers.
The sign of 'the loaves and fishes' reveals that Jesus is a new, messianic Moses who nourishes God's people in the desert. The setting is explicit: the 'lonely place' of v 13 is a desert place, and recalls the manna (Ex 16:12-35). 'You give them something to eat': the disciples had some provisions; the loaves were likely of barley (see Jn 6:9) and the fish cured. There is a striking parallel in 2 Kgs 4:42-44. Elisha, confident that the Lord will take care, proposes to feed a hundred men with twenty barley loaves. One might see Jesus, too, as the good shepherd of Ezekiel 34 who feeds his sheep.
It was customary for a Jewish host, at the start of a meal, to pronounce a blessing over the bread and then to break it and distribute it to his guests. If the number was large, others would help in the distribution. Here the disciples do play an active role: Jesus has shown then how to care for people's needs. 'Taking-blessed-broke-gave' is consciously eucharistic language. The correspondence with 26:26 is unmistakable: 'While they were eating Jesus took a loaf of bread and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples...' This eucharistic concern explains, too, why the 'two fish' (vv 17,19) vanish abruptly. 'He looked up to heaven' (see Mk-6:41) - the origin of the words in the Roman Canon, 'and looking up to heaven' - an indication that the eucharistic reference was recognised. Like Mark, Matthew has a second feeding story (15:32-38).
Walking on the Sea 14:22-33
The first part of this episode (vv 22-27) is very like Mk 6:45-50. The incident of the walking on the waters is closely connected with the feeding of the five thousand in the synoptics and in John. It is nighttime and the boat is beaten by waves. In the Old Testament, Yahweh is the one 'who trampled the waves of the sea' (Job 9:8; see 38:16; Ps 77:19; Sir 24:5). As Matthew relates it, the story is certainly symbolic. The boat represents the church; the disciples are threatened by evil (dark) and death (the waters). Jesus is not with them, physically - but he is praying to the Father (v 23). In their need he comes to them, like Yahweh striding over the waters. But they are of little faith and fearful and they panic (v 26). Comfortingly, he assures them: 'It is I' - the Greek phrase ego eimi, in this epiphany context, may have some suggestion of the Johannine 'I am' sayings. In Ex 3:14 'I am' is a title of Yahweh, signifying his saving presence with his people. Jesus, then, does what God does, and speaks as God speaks.
Matthew alone adds the further episode (vv 28-33). Peter, addressing Jesus as 'Lord', seeks to share Jesus' power. He steps out confidently at first but, shaken by storm and stress, he loses heart and sinks. Yet he does still cry to the Lord - and Jesus reaches out his saving hand. Peter has merited the rebuke of Jesus ('you of little faith'): he had hesitated and panicked. He is, typically, a disciple in this present life, caught between faith and doubt (28:17). The rebuke reaches to all of us who start out courageously, only to lose heart. When Jesus (and Peter) got into the boat 'the wind ceased': his presence brought calm and peace. Those in the boat (the church) bowed down in adoration of their Lord.
Underlying the Peter-story is, very probably, the disciples' experience of the risen Lord who had come to restore their broken faith after the Passion and to bring them comfort. For Matthew, the whole passage manifests the power of faith which flows from the saving presence of Jesus. To eyes of faith, Jesus is not a ghost from the past but Son of God of the here and now. He is presence of God among men and women, sending them out into the world to bring peace and to foster true human community.
Blind Guides 15:1-20
Matthew has taken over most of Mk 7:1-23. He lays greater emphasis on 'the tradition of the elders' and, by his addition of vv 12-14, indicts the Jewish leaders. Jesus accused the Pharisee and scribes of putting their own traditions above the law of God. They had, for instance, invented a clever way of circumventing the plain command: Honour your father and your mother. They are 'hypocrites'. In v 11, the statement 'It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles' is, in its manner, as sweeping as Mk 7:17-19 even though Matthew omits the 'Thus he declared all foods clean' of Mark. Jesus had not only rejected 'the tradition of the elders', he had annulled the concept of ritual purity - a blow at the heart of Judaism. This is why the disciples call Jesus' attention to the Pharisees' scandal at this radical stance. 'Let them alone': Jesus is dismissive - they are blind guides who lead others astray. Matthew's community had broken with the synagogue; th 'blind guides' had nothing to say to them.
The Canaanite Woman 15:21-28
Great faith and wry humour combine to make the Canaanite woman a memorable character. She is not daunted by the Master's restricted mission to the house of Israel and stays unperturbed by his harsh metaphor of not casting children's food to dogs. Instead, she adroitly changes the image and presses home her request. The Lord's response to her quip is warm and immediate. He praises her faith while granting her prayer.
The context of this incident is significant. In 15:1-20, in the dispute over clean and unclean, Jesus had set aside the elaborate ritual which was a wall of separation between Jew and Gentile. Now the faith of a Gentile woman in the Jewish Messiah stands in contrast to the inhibiting inflexibility of Jewish legalism. The question of the Pharisees, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders' (15:2) has a wider import than the immediate issue of ritual washings. Is Jesus departing from Israel's tradition by allowing certain attitudes in his followers (obviously a question of Matthew's own day)? The story of the Canaanite woman, in many respects, answers this question. Jesus did not step on pagan soil; the woman came from it. She comes to Israel for healing. Jesus first refuses her request on the ground that he has been sent to Israel and not to the Gentiles (v 24). There seems to be no way of softening his further saying (v 26) in reply to her repeated request; the label 'dog' was in common use amng Jews as a term of contempt applied to Gentiles. Yet the story ends on a different note. The woman does not question the truth of his statement but simply points out that when the 'children' have been fed then, indeed, the 'dogs' can hope to receive their share too. She acknowledges the divinely ordained separation. If Jesus had yielded to this cry of faith even while the division between Jew and Gentile still stood, how much more, Matthew seems to be saying, must the Christian Church do so now that Jesus had broke down the barrier between the two peoples (Eph 2:14)
By coming to Jesus the woman is seeking a share in the blessings promised to the nations who recognise God's works for his people of which nothing is greater than the presence of his Son. And the evangelist knows that, on the other side of death and resurrection, the exalted Son of Man will send his disciples on a universal mission (28:16-20).
Who do you say that I am? 16:13-20
At Caesarea Philippi, the northern-most limit of historical Israel, Jesus put a leading question to his disciples: 'Who do the run of humankind take me to be' For a belief in the return of Elijah see Malachi 3:1; 4:5. As Elijah was thought to have reappeared in John the Baptist, some felt that John had returned to life in his successor, Jesus. Jeremiah and 'one of the prophets' simply means that Jesus was regarded as a prophetic figure. Jesus brushes these views aside and puts the blunt question to the disciples - and to every believer -'But who do you say that I am.' Peter's answer is, in reality, a Christian confessional formula: 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' It goes beyond Mk 8:29 in stressing that Jesus is Son of God in a transcendent sense. The response -of Jesus asserts that a mortal could never, unaided, understand or communicate the divine mystery of sonship. Peter has received a revelation.
In a passage proper to Matthew (vv 18-19) Jesus, who had received titles from Peter, now, in his turn, confers a title on Peter: he is 'the Rock'. And on the solid foundation of this rock Jesus' church will be built. The community of salvation will be preserved from the destructive power of death ('the gates of Hades'): it will last beyond this world. The image of keys (taken from Is 22:15-25) invests Peter with the power of vicegerent. He will have authority to decide, according to the teaching of Jesus, what is permissible and what is not, and the authority - always of course on truly Christian principles - to admit members to the community or, if needs be, to exclude.
Since the Sermon in parables (ch 13) Matthew has been concerned with the delineation of the kingdom of heaven. It is a mysterious, divine reality, its beginnings are humble indeed compared with its future glory. Nonetheless, the kingdom has concrete expression in the world. People are nourished within it; they embrace it in the hope of healing and divine protection The question arises, What is the kingdom? Here that question is rephrased, 'Who do people say the Son of Man is?' The evangelist tells us that it is not 'What is the kingdom? but 'Who is the kingdom?' that is important. When we ask the question about Jesus aright then we can get the kingdom right. Jesus embodies the kingdom; everything about it refers to himself. All power in the kingdom is invested in Christ. All its authentic movements, energy, position flow from him. Once the faith of Peter has opened the apostle's heart to Jesus and so brought one into the kingdom, the kingdom's power can flow into one and, from Jesus' own lips, it flows into one in a special manner. Equally clearly, Jesus' promise to Peter is not about privilege to possess as much as duty to perform. Jesus had transformed exousia, authority, into diakonia, service. If service is not recognisably the pattern of authority in the church, at every level, then authority loses credibility.
If the text Mt 16:18-19 be highlighted in isolation from counterbalancing features of New Testament ecclesiology - on brother/sisterhood, mutual service, humility, diversity of charisms and so on - it results in distortion which diminishes personal dignity within the church. Besides, the New Testament is not at one as to the foundation of the church. According to 1 Cor 3:11 'No one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.' According to Eph 2:20 the household of God is 'built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.' And there is the declaration of the seer of Revelation: "The wall of the city [the new Jerusalem] has twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb' (Rev 21:14) - the 'city' is a people living in the presence of God.
Suffering Discipleship 16:21-27
The opening words suggest that Jesus' prophecies of his suffering to come were ongoing. He did begin to make it clear immediately after he had elicited the first explicit expression of the disciples' faith (voiced by Peter). The evangelist's suggestion of a time-lag helps to temper the sharpness of the rebuke to Peter as well as to enhance the teaching on the true meaning of discipleship, the following of a crucified Lord
Now that Jesus and the faith of his disciples have centred the reality of the kingdom on his own person, the fate of his person is crucial for the existence of the kingdom, and will in turn deeply touch the fate of his followers. Like the other evangelists, Matthew is concerned in this passage with discipleship rather than with the foresight of Jesus. The argument is less insistent on the final fate, since Jesus is 'to be raised up on the third day/ than on the fact that this is but the path to the resurrection. Peter's refusal to accept this path at once withdraws him from his God-given faith; he stands across the way to the cross and thus embodies the adversary of God. The only way that Peter's faith may gain its power is for the apostle to fall in behind and tread the same path.
'And Peter took him aside' (v 22). We can picture him, in his earnestness, taking hold of Jesus and 'rebuking' him. The idea of a suffering Messiah was altogether foreign to Peter. He realises too that his own position will be affected: disciple of a suffering Messiah is not a role that would appeal to him. 'Get behind me, Satan' - the temptation in the wilderness (4:1-11) aimed at getting Jesus himself to conform to the popularly acknowledged messianic pattern, to become a political messiah. It was an attempt to undermine his full acceptance of the will of God and here Peter plays Satan's role. Ironically, the 'Rock' (v 18) has become a 'stumbling-block' (v 23).
Matthew (vv 24-28) has the Lord broaden out a particular occurrence to apply to all true discipleship of Christ. This following after, through suffering, to the resurrection is not optional - it is a matter of life and death. To accept is to be endowed with the faith of Peter; to refuse is to obstruct God's path as Peter tries to do. To believe is to fall in behind the Lord. To live for God is to trace in one's own life the life of Christ. The cross is actual and symbolic: actual because it stood on Calvary, symbolic because it represents the sufferings, persecutions, martyrdoms, indifference, moral struggles, loveless-ness which every follower of Christ is bound to meet. Jeremiah is not alone in feeling the oppression and constraint of God's call. Every disciple of Christ has in one's own way to face it.
Peter and the Temple Tax 17:24-27
The passage Mt 17:1-23 follows Mk 9:2-32 closely. For Matthew, the transfiguration (Mt 17:1-13), as an anticipation of resurrection and parousia, may be regarded as a confirmation of Peter's confession of Jesus as Son of God (16:16). He has softened the portrayal of Peter and the disciples. There is no trace of the 'he did not know what to say, for they were exceedingly afraid' of Mk 9:6. After the healing of the epileptic boy and the second prediction of the passion (Mt 17:14-23) comes an episode proper to Matthew (17:24-27).
The temple tax (a half-shekel) for the upkeep of the temple was levied on all adult Jewish males. After 70 AD the Romans converted it into a tax for the support of the temple of Jupiter in Rome. When asked if Jesus paid the temple tax the impetuous Peter answered with a confident,Yes. As usual, Jesus gently deflated him. He pointed out that, if the children of kings are exempt from the payment of taxes so, a fortiori, the Son of God is surely not obliged to pay towards the upkeep of his Father's house. For that matter, the disciples, also, as children of the kingdom, are exempt. The passage would seem to come from the early days of Matthew's community. If Jesus' disciples were to refuse to pay the temple tax they would no longer be regarded as Jews - not something they wanted. In that case, 'so that we do not give offense to them' (fellow Jews), the tax should be paid. They would not be compromised. After 70 AD payment of the tax avoided trouble with the Romans. Pragmatism - of course. Only fanatics make an isue of the. unimportant. In v 27 we seem to have an instance of a parable turning into a miracle story.
Sermon on the Church, ch 18
True Greatness 18:1-7
Where Mark (9:33-37) sees a lesson on the dignity of service, Matthew sees a lesson on spiritual childlikeness. We are already on the road to ecclesiasticism with a 'hierarchy' and a 'simple faithful'. Matthew omits Mark's lively action parable (Mk 9:36) but makes the same point. There is no place for degrees of greatness among disciples of Jesus: the least disciple of Jesus has greatness. Whoever receives a child for the sake of Jesus receives Jesus and, in turn, receives the God who sent him. The greatness that comes from belonging to Jesus, from being his disciple, can be enjoyed by a child. Jesus is not establishing the authority of his disciples over others but is pointing out the greatness of discipleship - there is no greater dignity. It follows that ecclesiastical office is, above all, a service. This is seen more closely in Mk 8:35 - 'Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.' There is no 'first' in the reign of God. Jesus leaves little space for ambition; he leaves no room for the exercise of power.
"These little ones who believe in me': the humblest members of a Christian community. 'Put a stumbling block' - a warning on the grievousness of the sin of those who lead simple Christians astray by callously shaking their faith - and here rightwingers are gravely at fault as they propose a merciless God. 'A great millstone', literally, a 'donkey millstone', that is, a millstone turned by a donkey in contrast to the smaller millstone worked by a woman (see Mt 24:41). Death by drowning was a Roman punishment and was particularly repugnant to Jews. The warning, then, is very sharp.
The two logia (vv 8, 9), linked by the catchword skandalizo, treat of scandal, not, however, in terms of those who place a stumbling block before others, but in reference to whatever in oneself can cause one to stumble and fall into sin. There is no question, obviously, of actual mutilation, but the vivid Semitic idiom enjoins, in the starkest terms, the costliest sacrifice. The 'Gehenna (hell) of fire': originally, Gehenna - the valley of the son of Hinnom - was a ravine south of Jerusalem where infants were sacrificed to Moloch (Jer 7:31; 10:5-6; 39:35). It was desecrated by Josiah (2 Kgs 23:20) and was henceforth used as a dump for offal and refuse. Jeremiah warned that there the faithless ones of Israel would be destroyed by fire. As a site of ill-omen, it came to symbolise the place of final punishment (see 4 Ezra 7:36; Enoch 27:2). The 'hell of fire': only crass literalism could have led to the later notion of hell as a place of fiery torment. And to a God who condemns sinners to hell: blasphemy by any ecent standard.
The Lost Sheep 18:10-14
In Lk 15:4-7 the parable of the lost sheep is an explicit answer to the murmuring of the Pharisees and scribes: "This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.' The same parable occurs in Matthew. Here it is no longer addressed to opponents of the Good News but to disciples. The discourse of which it forms part begins: It is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost' (18:14). Even if the application were no longer clear the context quite clinches the issue for the warning not to despise one of the least (v 10) and the admonition regarding fraternal/sisterly correction (vv 15-17) leave no doubt about the interpretation of v 14: It is God's will that you go after the erring brother or sister, the weak and helpless one, as earnestly as the shepherd of the parable sought out the lost sheep. It may be that Luke has preserved the original setting of the parable: Jesus' defence of the charge that he was 'friend of sinners'. When one thinks about it, what more appropriate designation of the Son of God, Son of a God who, outrageously, when one reads the Old Testament aright, has a preferential option for sinners. The change of audience in Matthew is readily explained. Early Christians sought in this, as in other parables, a message that met their needs and they took it as applying to themselves. In acting so they had not forced its message. The Lost Sheep was spoken to justify the concern shown by Jesus for sinners and outcasts. The Christian, to be like the Master, should manifest solicitude for the erring broher or sister. There is, simply, a shift of emphasis: an apologetic parable has taken on a hortatory thrust.
Correction 18:15-20
This passage has to do with brotherly/sisterly correction. To be properly evaluated it needs to be read in the context of a chapter which declares the greatness of a childlike sense of littleness (vv 1-5), insists on loving care of the weak members of Christian community (vv 6-14), and is certain that the Christian word, first and last, must be forgiveness (vv 21- 35). In this setting the seemingly harsh demand of excommunication (v 17) appears in a Christian light.
The 'brother or sister' contemplated in our passage is not the 'little one' of v 6 nor the weak, candid sinner of v 21. It is one who may prove intransigent. What is important is that Matthew outlines a precisely articulated procedure, a procedure inspired by the Old Testament but which takes on a distinctively Christian flavour. Clearly he has Lev 19:17-18 and Deut 19:15 firmly in mind.
The first point Matthew makes is that within a Christian community one does not start by 'passing the buck', by planting the problem straight on the leader's desk. The proper procedure is privately to approach the erring brother or sister. If the intervention succeeds that is the end of the matter, and one has the joy of winning over a brother or sister. If another attempt becomes necessary it it still a private matter involving only two or three community members (see Deut 9:15). If this fails, only then is the whole community to take up, formally, the case of an obstinate sinner. From first to last it is a community concern. And, if has to come to it, it is the community that excommunicates.
In the Judaism of Jesus' day 'Gentile' was a pagan outsider and 'tax-collector' a traitor. Matthew's largely Jewish-Christian community would have inherited such characterisation but would have gone on to regard 'Gentile' as the non-Christian and 'tax-collector' as one who can no longer be called Christian. The community, vulnerably human as it is (see 1 Cor 5:6), must protect itself against threat from within as well as from without. All the while, a prime concern must be the (eternal) welfare of the sinner. If the sinner repents - and that is the hope - then forgiveness must be warm and without limit or condition (Mt 18:21-22). Each and every Christian, because he or she has encountered a forgiving Father, would be eager to forgive (18:23-25).
In their present context vv 18-20 mean that the verdict of the community (if arrived at a truly Christian way) will be ratified by God. Originally, it is clear that these sayings had to do with prayer. And there is the assurance that where Christians (even two or three) gather in Jesus' name, he is with them - he is Emmanuel, God-with-us (see 1:23; 28:20). And surely there is the admonition that the grave matter of discipling a brother or sister is never a question of 'throwing the book' at one. It has to be a prayerful decision. Otherwise, while it may stand as a decision, it will not stand as a Christian deed.
Forgiveness 18:21-35
Just as ben Sirach (Sir 28:2-4) regards the forgiveness of our neighbour as crucially important for right human conduct (Sir 28:2-4), so Matthew underlines its significance for the early church. This passage forms the conclusion of his 'community discourse'. Though he had to face the uncomfortable fact that an unrepentant brother or sister might have to be excluded from the community (18:15-20) he wants to ensure that his word on relationships within the community will end on the resounding note of forgiveness.
While Luke (17:4) also gives the first saying about forgiveness, Matthew adds special importance to it in three ways: by putting the question in the mouth of Peter, leader of the Christian community; by increasing the number of times from seven (already the perfect number signifying 'any number of times') to seventy-seven (or seventy times seven) - an unlimited number of times; by adding the parable, as he likes to do at the end of a discourse to drive the point home.
The disparity between the two sums mentioned in the parable is gigantic - ten thousand talents is an unimaginable sum. A debt impossible of repayment is written off, casually, by the king, and the man is not even sacked. It is quite the situation one finds in Lk 15:11-24. Yet, one who had been shown such mercy cannot find it in his heart to remit a paltry debt. Not only that: he will not even give his fellow-servant - his social equal - reasonable time and opportunity to repay. The king who had been moved with 'pity' (v 27) is now 'angry' (v 34).
The parable is a thinly-veiled allegory. The 'servant' is the sinner; his situation is hopeless. The 'king' is a merciful God who freely and lovingly forgives any sin. Luke has painted the warmer picture of prodigal Father and wayward child (15:11-24). The reality is the same in either case. Like the younger son in the Lucan parable this man, too, is forgiven with no strings attached. Faced with a cry of desperation the forgiving God was moved with pity (Mt 18:27). But when the recipient of such forgiveness cannot find it in his heart to be merciful the Master is angry (18:33). Response to God's gracious forgiveness cannot be payment of a debt that is already fully remitted. It is, instead, warm thanksgiving for the blessing of such forgiving love. And the story in Matthew underlines again that sin, as God regards it, is man's inhumanity to man (even more sadly, man's inhumanity to woman) whatever shape that may take. Our abuse of others (and of ourselves) is an affront to the loving Father who counts us as hs children. Jesus clearly understood this because he knew his Father. A corollary. Jesus asks us, frail humans, to be forgiving, without limit. He dares to ask the impossible because he knew that his God is an Abba whose forgiveness literally knows no limit.