Matthew
Summary
Coming Soon!
Introduction
Genre
The Oral Gospel.
In the first years of the Church after Jesus’ ascension into heaven, Jesus’ Apostles were introducing the world to the new kingdom of God that Jesus inaugurated. Because of the understanding that Jesus was soon returning to bring God’s kingdom in its fullness to Earth there was no need to record the history of Jesus’ life. In addition, perhaps only ten percent of the world’s population could read and write at this time. During this time of human history, orality was the method of disseminating information. Just as the digital age of today would be a foreign concept to our brothers and sisters in the first century, so too is orality a foreign concept to the world of today. The history of the life of Jesus of Nazareth would have been told for decades through stories. These stories have become known as The Oral Gospel. It is from this framework that in later decades the gospel writers began to record the Canonical Gospels that exist today.
- Craig S. Keener. Keener, in his The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, points out the lengthy art and technique of orality. Keener states that, “Sayings collections existed for over a millennium before “Q” [and the canonical Gospels] and for centuries afterward” (2009, p. 55). Keener legitimizes the technique of ancient memory by stating that, “Remembering teachers' sayings this was an expected part of the culture. Both attributed and unattributed maxims were memorized and passed on for centuries even in elementary educational settings” (p. 142). Keener stresses that in ancient times, “Memorization was the most pervasive form of ancient education. The youngest learned by rote memorization at the elementary level. Memorizing sayings of famous teachers was a regular school exercise at the basic level; students at various levels also memorized examples… the founder’s teachings often functioned as canonical for their communities” (p. 147). Keener concludes that, “Rabbis lectured to their pupils and expected them to memorize their teachings by laborious repetition” (p. 149).
- James D.G. Dunn. In his book entitled The Oral Gospel Tradition, James D.G. Dunn states that, “There are five characteristic features of oral transmission that deserve transmission” (p. 53).
Dunn points out that,
- “most obvious - or should be most obvious - an oral performance is not like reading a literary text… For the great majority of recipients, the letter would have been heard rather than read” (p. 53).
- “oral tradition is essentially communal in character” (p. 54)
- “in the oral community there would be one or more who were recognized as having primary responsibility for maintaining and performing the community’s tradition…” (p. 55)
- “oral tradition subverts the idea(l) of an “original” version… In oral tradition, as Lord particularly has observed, each performance is, properly speaking, an “original.”… The tradition is at best a witness of the event, and as there were presumably several witnesses, so there may well have been several traditions, or versions of the tradition, from the first” (p. 56).
- finally, oral tradition is characteristically (I do not say distinctively) a combination of fixity and flexibility, stability and diversity” (p. 57).
Another important point when the story of Jesus is considered is that it should be realized that Jesus taught on the same subject many different times and each of those teaching would have been different in differing degrees.
Oral Learning. It is important to consider the difference in the ancient oral culture from today’s current culture. With the majority of the population being illiterate, Jesus’ teaching started orally and were from the first, transmitted orally (Dunn, 2013, p. 291). Dunn states that, “As much today, but still more in the ancient world, teaching involved repetition, driving the same point home in different words, by different examples” (p. 136). Dunn further states that, “…‘It is hardly an exaggeration to say that for the ordinary educated person what was not in the memory was not readily accessible’… memorization and constant repetition was the principal technique in all education practice of the time” (p. 237). Dunn concludes that, “What has obviously not been sufficiently appreciated as a fact that in the ancient world the prejudice was reversed: written material was not trusted, because it could be so easily lost, or destroyed, or corrupted in the copying; much preferable was it to have the teaching or story firmly lodged in one’s own mind, retaining the living voice of the teacher” (p. 276).
The Gospel Genre.
Mary Ann Tolbert, in her Sowing the Gospel, states that, “Generic expectations of works are often the single most important guide to their interpretations” (p. 48). Tolbert states that, “along with many contemporary critics, we may define “genre” as a prior agreement between authors and readers or as a set of shared expectations or as a consensus “of fore-understandings exterior to a text which enable us to follow that text.” (p. 49). By the time Matthew, Luke, and especially John are written there was a framework for a gospel genre.
- Craig S. Keener. Keener states, “The Gospel genre was created to describe “the “life” (sometimes the public life) of a prominent person, normally written to praise the person and to communicate some point or points to the writer’s generation” (2003, p. 10) Keener continues by stating, “the Gospels should be placed among the most, rather than the least, reliable of ancient biographies” (2003, p. 25) and “The genre of the Synoptics is clearly historical biography” (2003, p. 33).
- F. F. Bruce. Bruce states that, “There is general agreement that the Gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word, yet with it a growing consensus that they are recognizable as ancient biographies or “lives,” a genre encompassing something of a spectrum from pure propaganda to rather serious historiography” (p. 27).
- David R. Bauer. Bauer, in his The Gospel of the Son of God, states that, “A genre represents a kind of agreement between writers and readers… Persons living in a certain culture are naturally familiar with the genres available and under most circumstances will almost subconsciously recognize a genre and read according to its implicit set of expectations” (p. 9). Bauer further states that, “…the reading of the biography was a public event. The fact that these biographies were often read in a public setting may suggest that the intended audience was relatively broad” (p. 18). Bauer goes on to point out that, “…the Gospel of Matthew manifests entirely fifteen of the eighteen identifying characteristics of the genre of ancient biography” (p. 19-20). Bauer concludes that, “Viewing the Gospel of Matthew as ancient biography establishes a set of expectations with which to approach the text and provides an opportunity to determine if these genre expectations are present and, if so, how they function“ (p. 20).
- Mary Ann Tolbert. Tolbert highlights the boundaries of ancient thought versus modern thought. She states that, “one may acknowledge the relatively simple changes in monetary system, government administration, agricultural practice, and the like, while failing to recognize the far more profound shifts in narrative conventions, values, patterns of thought, and social organization. These later constitute an alien world, much of it in an irrevocably lost world, that deeply divides the experience of a modern reader from that of the earliest readers and hearers of the gospel” (p. 8). Tolbert explains that, “even modern, scientific history is but a highly selective distillation of “what really happened.” It is an interpretation of an event. Ancient history or historiography, particularly Hellenistic historiography, never pretended to be anything other than an interpretation… The aim of ancient history writing was rarely to produce an accurate chronicle or record; rather, its purposes were moral edification, apologetics, glorification of certain families, and mainly entertainment (p. 32). Tolbert concludes that, “No reading of a text is ever innocent or unbiased or without such preconceptions” (p. 34).
- Ulrich Luz. Luz, in his Studies in Matthew, states that, “Most of the ancient biographies known to us do not narrate the deeds and experiences of their heroes from birth to death in chronological order but provide collections of episodes illustrating various virtues and weaknesses, periods of time etc” (2005, p. 61).
The Genre of Matthew.
Building upon the general understanding that the gospels were similar to ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman biographies as described above, Grant R. Osborne, in his Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament volume entitled Matthew, states that, “Matthew is a "gospel" (lit., "good news") about Jesus the Messiah, but as a genre a gospel refers to a theological biography of the life of Christ” (p. 30). Osborne goes on to state that, “The current consensus is that the closest parallel is Greco-Roman biography, but that should probably be widened to include Jewish as well as Hellenistic biographies. Aune argues, in fact, that no parallel is sufficient and that the evangelists reworked the forms of their day to produce a new type of biography, the gospel (p. 30). Osborne further states that, “Like the evangelists, ancient biographers did not try to cover the whole life of a person, and often used a topical rather than chronological order” (p. 30).
It is important to understand, as detailed above, that the gospels were written and disseminated in a time that was vastly different than the post-modern world of today. The western Church today reads scripture different than our forefathers who were commissioned to start the Church. In the western Church today, Scripture is digested in small bits and pieces, in paragraphs, verses, sentences, and even phrases. The Church also has the habit of picking passages from here and there throughout Scripture and blending them together. This was not the intent of the human writers of our sacred Scriptures. While it is not inherently evil to cherry pick scripture, it can very easily lead to skewed theology. Chopping up and blending scripture must be done wisely and in conjunction with placing the scripture in their original context.
- David R. Bauer, in his The Gospel of the Son of God confirms this point when he states that, “A recognition of the ancient biographical character of the Gospel of Matthew suggests also that the Gospel of Matthew was meant to be read as a continuous narrative at one setting rather than in snippets or small blocks as is often done today in worship or liturgical settings, or even in personal devotions (p. 22).”
- Ulrich Luz, in his Studies in Matthew, states that “The gospel of Matthew is a book intended to be read as a whole, and not in parts or periscopes. It is intended to be read not just once but several times… It is written to be read aloud” (2005, p. 3). Luz further states that, “The Gospel of Matthew is a story that needs to be read from beginning to end. It discloses itself only when read – several times, if possible – in its entirety (2005, p. 11)."
- R. T. France, in his The New International Commentary on the New Testament volume entitled The Gospel of Matthew, states that, “Matthew is a much longer and more complex work, including long sections of quite concentrated teaching, and it is less easy to envisage an eager audience, drinking in the whole Gospel in a single sitting. It may be that sections of the gospel (most obviously the discourses) were designed for separate presentation in an oral context” (p. 5).
The Audience
It is very important that Jesus’ Church reads scripture responsibly. One important exercise is reading each writing in its own light. The habit of the Church picking small bits and pieces of scripture is dangerous. Not only is reading scripture in its appropriate context, but understanding the author, the audience, the purpose, and the provenance of the writing is vital.
Authorship
Patrick Schreiner in his Matthew, Disciple and Scribe focuses on a unique aspect of Matthew’s gospel. Schreiner looks at Jesus’ ministry and his selection of a few of his disciples and then further to the writing of Matthew’s Gospel through the lens of Jesus developing his own scribal school. It is plausible that the tax-collector Matthew would have been well-educated which would fit the characteristic of the Gospel of Matthew’s author being well versed in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Bauer states that, “On the basis of the internal evidence of the Gospel of Matthew we conclude that he was a Jewish Christian who possessed knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic and he probably had scribal training (perhaps rabbinical). In spite of external evidence, he was probably not the tax collector, Matthew” (p. 59).
Further, if the author of the Gospel of Matthew was not Matthew the tax-collector then it is very possible that the author was indeed a Jewish scribe who later became a disciple of Jesus. Schreiner states that, “Matthew is the discipled scribe who narrates Jesus’s life through the alternation of the new and the old” (p. 9). Schreiner explains that “scribes in this period were more than just recorders; they were also interpreters” (p. 25). Schriener states that, “Though it can be tempting to think of scribes merely as those who wrote, most scribes in both Matthew’s time, and before Matthew’s time engaged in at least four activities that mirror and illuminate Matthew’s composition: (1) learning, (2) writing/interpreting, (3) distributing, and (4) teaching” (p. 22). Schriener states that scribes “wrote, copied, and interpreted so that they could have a public hearing…” (p. 26) “The treasure that the discipled scribe is to bring forth is there for the secrets of the kingdom (p. 28). Schriener adds that, “Having learned, Matthew also transmits his learning to future generations” (p. 24).Schriener concludes that, “Matthew is not only a disciple of Jesus the teacher of wisdom, but also a discipled scribe. Labeling Matthew as a scribe should inform us about his task, and how he will accomplish it” (p. 21).
Osborne admits that “Like all four gospels, the first gospel never names its author, probably to give all the glory Jesus. Yet the unanimous witness of the church fathers is that the apostle Matthew was the author” (p. 33). It is a good practice to rely heavily upon those who were closest to the events and the actual writing of the Gospel of Matthew. Osborne states that, “The unanimous acceptance of Matthean authorship in the early church cannot be so easily dismissed” (p. 34). Bauer states that, “The external evidence points exclusively to the apostle Matthew as the author of the Gospel of Matthew” (p. 48). Bauer goes on to explain that “Origen clearly declares the Gospel of Matthew to be the first and identifies the author as Matthew the tax-collector. He agrees with Irenaeus that it was written in Hebrew on behalf of Jewish Christians” (p. 52). France agrees, stating that, “As far back as we can trace it, and from the earliest manuscript attributions that have survived, it has always been the Gospel kata Matthaion” (p. 15).
Garland states that, “The author of this gospel hides behind the anonymity of the community of faith, in which he taught as a scribe, "instructed in the truths of the kingdom", but he has long been associated with the name of Matthew. Whether he was the Matthew who left his tax office to follow Jesus as a Disciple is questionable” (p. 1). Garland explains that, “What can be said with more confidence about the one who penned this Gospel is that he belonged to the Hellenized Jewish culture, was able to write in good Greek, and was well-versed in the Scriptures” (p. 1). Garland states that, ”The earliest testimony that explicitly mentions Matthew is a citation found in Eusebius from Papias, the biship of Hieropolis (ca 110–25 CE)” (p. 1). The date of 110-125 is within a generation of the writing of Matthew’s Gospel, which is very close to its writing and should be seen as extremely significant evidence.
In contraxt, Lutz states that “Matthew himself was, therefore, in my opinion, not a scribe, but stood in close contact with scribes in his community” (2001, p. 39). He states that he is “quite sure that Matthew was a Jewish-Christian. His language is strongly influenced by that of the Greek Bible” (2001, p. 14). Lutz concludes that, “linking his gospel with the traditions of his own community, the author of Matthew created a new edition of the Gospel of Mark the answered the questions with which he was now confronted” (2001, p. 19).
Osborne concludes that, “We could never know for certain who wrote it, but there is little reason to doubt the witness of the early church fathers” (p. 35).
Audience
Matthew wrote his Gospel to Jewish Christians. France confirms this stating that, “Most scholars would now agree that the gospel derives from a largely Jewish-Christian community” (p. 15). Bauer states that, “Closely related to the question of authorship is the question of the recipients or audience” (p. 60). Bauer goes on to state that, “First, the reader is a Jewish Christian… The audience not only knows the Old Testament, which might be said of most Gentle Christians in the early church, but is expected to recognize the significance of obscure persons and passages in the Old Testament, as well as subtle allusions to numerous Old Testament passages” (p. 61-2). Bauer points out that, “some scholars believe that Matthew’s community was originally Jewish but was increasingly admitting Gentiles, in other words, that it was a mixed community of both Jews and Gentiles” (p. 63). Bauer concludes that, “While a mixed community is possible, the evidence suggests that the implied readership is Jewish Christian” (p. 63).
Osborne states that, “Matthew especially had the Jewish Christian church and the Jewish people in mind. With the preponderance of OT fulfillment quotations ("in order to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet") the rabbinic style of the reasoning in several passages, the centrality of Jesus' fulfilling the law and the Sermon on the Mount, and the way Jesus relates to the Jewish people throughout, it seems clear that Jewish issues are uppermost.” (p. 31). France points out that, “…only a minority of those for whom it was first written would have been able to read: the majority would encounter the gospel as an oral presentation” (p. 5). Bauer states that, “the implied reader of the Gospel of Matthew knows the Old Testament and is intended to interpret the Gospel of Matthew in light of the Old Testament” (p. 41). Bauer adds to the discussion, stating that, “the reading of the biography was a public event. The fact that these biographies were often read in a public setting may suggest that the intended audience was relatively broad” (p. 18).
Location
Bauer states that, “By far the majority of scholars have followed Streeter in locating the production of the Gospel of Matthew in Antioch, or at least in Syria (p. 90)… though impossible to prove, seems the most likely, namely that the Gospel of Matthew was written to a number of churches in a broad geographical area, perhaps even in entire region (p. 93)… The observations that the ancient biographical genre of the Gospel of Matthew points to the centrality of Jesus and to the likelihood of a general audience, or readership over against a small community in one narrow geographical area together raise serious questions about the obsession in recent Matthean scholarship to reconstruct the “community of Matthew” and to interpret the Gospel of Matthew in light of that community reconstruction” (p. 22). Hays agrees, stating that, “Although it is impossible to be certain of the details, there is a strong consensus, among recent scholars that the text must have been written in a setting (such as Antioch in Syria were Jewish Christianity found itself in fierce competition with a synagogue and its scribal leadership in the period following the destruction of the Jerusalem temple” (2016, p. 107). Lutz agrees, stating that, “at the time the Gospel was put down in writing the Matthean community was no longer located in the land of Israel, but in Syria…” (2011, p. 18) and “did not view itself as a new ‘Christian’ congregation but as the true core of the nation of Israel, summoned by Jesus to God” (2011, p. 40).
Provenance
The timing of Matthew writing his gospel is important as it sheds light on what his audience was going through and what he was trying to communicate to them. As a teacher, Matthew instructed his pupils on how to live according to Jesus’ teaching. It has already been explained that Matthew’s audience has relocated from Palestine to Syria. This took place because of the turmoil that was going on in Palestine. While there are scholars with differing views and good arguments to stand on, the majority of Bible scholars posit that Matthew wrote his Gospel just after the Roman-Jewish War in which the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. Hays believes that Matthew wrote “his Gospel in the aftermath of the catastrophic destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, Matthew affirms that Jesus' presence is "greater than the Temple" and thereby offers powerful reassurance for his followers, as well as a provocative challenge to those who reject him” (2014, p. 45). Lutz states that, “There is much evidence to suggest that the Gospel of Matthew was written between 80 and 98 AD” (2011, p. 15). More generally, Bauer states that, “we can conclude that the Gospel of Matthew was probably composed sometime between 65 and 85” (p. 88). In contrast, France states that, he “favor[s] the possibility that the gospel was, as Irenaeus declared, written in the sixties, while the temple was still standing” (p. 19). Osborne agrees, stating that “a date of AD 65–67 is somewhat preferable, though I recognize certainty is not possible” (p. 35).
Matthew's Purpose
Matthew is asking his audience to come to understand that Jesus of Nazareth was the long-awaited Jewish Messiah and that he was the begotten Son of YHWH. Matthew continues this mission that Jesus’ commissioned him. Lutz states that, “For Matthew, “being church” means being and remaining pupils of the earthly Jesus” (2005, p. 176). Bauer agrees, stating that, “all disciples are commissioned for ministry, including those who will be made disciples by the disciples… Matthew makes it clear that discipleship could never be a purely individual matter, but necessarily assumes community” (p. 314).
Matthew describes that Jesus did not come to strike one iota of the Law. Matthew teaches that Jesus came to fulfill the Law. Matthew then continues to teach God’s people the ethic that Jesus announced. Hays states that, “Matthew’s readers find themselves called into a community of rigorous, demanding discipleship, living under the radical interpretation of the law given by Jesus” (2016, p. 188). Hays further states that, “Matthew successfully organized the Jesus tradition in a form that made it clear, harmonious, and accessible” (2014, p. 36-7).
Schreiner states that, “Jesus formed an alternative scribal school; one of the main ways he instructed them in the paths of wisdom was to reveal the relationship between the new and the old, with himself at the center. Matthew was one of these trained scribes who passed on Jesus's teaching to future generations. He wrote about Jesus's life in a rich and multilayered way, incorporating the new (found in Jesus), and the old (how Jesus's life fulfilled the story of Israel)” (p. 2). Schreiner continues by stating that, “The disciples are ultimately to be like their teacher and become teachers themselves who transmit the message of Jesus to future generations; they are to go out, making disciples by teaching and baptizing… a discipled scribe is someone who practices justice and mercy – not hypocrisy (ethical). They don’t merely rightly interpret law but rightly live it; this is wisdom” (p. 250). Schreiner concludes that, “It is hard to imagine that Matthew did not see himself fulfilling the command to make disciples by the writing of his ancient biography laced with the Hebrew Scriptures so that other followers of Jesus might also gain wisdom” (p. 253).
The Circumstance of the Audience
The audience that Matthew is writing to understands that Jesus was unique. But since the preconceived view of what the messiah would look like and accomplish was so different than what Jesus actually did, Matthew’s audience needed to see an accurate picture of the progressive revelation of God. Mathew wants his audience to react by placing their trust in the name of Jesus. The majority of bible scholars date the writing of Matthew’s Gospel after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Hays states that, “Matthew lives in the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the temple” (2016, p. 127). Lutz states that, “at the time Matthew wrote his Gospel the temple had already been destroyed” (2011, p. 126).
This has caused Matthew’s community to flee their ancestral home. However, throughout the entire Roman Empire there was no home for Jews who believed in Jesus as the Son of God. Matthew’s audience would not have seen themselves as Jewish-Christians, but as Jews who believed that YHWH has fulfilled the promise of sending the long-awaited Messiah in his Son Jesus of Nazareth. They had been excommunicated from the synagogue. Matthew’s audience soon found themselves as the minority among Greeks who had become followers of Jesus. This presented a situation in which the Torah became a point of contention. So, Matthew steps in and reminds his Jewish brothers and sisters that Jesus did not abolish one iota of the law.
Lutz states that, “For Matthew, the ambivalence of the disciples’ behavior – the intermingling of faith and doubt, of obedience and failure – apparently constitutes the reality of discipleship. The disciples’ experiences, for Matthew, mirror the real experiences of Christian men and women” (2011, p. 139). Lutz advises that, “There is no other way to be a Christian than to learn continually from Jesus, to obey him, and to gather experiences in his presence…to be a Christian is to be a pupil of Jesus” (2011, p. 139). Lutz concludes that, “Matthew also shows us where obedience to the will of the Father, eventually leads to persecution, suffering, and death” (2011, p. 159).
Context
Socio-Historical Setting - A People without a Home
The audience is experiencing growing persecution. There was tremendous discrimination between the race, class, and religions of people. Followers of Jesus Christ were susceptible to mistreatment from all sides, from Jews and Romans. While there are differing views, most scholars agree that Matthew wrote his gospel after the Roman-Jewish war and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. It is under this circumstance and for this reason that Matthew put his teachings in writing.
Christians in the Roman Empire were finding themselves under growing persecutions from the world – both Jew and Gentile. This persecution was experienced in different forms; being banned from the synagogue, being ostracized in commercial affairs, and being arrested, tortured, and killed by the government. The author highlights the truth that Jesus was God in flesh who was also arrested, tortured, and killed by the Roman government. It appears that for Matthew’s community, their opposition came mostly from the Jews themselves. Matthew did not see Jesus’ work as creating a new religion of Christianity, but as fulfilling the promises made to the Israelites - Abraham and David specifically. On the other hand, the Jewish religious leaders and devout Jews saw this as blasphemy and a scourge to YHWH. This will eventually lead to Christ followers being banned from the synagogue. It was against this cultural backdrop that Matthew authored his gospel.
France states that, “Culturally Judeans despised their northern neighbors as country cousins, their lack of Jewish sophistication, being compounded by their greater openness to Hellenistic influence” (p. 6). France continues to explain that “it means that, even an impeccably Jewish Galilean, in first-century Jerusalem was not among his own people; he was as much a foreigner as an Irishman in London, or a Texan in New York” (p. 6). “His accent would immediately mark him out as "not one of us," and all the communal prejudice of the supposedly superior culture of the capital city would stand against his claim to be heard even as a prophet, let alone as the Messiah, a title, which, as everyone knew, belonged to Judea” (p. 6). France concludes that, “To read Matthew in blissful ignorance of first century Palestinian sociopolitics is to miss his point” (p. 7).
Bauer states that, “This Matthean emphasis on the Pharisees has led many scholars to insist that the readers of the Gospel of Matthew were in a struggle with the Pharisees of their own day. These scholars identify such a struggle as most likely occurring after A.D. 70 when the temple had been destroyed, and the Pharisees assumed increasing prominence in the Judaism that was taking shape in the post-war period. Indeed, we shall note below that most scholars believe this situation obtained especially in the years immediately following the Council of Jamnia (85–90), when, it is generally held, the Pharisees solidified their control of Judaism” (p. 64-5). Bauer continues, stating that, “The Sadducees, who were the party of the chief priest in the temple leadership and cease to exist as a force in Jewish life after the destruction of the temple. In fact, the gradual shift of emphasis away from the Pharisees toward the Sadducees and the chief priests as Matthew’s story moves from conflict in Galilee to the opposition that Jesus experiences in Jerusalem, and especially around the temple, points to a kind of historical verisimilitude since in the 30s the Pharisees were dominant in Galilee and the Sadducees were prominent among the elites in Jerusalem” (p. 65). Bauer concludes that, “Thus, the audience of the Gospel of Matthew was apparently experiencing repudiation from the people in severe conflict with the Pharisaic Leadership, and possibly also, though much less likely, from the chief priest” (p. 70).
Lutz states that, “As the author of a “rewritten Markan Gospel”, Matthew narrates, his Jesus story directly for the present, his own narrative fusing with the story he has received” (2005, p. 35). Lutz explains further that “He narrates how Jesus and his disciples preached the gospel of the kingdom and healed in Israel; how Jesus’ conflict with Israel’s leaders intensified; how he withdrew from Israel with his disciples and gathered them in an “assembly” in Israel according to the Fathers will; and how finally, in Jerusalem, he denounced the leaders and the disobedient people and was put to death in Israel as Son of Man, that is, as the future judge of the world” (2005, p. 53).
Lutz continues, stating that, “I see the Gospel of Matthew as representing a Jewish Christian community in conflict with the Jewish mainstream (2005, p. 251). Lutz explains that “The sociologist Lewis Coser has shown that the closer the relationships between groups, the more intense the conflict between them… This proximity between Pharisees and Jesus adherents is the reason why the conflict between them was especially sharp” (2005, p. 255). Lutz concludes that, “Conflict always results in increased internal cohesion” (2005, p. 256). This would seem to be a conflicting narrative with current culture which views Jesus and his followers as the opposite of the Pharisees and the Jewish religious leaders of Palestine. The Church may need to refocus their view of the Jewish religious leaders to those close to the truth but just not able to make a break with their religious traditions. Compare that with the evil culture of both Israel’s near neighbors in and surrounding Palestine as well as the Hellenized Romans.
Lutz states that, “The surface level of the narrative tells the past story of Jesus in Israel, his activity and his rejection, his execution and his commission to his disciples to preach to the Gentiles” (2005, p. 243-4). Lutz continues, “But at the same time this story of Jesus includes that of the Matthean community. I see the Matthean community as Jewish Christian, originating in Palestine. There the community’s mission to Israel failed, and eventually, probably in the period preceding the Jewish War of 66–70, they were forced to leave the land of Israel” (2005, p. 244). Hence, the Christian Jews, after failing to convince their fellow Jews of Jesus true mission and on the heels of the destruction of the temple and the autonomy of the Jews in Palestine, they leave the Promise Land. Lutz states that, “The break between the community and unbelieving Israel is already in the past, but as I see it in the recent past” (2005, p. 210). Garland agrees, stating that, “Matthew's church has apparently split from its parent, Judaism” (p. 2). Lutz concludes that, “For readers in the Matthean communities the story was never simply about the past. It was always at the same time their own story, the story of what they themselves experienced” (2005, p. 244).
The Roman/Jewish War.
The Roman/Jewish war centered in Jerusalem resulting in the destruction of the Jewish temple and the city of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Because Christianity was originally seen as a Jewish sect, Christians would have been seen in association with Jews. Therefore, in Palestine and in Rome, Christians would have been potentially viewed as an enemy of the state.
Lutz posits that, “Jewish Christians forced out of Palestine by the Jewish War, whose own traditions were collected in the Sayings Source, joined the Gentile Christian communities in Syria, whose book was the Gospel of Mark” (2005, p. 7).
Hays states that, “Although it is impossible to be certain of the details, there is a strong consensus, among recent scholars that the text must have been written in a setting (such as Antioch in Syria were Jewish Christianity found itself in fierce competition with a synagogue and its scribal leadership in the period following the destruction of the Jerusalem temple” (2016, p. 217). Hays continues that, “The best we can do is observe the combative character of Matthew’s rhetoric and surmise that his exegesis took shape in a volatile, contested environment in the decades following the Roman army’s destruction of the Jerusalem temple, as Jewish interpreters sought to interpret the troubling times in light of the scriptures and vice versa” (2016, p. 108).
Moral Assumptions that Influence the Text - Matthew’s Turmoil
This was not an easy transition for anyone, but for Matthew especially. Lutz states that, “Matthew has great difficulty with the freedom from purity laws clearly propagated in Mark” (2005, p. 9). Since Matthew’s community originated in Palestine following the Mosaic Law would have been natural for them. Lutz states that, “Matthew’s Gospel originates among Jewish Christians, loyal to the law” (2005, p. 11). Lutz explains that “Matthew is the clearest exponent of a Law-affirming Jewish Christianity. His entire theology is characterized by Old Testament Jewish piety toward the Law” (2005, p. 185). But as their message of Jesus Christ as Messiah was rejected and they were excommunicated from the synagogue their evangelism turned to their heathen neighbors. After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and as Matthew’s community flees from Palestine, Matthew soon finds himself in the minority. Lutz states that, “Matthew himself wanted to retain the law, but his community’s mission to the Gentiles, gradually changed its attitude to the law, a change, which is not yet visible in the Gospel” (2005, p. 13-4). Lutz concludes that “Matthew writes a new Jesus story, as his beginning, and ending make clear. It is new because its narrator is living in a new situation which his Jesus story reflects. It is new, because Jesus has to give answers to the questions of Matthew’s present time and cannot simply remain in the past as a figure of the past” (2005, p. 27).
Intertext
The Gospel of Matthew was not written in a vacuum. When Matthew wrote his gospel, he had a worldview that he started from. That worldview came out of Second Temple Judaism which was constructed around the Jewish Scriptures we call the Old Testament. In addition, there were other Jewish (Inter-Testament Writings) and Ancient writings that Matthew would have been familiar with. This is also true of Matthew’s original audience. There would have been a common worldview that would not have needed explanation between Matthew and his audience. It is important for modern readers to understand this and to approach all of Scripture as educated as possible about the influences that would have shaped the original author and his audience.
Sensitivity to the Old Testament:
The author’s being was steeped in the Old Testament Scriptures. The author of Matthew, much like the rest of the New Testament authors were deeply influenced by the Old Testament. It would have been difficult for them to write about Jesus and God’s kingdom without alluding, even subconsciously, to the Old Testament. It would be similar to Western modernity when people discuss religion for there not to be allusions and influence from the New Testament Scriptures. Richard B. Hays, in Reading Backwards, states that, “All four canonical Gospels declare that the Torah and the Prophets and the Psalms mysteriously prefigure Jesus” (2014, p. 3). Hays continues, stating that, “Jesus and his first followers were Jews whose symbolic world was shaped by Israel’s Scripture: their categories for interpreting the world and their hopes for God’s saving action were fundamentally conditioned by the biblical stories of God’s dealings with the people Israel” (2014, p. 5). Jeannine K. Brown, in The Gospels as Stories, agrees, stating that, “In a real way, the Old Testament forms the backstories for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Their stories of Jesus are grounded by and interwoven with stories drawn from Israel's sacred Scripture” (p. 107). Brown explains that, “An allusion is an Old Testament reference that consists of just a few (e.g., two to four) words and often includes a thematic tie from the original context to the Gospel's new setting that increases the recognition factor to the allusion” (p. 119).
Matthew’s Echoes
Matthew oozes the Old Testament. It is through the lens and language of the Old Testament that Matthew tells his story of Jesus. Hays states that, “Matthew leaves nothing to chance: he repeatedly erects highway signs in large letters to direct his readers, making it unmistakably explicit that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel’s scripture” (2016, p. 106). Hays states that, “There are at least sixty explicit Old Testament quotations in the Gospel” (2016, p. 109). Schreiner claims that “Matthew uses some sixty-one quotes from the Hebrew scriptures” (2016, p. 31). Schreiner goes on to state that, “According to the NA, forty of these are explicit citations, and twenty-one are quotations without explicit mention of the source” (p. 31). France states that, “The UBS Greek New Testament lists, fifty-four direct citations of the OT in Matthew and a further 262 "allusions and verbal parallels," and that is a conservative figure based only on the most widely recognized allusions” (p. 10-11). Hays states that, “Matthew’s scriptural citations sometimes interweave two or more Old Testament texts, embedding wording from one text within another” (2016, p. 186).
Jesus Fulfills
Matthew uses Israel’s past and their history with God to build upon their story. Matthew shows how Jesus continues the Israel story by fulfilling God’s commission to Israel. Schreiner states that, “Matthew usually breaks his narrative flow to let his reader know that what just took place fulfills some prophecy” (p. 114). Jesus completed the mission that Moses started as the shepherd of Israel. Jesus completed the mission that David started as the King of Israel. Hays states that, “Matthew encourages the reader to see Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament precursors, particularly Moses, David, and Isaiah‘s Servant figure” (2016, p. 109). Hays concludes that, “Matthew has organized his material in a didactic, user-friendly fashion, making it unmistakably explicit, that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel’s Scriptures” (2014, p. 36-7). Schreiner states that, “Of all the Gospels, Matthew is the most explicit in letting his readers know that Jesus fulfills the hopes of Israel (p. 41).
Moses Prefigures Jesus
Schreiner, in his Matthew, Disciple and Scribe, goes into detail highlighting how Matthew tells his Jesus story as fulfilling Moses’ mission. Schreiner states that, “No NT author develops the portrait of Jesus as the new Moses quite like Matthew” (p. 131). Moses led God’s people out of captivity and into the promise land while giving them the ethic that those in God’s kingdom were live by through the Mosaic Law. Jesus led God’s people out of captivity to sin and into the promise land of God’s everlasting kingdom while giving them the ethic that those in God’s kingdom were live by. Schreiner agrees, stating that, “Whereas Moses was sent to deliver the nation out of slavery in Egypt, Jesus was sent to deliver all nations from spiritual slavery to the sins in their hearts” (p. 167). Schreiner explains that, “Like many of Matthew’s stories, this narrative echoes a previous story, Moses’s infancy. As Jesus is born under the power of a foreign king, so was Moses” (p. 134-5). Schreiner points out that, “the midwives fear God (like the wisemen from the east), and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them” (p. 135). Schreiner goes on to explain that, “The parallels between Moses’s birth and Jesus’s birth are unmistakable and not coincidental. Both are born as helpless children in a doomed home and under foreign power… Both stories also conclude with the Lord telling them to return to their land” (p. 135).Schreiner concludes that, “Matthew indicates that Jesus is not merely Moses but the better Moses. Moses works wonders for Israel, while Jesus works them for the whole world” (p. 153). France concludes that, “among the gospels Matthew stands out for his sustained and creative presentation of this theme of fulfillment in Jesus” (p. 11).
Bauer concludes that, “The Gospel of Matthew thus serves as a kind of pivot for the Christian biblical canon, functioning as a bridge between the testaments” (p. 3).
- Matthew 1:1-8. France states that in this passage the “foundation has been firmly laid at the outset as the reader is invited to recognize in Herod and Jesus a counterpart to Pharoah and Moses” (p. 63). Osborn points out that this passage may also echo Balaam (reference). Balaam was a non-Jew who was sent by a king to curse… But after a theophany, Balaam protected the Israelites by refusing to help Balak (cf. Numbers 24:17-19). France states Balaam prophesied that, “a “star out of Jacob and a scepter out of Israel,” which is then interpreted as a ruler who will destroy Israel’s enemies and take possession of the lands of Moab and Edom, a prophecy which was understood to point forward to the conquests of King David, and which thus also foreshadows the victory of the “son of David”” (p. 62). France posits that Balaam “may also be in mind as a model for the Magi. He, like them, was a non-Israelite “holy man” and visionary from the East… He, like the magi, was pressurized by a king intent on destroying the true people of God, but refused to cooperate and instead took the side of God’s people” (p. 62). Osborne states that, “It is possible Matthew thought of the Magi as “Balaam’s successors,” who came to see Balaam’s prophecy of a future world ruler from the Jews fulfilled” (p. 87).
Sensitivity to other Ancient Texts (Greco-Roman or Jewish):
Not only was the Old Testament extremely formative for the author and audience of Matthew’s Gospel, but so were other ancient texts such as those written during the intertestamental time from both a Jewish and Greco-Roman background. Blackwell, et al, state that, “many readers of the Bible today, especially in the evangelical tradition, give a little, if any, attention to early Jewish texts” (p. 29). They point out that, “Such readers therefore overlook early Jewish literature because they assume that the New Testament was written in a literary-theological vacuum. For others, this avoidance is a matter of canonicity. Although aware of the existence of extra-biblical Jewish literature, these readers often consider ancient religious books lying outside of Scripture to be theologically irrelevant or even dangerous… Despite realizing that Jewish people authored important religious works between the Testaments, many remain unsure how these non-canonical texts can be studied profitably alongside the Bible… Indeed, there are many advantages to becoming familiar with early Judaism and the relevant literature” (p. 30). Through due diligence, God’s people can become versed in the literature that shaped and formed Jesus’ disciples who founded the Church on Jesus as the cornerstone through the Holy Spirit’s direction. .
Outline
Coming soon!!!
Bibliography
Coming soon!!!
Copyright © 2024 Kevin Mechling - All Rights Reserved.
Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.