How do we discern the emphases of Matthew’s Gospel, and thus his theology? One obvious manner is to use redaction criticism. Now, in spite of my best efforts, last semester I still had students who could not get past the word ‘criticism’. It does not mean ‘to criticize’ in the modern sense. Webster’s dictionary will tell you that it means the careful, detailed, scientific study of a book such as the Bible. It is a technical term. I don’t want any of you saying ‘I couldn’t use that method: who am I to criticize the Bible?!’ That is not the way the term is being used here. It is like the term literary criticism, which simply means ‘the academic study of a piece of literature’. Anyway, one way to home in on Matthew’s theology is to look at what he did with the sources he used, that is, to examine his redaction or editing of Mark and Q.
A narrative approach is also important [are you all familiar with this terminology and what it means?]. Beginnings and endings of any work are important in terms of understanding its meaning and its emphases. Matthew was inspired to write a story of Jesus, along the lines of ancient biographical writing. Matthew’s Gospel is not a modern biography, nor is it a systematic theology. In order to understand Matthew’s emphases, the most important thing to do is to read and re-read his Gospel. The way he tells the story, the interactions between the characters and persons mentioned in the story, all of this is important to the story’s meaning. Now remember, a narrative or literary approach does not tell you whether the events described actually happened. That is something that historical method focuses on. A literary approach focuses on the world of the text, the meaning of the story in the form we have it. It is not that it in any way suggests that these events did not happen. It is just that this approach does not ask those sorts of questions. Imagine you are watching a movie about real-life events. A ‘literary’ approach will look at the story, how the director has focused on certain people, characters, and events, in order to bring certain points to the fore and to emphasize certain things. This does not mean that the director was taking liberties with the truth (he may have been, but that is a completely separate issue). The point is that, regardless whether a director is producing a work of fiction or one that is based on real historical events, the methods used in telling the story are quite similar. The same is true in narration of any sort. When you tell and retell the story of the funny thing that happened to you on the way to work last week, you still aim to give just the right details so that the listener gets the point you are trying to make. There is no reason to think that Matthew did otherwise.
Some of the things that we can look at are things like literary structure. Some think Matthew arranged Jesus’ teaching into 5 sections that are supposed to remind the reader of the 5 books of Moses. Perhaps. But certainly by looking at beginnings and endings, key turning points, the interaction between characters, and all these sorts of things can give us insights into Matthew’s key theological emphases. So can his use of key-words. Matthew is set apart from the other Gospels by the way he groups material together thematically, based on certain key-words that (among other things) would have helped disciples in these oral cultures who were unable to read to nonetheless learn and remember Jesus’ teachings. Matthew also uses titles in reference to Jesus in a way that makes certain points. We saw how Mark did this with titles such as Christ and Son of God. In Matthew, we shall see that ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord’ are used in a distinctive way.
But let’s back up now and look at some of the details and the narrative emphases of Matthew’s Gospel.
God is with us, Jesus as focus of that divine presence (beginning: Emmanuel = God is with us; ending, ‘Lo I am with you always’)
Fulfillment, focus on Old Testament quotations (here and throughout Gospel). See 1:22-23; 2:15,17-18,23; 3:3; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15,35; 21:4-5; 27:9-10. See also 2:5; 11:10; 26:31,54-56.
Yet as those of you who took Biblical Interpretation saw, and as we’ll see in the Gospel of Matthew class too, Matthew does not simply treat the Jewish Scriptures (our ‘Old Testament’) as history (or more specifically the story of Jesus) written in advance. The relationship between the passages cited/quoted from the Scriptures and their original contexts needs to be looked at carefully [see my on-line Biblical Interpretation notes if you can’t wait for the Matthew class!]
Genealogy – ‘14’ = David; symbolic rather than mathematical interest (count them – don’t just take my word for it!)
Four women, all of whom have some kind of ‘Gentile connection’
Astrologers seek to worship him, the ‘king of the Jews’ seeks to kill him
Irony of contrast with Moses – flight to Egypt from the king of the Jews. [Note other similarities with Biblical and extrabiblical accounts of Moses’ birth, etc.]
The inadequacy of ‘teacher’/ ‘rabbi’. It is found only on the lips of Jesus’ enemies.
Lord is the appropriate way to address Jesus, and true disciples do so.
Matthew omits Mark’s references to Jesus’ strong emotions (see Mark 1:41,43; 3:5; 6:6; 8:12; 10:14; 10:21; 14:33). He also omits references suggesting inability or ignorance on the part of Jesus (see Mark 1:45; 5:9,30; 6:5,38,48; 7:24; 8:12,23; 9:16,21,33; 11:13; 14:14). Other texts changed out of reverence include Mark 1:32-33 and 3:10 (cp. Matthew 8:16; 12:15); 3:21; 10:18 (cp. Matt. 19:17).
Jesus speaking with Wisdom’s voice: See Matthew 11:16-19,28-30. Ben Sira says towards the end of his book (51:26) concerning Wisdom: “put your necks under her yoke, let your souls receive instruction”. Note also 6:25-30, which also uses the imagery of the yoke in relation to Wisdom, and says that ‘in the end you will find rest in her’.
Primarily thought of as Father (45x in Matthew, 12 of which are found in chapter 6!) – sovereignty & care, relationship, authority [See further Stephen C. Barton, The Spirituality of the Gospels, London: SPCK, 1992, pp.12-14].
Focus on kingdom of heaven (=kingdom of God) in Jesus’ teaching, but particularly emphasized in Matthew.
The nature of the kingdom: doing God’s will [cf. Lord’s Prayer, also Matt.7:21, which some see as opposing Paul’s teaching], miraculous growth from small beginnings
‘The Church’ (16:18; 18:17 – Matthew is the only Gospel to use this term) – envisions a Christian community separate from the synagogue. It is a spiritual ‘household’ in which other Christians are brothers.
Gentiles in Matthew’s community: there have been differing views on this, ranging from the view that Matthew’s community is still within Judaism to the view that the author of this Gospel was actually himself a Gentile. Within the Gospel, there is much that indicates a primarily Jewish context: In 10:5 and 15:24, Jesus’ ministry is limited to the lost sheep of Israel (although his followers are to go to all nations). Matthew 23:3 enjoins obedience to those who sit on Moses’ seat. Proper Christian behavior and piety are contrasted with the behavior of ‘Gentiles’ in 5:47 and 6:7 (see also 18:17). There is a reference to what to do when bringing one’s gift to the altar in the Temple. And finally, Jesus’ followers are to pray that their flight not be on a Sabbath day (24:20, a Matthean addition to Mark). His use of ‘kingdom of heaven’ in preference to ‘kingdom of God’ reflects Jewish sensibilities about speaking of God directly and using the divine name. And note also 1:21, which is essentially unintelligible to someone who does not know Hebrew.
Yet alongside these features are statements like that that ‘the kingdom will be taken from you and given to a people who will bear fruit’ (21:43). Does this already suggest a concept of the Church as a ‘separate people’ from Israel, the parting of the ways already having taken place? As we’ve already noted, Matthew is the only Gospel author to use the term ‘church’ – perhaps this is one of the reasons. In contrast with Luke, Matthew’s view of the Pharisees is pretty much entirely negative.
Focus on love commandment: 5:38-48; 19:19; 22:34-40.
Focus on righteousness, here understood as doing the will of God, as behavior (How does this relate to Paul’s use of the term?). In the Gospels, pretty much only Matthew uses this term, and he does so frequently. The only other occurrence in the Gospels is Luke 1:75.
Emphasis on fruitfulness: He shares with Luke & Mark the following 2 passages: Matt.3:7-10; 21:18-19; but he also has Matt.7:15-20; 21:33-46.
Did the Matthean Christians (if I can call them that) keep the Law? The attitude of Jesus as presented in Matthew is that one should keep the details, the ‘jots and tittles’, as well – it is just necessary to make sure one focuses on the ‘weightier matters of the Law’ (23:23). So presumably these Christians tithed their mint and cumin! There is of course a clear recognition that some things in the Law are more important than others. See Matthew’s repetition of the quote from Hosea 6:6, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:9-13; 12:1-8). Nevertheless, could anyone here envision Paul saying ‘Do everything the Pharisees teach you to’?! The Law is upheld in Matthew in a way that at times seems directly opposed to Paul’s teaching. Note the difference between Mark 7:1-23 and the Matthean account of the same incident in Matt.15:1-20 [On this see further Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p.15; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law, London: SPCK, 1990, pp.37-60]. Some regard the reference in 5:18-19 to those who teach others to neglect ‘the least of these commandments’ to refer to Paul and his associates.
Did they continue to worship in the Temple? Note Matthew 5:23-24.
Although ‘teacher’ is almost a derogatory title in addressing Jesus in Matthew, discipleship (strangely enough) has a lot to do with learning! Discipleship itself is a key concern of Matthew’s – the word ‘disciple’ occurs 73 times!
The disciple’s primary responsibility is to not just hear Jesus’ words, but also put them into practice. The parable of the wise and foolish builders is not about ‘building your life on the foundation of Christ’, but about putting or not putting Jesus’ teaching into practice.
Two ways: a theme found in wisdom literature, at Qumran, etc. Either God or mammon, either the wide or the narrow road, either a wise or a foolish virgin, either a sheep or a goat.
Ethics spiritualized? Focus on the poor in spirit, who hunger and thirst after righteousness
Judgment by works? Sheep and goats, etc. No more yet no less than in Paul!
Nevertheless, there is what some view as an almost excessive focus on rewards and punishment in Matthew: do this or else! Matthew has a lot of eschatological material that is not in the other Gospels, and in it there is a lot of emphasis on being prepared, not being caught off guard, rewards and punishment, etc. If Matthew’s teaching on this subject is not balanced with other parts of the Gospel and other NT authors, it can lead to a spiritual selfishness. What should Evangelicals do when challenged by what one finds not only elsewhere in our own Scriptures, but also in other religions? – such as in Islam, where the Sufi poet Rabi’a the Mystic (d. 801) wrote the famous words: “O my Lord, if I worship Thee from fear of hell, burn me in hell, and if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me thence, but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, then withhold not from me Thine Eternal Beauty” [Quoted in Gerald R. McDermott, Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions?, Downers Grove: IVP, 2000, p.191]. Perhaps the threat of punishment is a necessary part of our ‘kindergarten training’, but is it something that we are meant to leave behind as we mature? Perhaps selfless service is the ideal, but God takes into account how few can live up to the ideal. That one should serve God even if not rewarded for it is the main message of the book of Job, so this is a Biblical teaching too! But which voice should we give predominance to today? Which voice does the Church and the world most urgently need to hear today? Well, to put things in focus, it is important to recognize that Matthew’s presentation of rewards and punishments is not simply a case of ‘Do this or else!’. It is more like ‘If you do X to others, God will do X to you’. In other words, it is an extrapolation from the Golden Rule, that we should do to others as we would like others to do to us. In Matthew’s Gospel at least, this becomes the basis of the final judgment: as we have treated the ‘least’ of Jesus’ brothers, so will he treat us. Thus, although Matthew takes up language that is found in many religions simply as a threat to convince people to live uprightly, Matthew also subtly undermines what in some streams of Christianity turns into a slightly spiritualized selfishness, seeking to do certain things in order to have the best ‘mansion in heaven’. The Golden Rule calls for us to put ourselves in others’ shoes, and so even while using the language of rewards and punishment, it is seeking to wean us from this level of understanding and to challenge us to live lives of selflessness.
Focus on certainty, contrasts with Mark’s recognition of doubt and perplexity as part of discipleship.
Focus on Law, contrast at least on the level of emphasis with Paul
Focus on Gentiles – agrees with Paul, something that we shall see John has no real interest in.
Jesus as Messiah (much less ambiguous than Mark!), prophet like Moses, etc. Not simply the ‘same’ as other NT authors, although not opposed to them christologically either!
Focus on Church: recognition that the Christian lifestyle is not just about individuals, but about a community. While keeping the ideal of perfection before us, Matthew also views the potential of Christians to fail realistically. This balance between undiluted ideals and compassion towards those who fail has something important to teach the Church today.