Part 82
4. Having been informed of what Jesus said and did, we next learn, in Mt 10, the second major discourse, what Jesus instructed his disciples, as extensions of himself, to say and do. The theme of imitation is prominent. The disciples are to proclaim what Jesus proclaimed (cf. 10:7 with 4:17) and do what Jesus did (cf. 10:8 with Mt 8-9 and 11:2-6). The disciple is like the teacher, the servant like the master (10:24-5). m Matthew Jesus is the first Christian missionary who calls others to his example.
5. The chapters on the words and deeds of Jesus and the words and deeds of the disciples are followed by chs. 11-12. These record the response of 'this generation' to John and Jesus and the twelve. This is what the material on the Baptist (11:2-6,7-15,16-19) is aU about, as well as the woes on Galilee (11:20-4) and the conflict stories in Mt 12 (1-8, 9-14, 22-37, 38—45). It all adds up to an indictment of corporate Israel: the Messiah has been rejected. But this is unexpected. In Jewish eschatology God saves Israel in the latter days. One hardly expects the Messiah to meet opposition from his own
5. Even with regard to the law Matthew was no innovator. In some ways indeed he was on this matter at one with Paul: Gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to be saved; that is, they did not have to become circumcised and obey Moses. If it had been otherwise, Matthew could not have enthusiastically endorsed the Gentile mission in his conclusion, for by his time that mission was in most areas presumably free of the demand for circumcision. At the same time—here the relationship with Paul is more difficult to assess—Matthew
MATTHEW
«47
F. The Nature of the Text. 1. Much of Matthew's meaning remains implicit, even much of importance. We know this after only the first few verses, for the insertion of four women into the genealogy, a fact that cannot be ignored, must mean something. But the meaning is not made explicit. And so it is throughout: Matthew is a discourse full of tacit references; it is densely allusive. The ubiquitous scriptural citations and allusions—which are anything but detachable ornamentation—direct the informed reader to other books and so teach that Matthew is not a self-contained entity: much is missing. The gospel, in other words, stipulates that it be interpreted in the context of other texts; it evokes tradition through the device of allusion. This means that it is, in a fundamental sense, an incomplete utterance, a book full of holes. Readers must make present what is absent; they must bring to the gospel knowledge of what it presupposes, i.e. a pre-existing collection of interacting texts, the Jewish Bible (the main source for our knowledge about the four women in the genealogy). The First Gospel, like so much ancient Jewish literature, is partly a mnemonic device, designed to trigger intertextual exchanges which depend upon informed and imaginative reading. It is a catena of allusions.
people—which explains Paul's agonizing in Rom 9-11. Mt 13, the parable chapter, the third great discourse, is Matthew's attempt to tackle this problem. That is, Mt 13 offers various explanations for the mixed response to the Messiah: there can be different responses to one message (13:1-23), the devil works in human hearts (13:24—30), and, if things are not right now, all will be made well in the end (13:31—3, 36—43, 47-50). 6. The fourth major narrative section, chs. 14-17, follows the parable chapter. The most memorable pericope is 16:13— 20, where Jesus founds his church. This suits so well the larger context because after corporate Israel has, at least for the time being, forfeited her role in salvation-history, God must raise up a new people. That this is indeed the dominant theme of the section is hinted at not only by the ever-increasing focus upon the disciples as opposed to the crowds but also by Peter's being the rock upon which the church is built. For it is precisely in this section that he comes to the fore; see 14:2 8— 33; 15:15; 16:13—20; and 17:24—7—all insertions into Mark. Peter's emerging pre-eminence correlates with the emergence of the church.
7. All this is confirmed by Mt 18, the fourth major discourse. Usually styled the 'community' or 'ecclesiological' discourse, this chapter is especially addressed to the topic of Christian fraternal relations. How often should one forgive a brother? What is the procedure for excommunicating someone? These ecclesiastical questions are appropriate precisely at this point because Jesus has just established his church.
2. If Matthew constantly alludes to the Jewish Bible and the traditions parasitic upon it, it also often alludes to itself. Our text was almost certainly composed with some sort of liturgical (and perhaps also some sort of catechetical) end in view, which means that it was designed to be heard again and again. In line with this the text assumes that listeners will appreciate not only intertextual allusions but intratextual allusions. For instance, 5:38—42 alludes to Isaiah, but also, plainly, to Matthew's own passion narrative; and if 17:1—8 develops a Moses typology, it also foreshadows the crucifixion and perhaps Gethsemane. Our gospel was not composed for bad or casual readers. It was rather written for good and attentive listeners accustomed, because of their devotion and relatively small literary canon, to polysemous and heavily connotative religious speech; and such listeners, who heard Matthew repeatedly, would be expected to relate the gospel to itself.
8. Having founded the new community and given her teaching, it remains for Jesus to go to Jerusalem, which is what happens in the next narrative section, chs. 19—23. The material is mostly from Mark, with the woes of ch. 23 added. The bankruptcy of the Jewish leadership and the rejection of the Messiah are to the fore.
9. Before the passion narrative proper, however, Jesus, in chs. 24-5, speaks of the future, that is, the future of Israel and of the church. Here, in the fifth and last major discourse, we are taken beyond chs. 26—8 into the time beyond the narrative. The discourse foretells judgement upon Jerusalem and salvation through difficulty for the church.
G. Genre and Moral Instruction. 1. Prior to our century Matthew was, despite its many gaps and relative brevity, often referred to as a biography. Most twentieth-century scholars, however, have rejected this view: the canonical gospels are not historical retrospectives but rather expressions of the earliest Christian proclamation. Yet recently there has been a change in the minds of at least some scholars, a reversion to the older view, to the idea that the gospels are biographies—if the term is used not in its modern sense but in accord with ancient usage. The canonical gospels then qualify as a subtype of Graeco-Roman biography.
10. Following chronological order, Matthew closes as does Mark (and Luke and John for that matter). The passion and resurrection constitute the conclusion.
11. The primary structure of the gospel is narrative (N) + discourse (D) + narrative (N) + discourse (D), etc., and the plot is determined by the major theme of each narrative section and each discourse. Pictorially, and in minimum compass:
1—4 N the main character introduced 5—7 D Jesus' demands upon Israel 8-9 N Jesus' deeds within and for Israel 10 D extension of ministry through words and deeds
2. The truth is that Matthew is an omnibus of genres: apocalypse, community rule, catechism, cult aetiology, etc. Like the book of Job it is several things at once, a mix of genres, including biography. There are indeed significant resemblances between the First Gospel and certain Hellenistic biographies; and despite its incompleteness as a biography in the modern sense, it is none the less the partial record of a man's life.
of others ii—12 N negative response 13 D explanation of negative response 14-17 N founding of new community 18 D instructions to the new community 19—23 N commencement of the passion 24-5 D the future: judgement and salvation 26-8 N conclusion: the passion and resurrection.
3. The content of Matthew's faith partly explains why the First Gospel is biographical. The distinctiveness of Matthew's
MATTHEW 848
thinking over against that of his non-Christian Jewish contemporaries was the acceptance of Jesus as the centre of his religion: it was around him as a person that his theological thinking revolved. For Matthew, revelation belonged supremely to the life of the Son of God. The significance of this can be measured when Matthew's comparatively brief gospel is set over against the literature of rabbinic Judaism. In rabbinic sources there are stories about rabbis but no sustained lives such as we find in the Gospel of Matthew, report upon report of what Rabbi X or Rabbi Y purportedly said, but no biographies. Particular sages are seldom an organizing category or principle in rabbinic literature. So whereas rabbinic Judaism, with its subordination of the individual to the community and its focus upon the Torah instead of a particular human being, produced no religious biographies, the substance of Matthew's faith was neither a dogmatic system nor a legal code but a human being whose life was, in outline and in detail, uniquely significant and therefore demanding of record.
can also mean 'birth' (as in 1:18), 'origin', or 'beginning' and be taken as the introduction to 1:2—25 or 1:2—2:23 or 1:2—4:16. Yet another suggestion is that 1:1 is Matthew's title: 'Book of the New Creation wrought by Jesus Christ'. In accord with this last option, Matthew's very first word, biblos (NRSV 'account') literally means 'book', and Matthew's opening phrase, biblos geneseos, is not a usual title for genealogies. Moreover, in Gen
2:4 and 5:1, the only two places in the LXX to use Matthew's expression, it is associated with more than genealogical materials. Finally, other Jewish books open with an independent titular sentence announcing the content of the whole (e.g. Nah 1:1; Tob 1:1; Bar 1:1; T. Job 1:1; Apoc. Abr. title; 2 Esdr 1:13). Whatever the reach of 1:1, the first book of the Bible was already known by the title 'Genesis' before Matthew's time, so to open a book with biblos geneseos would inevitably have recalled the first book of Moses. John's prologue, which introduces Jesus by recalling the creation story ('in the beginning'), supplies a parallel.
4. Matthew's biographical impulse also owes much to the circumstance that whenever social crisis results in fragmentation (as happened at the beginning of Christianity), so that the questioning of previous beliefs issues in the formation of a new social unit, new norms and authorities are inevitably generated, which are always most persuasively presented when embodied in examples: new fashions must first be modelled. In Matthew, Jesus is the new exemplar. There is a multitude of obvious connections between Jesus' words and his deeds. If Jesus indirectly exhorts others to be meek (5:5), he himself is such (11:29; cf2I:5)- If he enjoins mercy (5:7), he himself is merciful (9:27; 15:22; 20:30). If he congratulates those oppressed for God's cause (5:10), he himself suffers and dies innocently (27:23). Jesus further demands faithfulness to the law of Moses (5:17-20) and faithfully keeps that law during his ministry (8:4; 12:1—8, 9—14; 15:1—20). He recommends self-denial in the face of evil (5:39) and does not resist the evils done to him (26:67; 27:3°)- He calls for private prayer (6:6) and subsequently withdraws to a mountain to pray alone (14:23). Moreover, Jesus advises his followers to use certain words in prayer ('your will be done', 6:10; 'do not bring us to the time of trial', 6:13) and he uses those words in Gethsemane (26:41-2). He rejects the service of mammon (6:19), and he lives without concern for money (8:20). He commands believers to carry crosses (16:24), and he does so himself, both figuratively and literally.
'Jesus Christ' combines a personal name (one quite popular among Jews before 70 CE) with a title (cf. 2:4; 16:16, etc.). 'Son of David' prepares for the following genealogy, in which David is the key figure. It also explicates 'Christ': the anointed one fulfils the promises made to David (2 Sam 7:12—16; Isa 11:10; Zech 3:8; etc.). Jesus himself later acknowledges that he is 'the Christ' (16:13-20), and the title plays an important part in his trial (26:57-68).
'Son of Abraham' was not a messianic title but rather an expression used to refer either to a descendant of the patriarch or one worthy of him. Here both meanings may be present. Further, the phrase probably foreshadows the salvation Jesus brings to Gentiles. For Abraham was himself a Gentile by birth, and Gen 17:5 promises that all the nations will be blessed in him. It is fitting that soon after his birth Jesus is honoured by Gentile representatives, the magi (2:1—12).
The three personal names of 1:1 reappear in reverse order in 1:2-16: Jesus Christ—David—Abraham || Abraham (1:2)— David (1:6)—Jesus Christ (1:16). So Matthew opens with a triad (one of his favourite literary devices) and a chiasmus.
(1:2-17) Th£ genealogy first offers evidence for the title: it shows that Jesus is indeed a descendant of the royal Davidic line. Secondly, it makes Israel's history culminate in Jesus Christ: the Messiah is the goal of the biblical story. Thirdly, the genealogy helps to give the church its identity: the community, by virtue of its union with Jesus, shares his heritage.
5. The evangelist's moral interest, apparent above all in the Sermon on the Mount, was well served by a story in which the crucial moral imperatives are imaginatively and convincingly incarnated. This the First Gospel supplies. To quote Clement of Alexandria, Matthew offers two types of teaching, 'that which assumes the form of counselling to obedience, and that which is presented in the form of example' (Fed. i.i). Jesus embodies his speech; he lives as he speaks and speaks as he lives.
The outstanding formal feature of this passage is its triadic structure: there are fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the captivity, and fourteen from the captivity to Jesus (v. 17). The scheme is artificial. Not only have several names been omitted from the monarchial period, but there are only thirteen generations in the third series. (But cf. v.l. at v. II.) Probably the key to understanding the composition is the device known as gematria, by which names are given numerical value (cf. Rev 13:18). In Hebrew David's name has three consonants, the numerical value of which amounts to fourteen: d + w + d = 4 + 6 + 4 . When it is added that David's name is fourteenth on the list, that he is given the title, 'king', and that 'David' occurs both before and after the genealogy, we may infer that 'David' is the structural key to w. 2-17.
Jesus Introduced (1:1-4:17)
(1:1) The second word of this verse (genesis) may be translated 'genealogy' and so made the heading for 1:2-17. But me word
MATTHEW
«49
marriage, then the narrator would not be able to call Joseph 'just' for the course he purposes.
Women are not usually named in Jewish genealogies, so the mention of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah must betray a special interest. Some have suggested that the reader should remember that the women were sinners, or that their marital unions were irregular, the lesson being either that God saves his people from their sins, or that providence can turn scandal into blessing (as in Matthew's story of Mary). But the best guess is that the four women are named because they were Gentiles: their presence in w. 2—17 foreshadows the inclusion of non-Jews in the people of God.
(2:1—12) The story of the mysterious magi, which overturns the traditional motif of the superiority of Jewish hero to foreign wise man, continues the theme of Davidic kingship. Jesus is born in Bethlehem, where David was brought up and anointed, and Mic 5:1, 3, which is here quoted as fulfilled in Jesus, is, in its original context, about a promised Davidic king. The central theme, however, is the homage of Gentiles. The magi, whose country of origin is unspecified—Persia, Babylon, and Arabia are the usual guesses—represent the best wisdom of the Gentile world, its spiritual elite. Perhaps Isa 60:3-6 is in the background. Num 23:7 LXX, according to which Balaam is 'from the east', almost certainly is. Jewish tradition made Balaam a magus and the father of magi; and, according to the OT, when the evil king Balak tried to enlist Balaam in the cause against Israel, the seer instead prophesied the nation's future greatness and the coming of a great ruler. This is close to Matthew, where the cruel Herod, attempting to destroy Israel's king, employs foreign magi who in the event bring only honour to the king's rival. Matthew's magi are Balaam's successors.
(1:18—25) Th£ story of Jesus' miraculous conception, like 1:1 and 1:2-17, continues to clarify Jesus' identity. He is conceived of the Holy Spirit. He will save his people from their sins. And he fulfils biblical prophecy (Isa 7:14). The passage also tells how Jesus can be a descendant of David and yet have a supernatural origin: although not literally Jesus' father, Joseph makes Jesus legally a Davidid by acknowledging him as his own. This passage (like the stories in Lk i) is modelled upon older birth stories and so adds a hallowed cast to the narrative. Gen 16 (Ishmael) and Judg 13 (Samson), for example, also recount (i) introductory circumstances; (2) the appearance of the angel of the Lord; (3) an angelic prophecy of birth, including the child's future deeds; and (4) the issue of things. But Matthew's paragraph also resembles 2:13-15 and 19-21, the other two angelic appearances to Joseph. All three have this outline: (i) note of circumstance; (2) appearance of the angel of the Lord in a dream; (3) command of angel to Joseph; (4) explanation of command; (5) Joseph rises and obediently responds.
The 'star' goes before the magi and comes to rest 'over the place where the child' is. This is no ordinary star, and attempts to identify it with a planetary conjunction, comet, or supernova are futile. The Protevangelium of James (21:3), Ephrem the Syrian in his commentary on the Diatessaron, and Chrysostom in his commentary on Matthew all rightly recognize that the so-called star does not stay on high but moves as a guide and indeed comes to rest very near the infant Jesus. Matters become clear when we recall that the ancients generally believed stars to be animate beings, and Jews in particular identified them with angels (cf. Job 38:7). The Arabic Gospd of the Infancy, 7, and Theophylact must be right in identifying the magi's star with an angel, and one may compare the angelic guide of the Exodus (Ex 23:20, 23; 32:34).
The story opens with Mary betrothed to Joseph; they do not yet live together as man and wife. But Mary is with child 'of the Holy Spirit'. One might think of a new creation (cf. MT 1:1), for creation was the work of the Spirit (Gen 1:2), or perhaps of the traditional link between the Spirit and messianic times (e.g. Isa 44:3—4). But the main point is that Jesus has his origin in God, in fulfilment of a prophecy, Isa 7:14. It is true that the Hebrew text says only that a 'young girl' will conceive, and that the LXX, which does indeed use 'virgin', seems only to mean that one who is now a virgin will later give birth; no miracle is envisaged. In Matthew, however, the text has been interpreted in the light of the story of the virgin birth, and it refers to the supernatural conception of Jesus.
Justin Martyr, Dial. 106, and other commentators have found the scriptural key to v. 2 in Num 24:17, where Balaam prophesies that a star will come out of Jacob, and a sceptre will rise out of Israel. This text was given messianic sense by ancient Jews (as in the targums); sometimes they identified the star with a messianic figure (CD 7:18-26), sometimes with a star heralding the Messiah (T. Levi 18:3). Matthew recounts the fulfilment of Balaam's prophecy.
Isa 7:14 speaks not only of a virgin birth but of'Emmanuel', which means 'with us is God'. This does not entail that Jesus is God in the sense proclaimed at Nicea; Matthew's Christology is not that elevated. The idea here is rather that Jesus is the one through whom divine favour and blessing show themselves. At the same time, in 18:20; 25:31-46; and 28:20 (which makes an indusio with v. 23) the presence of Jesus with his people is more than that: the divine presence is (as in Paul) conceived of as the presence of Christ.
The passage contains several elements which anticipate the story's end. Here as there the issue is Jesus' status as 'king of the Jews' (v. 2; 27:11, 29, 37). Here as there the Jewish leaders gather against him (w. 3—4; 26:3—4, 57)- Here as there plans are laid in secret (v. 7; 26:4-5). And here as there Jesus' death is sought (w. 13,16; 26:4). So the end is foreshadowed in the beginning. But there are also artistic contrasts. Here a light in the night sky proclaims the Messiah's advent; there darkness during the day announces his death (v. 2; 27:45). Here Jesus is worshipped; there he is mocked (26:67-8; 27:27—31, 39—44). Here it is prophesied that Jesus will shepherd his people Israel; there it is foretold that Jesus the shepherd will be struck and his sheep scattered (26:31). Here there is great rejoicing; there we find mourning and grief
When Joseph learns of his wife's state, he resolves, in accord with Jewish law, and because he thinks her guilty of adultery, to divorce her. This action is introduced with the observation that Joseph is 'just'. This matters for the interpretation of 5:31-2 and 19:3-12, where Jesus prohibits divorce except on the ground ofporntia. There has been much debate over the Greek word, but if it does not mean unchastity within
(26:75; 27:46).
MATTHEW 850
that would have given v. 23 an even greater impact: Jesus' followers bear the name that he bore.
(2:13-23) With 2:1-12 we move from a scene of gift-giving to one of murder and flight. The extremes of response to Jesus are here writ large. The quotation of Hos 11:1 in v. 15 evokes thought of the Exodus, for in its original context 'Out of Egypt I have called my son' concerns Israel. Our text accordingly offers a typological interpretation of Jesus' story. By going down to Egypt and then returning to the land of Israel Jesus recapitulates the experience of Israel. But there is, more particularly, a Moses typology here. w. 19-21 borrows the language of Ex 4:19—20: just as Moses, after being told to go back to Egypt because all those seeking his life have died, takes his wife and children and returns to the land of his birth, so too with Jesus: Joseph, after being told to go back to Israel because all those seeking the life of his son have died, takes his wife and child and returns to the land of his son's birth.
(3:1—6) Matthew passes from its hero's infancy to his adulthood and so jumps over many years (cf. Ex 2:11). The intervening period does not even merit allusion; and when readers move from Nazareth to the Jordan and far forward in time, they first meet not Jesus but John the Baptist. Throughout Matthew John has two distinguishing characteristics. First, he prepares Israel for Jesus' coming; that is, he is the eschatological Elijah (11:14; I7'-II~iy> here in v. 4 John even dresses like Elijah; see 2 Kings 1:8 LXX). He baptizes and preaches repentance in order to make the people ready to receive the person and work of Jesus. Secondly, John is Jesus' typological forerunner: his life parallels and so foreshadows that of Jesus. Both say similar things (cf. 3:2, 7, 10; 4:17; 7:19; 12:34; 23:33)- Both attack the Sadducees and Pharisees (3:7—10; 12:1—14, 34> etc.). Both appeal to the same generation to repent (11:16-19). Both act by the same authority (21:23-32). Both are thought of as prophets (11:9; 14:5; 21:11, 26, 46) and feared by their enemies because of the people (14:5; 21:46). Both are seized and bound (14:3; 21:46; 27:1). Both are sentenced by reluctant authorities (14:6-11; 27:11-26). Both are executed as criminals (14:1—12; 26—7). And both are buried by their own disciples (14:12; 27:57-61).
A Moses typology in fact runs throughout Matthew's infancy narrative. Joseph's contemplation of what to do about Mary and the angel which bids him not to fear and then prophesies his son's future greatness recalls the story of Amram in Josephus, Ant. 2.210-16. In Josephus Moses' father, ill at ease over what to do about his wife's pregnancy, has a dream in which God exhorts him not to despair and prophesies his son's future greatness. 'You are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins' (1:21) reminds one of Moses' status as saviour of his people (Jos. Ant. 2.228; b. Sot.a I2b). Herod's order to do away with the male infants of Bethlehem (w. 16—18) is like Pharaoh's order to do away with every male Hebrew child (Ex i). And if Herod orders the slaughter of infants because he has learned of the birth of Israel's liberator (2:2—18), in Jewish tradition Pharaoh slaughters the children because he has learned of the birth of Israel's liberator (Jos. Ant. 2.205-9; % PS--]- on Ex 1:15). Further, whereas Herod learns of the coming liberator from chief priests, scribes, and magi (2:1—12), Josephus, Ant. 2.205, 234> ^as Pharaoh learn of Moses from scribes, and the Jerusalem Targum on Ex 1:15 says that Pharaoh's chief magicians (Jannes and Jambres, the sons of Balaam) were the sources of his information. For further parallels see Allison (1993: 137—65); where the possibility of a tradition about Moses' virgin birth is raised.
John's ministry is the fulfilment of Isa 40:3 LXX, cited in v. 3. In the OT the prophecy is comfort for the exiles in Babylon: a new exodus and return to the land lie ahead. In Matthew the words no longer have to do with a literal restoration to
Palestine. But the theme of new exodus remains in so far as the story of Jesus, who is so much like Moses, is a sort of replay of Israel's formative history. After the story of the birth of Israel's saviour and the wicked king's slaughter of innocent Jewish children Jesus passes through the waters of baptism—other texts compare baptism with passing through the Red Sea (i Cor 10:1—5; Sipre Num. fio8)—and then enters the desert, where he faces the temptations once faced by Israel and then goes up a mountain to give his commandments. The new Moses recapitulates Israel's Exodus.
The most difficult verse in the passage is the very last, v. 23. 'He will be called a Nazorean' does not appear in the OT Yet Matthew refers to 'the prophets' being fulfilled. Many explanations have been put forward—the biblical text is Isa 11:1 (the branch [neser] from Jesse) or 42:6 or 49:6 or Jer 31:6-7 or Gen 49:26, or we should think of Nazareth as a humble place and so connect it with the contempt for Isaiah's suffering servant. It is more likely, however, that Matthew contains an involved wordplay. The LXX interchanges 'holy one of God'—an early Christian title for Jesus (Mk 1:24; Lk 4:34; Jn 6:69)—and 'nazarite' (cf Judg 13:7; 16:17). This matters because if we make that substitution in Isa 4:3 MT ('will be called holy'), the result is very near v. 23. Further, in Acts 24:5 Christians are 'the sect of the Nazarenes' (an appellation also attested in Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.8), and in rabbinic writings Christians are ndsrim. Given the striking links between Matthean Christianity and Nazorean Christianity as known through the fathers, as well as the fact that Syrian Christians called themselves nasraya, it is likely that members of the Matthean community referred to themselves not as 'Christians' (a term missing from this gospel) but as 'Nazoreans'. Certainly
(3:7-12) John preaches to the Pharisees and Sadducees. The two groups also appear together in 16:1—12. The former are Jesus' chief opponents and, with the scribes, come under withering attack in ch. 23. Matthew evinces a special, lively preoccupation with the Pharisees, and one infers that his own Jewish opponents considered themselves heirs of the Pharisees.
The Baptist divides his hearers into two categories—the fruitful and unfruitful, the wheat and the chaff. This sort of dualism runs throughout Matthew: things are usually black and white. There are those who do Jesus' words and those who do not (7:24-7); there are good and bad fish (13:47-50), sheep and goats (25:31-46). This division of humanity, which also characterizes the Dead Sea scrolls and Jewish apocalyptic literature, reflects the nearness of the eschatological judgement, at which only two sentences—salvation and damnation—will be passed.
John threatens that God can raise up or cause to be born children to Abraham from 'these stones'. As Chrysostom has observed, Isa 51:1-2 (where Abraham is the rock from which
851 MATTHEW
Baptist and to those standing by as the Son of God (cf. Ps 2:7) and the suffering servant of Isaiah (Isa 42:1; cf. 8:17; 12:18—21; 20:28; 26:28). Here'Son of God'refers first to Jesus' special relationship to God the Father (cf. 11:25-30). But one cannot give a simple or single definition to the title; its connotations vary. In 4:1—11, as in 2:15, it is associated with an Israel typology; and in 16:13—20 and 26:59—68 it is linked with Jesus' status as Davidic Messiah (cf. 2 Sam 7:14; perhaps this is so also in 3:17, for Ps 2 is a royal psalm).
Israel was hewn) is in the background. If God once brought forth from the lifeless Abraham descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven, so can he raise up a new people. The threat is aimed at what has been called 'covenantal nomism'. Many Jews no doubt assumed that to be a descendant of Abraham meant, if one did not commit apostasy, having a place in the world to come (cf. m. Sank. 10.1). But in Matthew salvation is linked solely to Christology: one's decision for or against Jesus decides one's fate (cf. 10:32-3). This is why John denies the efficacy of Abrahamic descent and instead prophesies the coming one.
(4:1—11) This pericope has most commonly been given either a paraenetic interpretation according to which Jesus is the model disciple or a Christological interpretation according to which Jesus rejects a false understanding of political messiahship. Neither interpretation can be discounted; but Jesus' obedience as Son of God in the face of temptation is first of all a statement about salvation history: the Son of God now recapitulates the experience of Israel in the desert (cf. esp. Deut 8:2—3); the end resembles the beginning. Like Israel Jesus is tempted by hunger (Ex 16:2—8), tempted to put God to the test (Ex 17:1-4; cf. Deut 6:16), and tempted to idolatry
The prophecy of baptism in Holy Spirit and fire has traditionally been taken in two ways: either fire means the same thing as Spirit (cf. Acts 2), in which case there is only one baptism, or it refers to eschatological judgement, in which case there are two baptisms, one in the present and one in the future. Because Matthew elsewhere associates fire not with the Spirit but with judgement, the second interpretation is to be preferred.
(3:13—17) Matthew focuses not upon the baptism itself but a prefatory episode—John's protest of Jesus' desire for baptism—and subsequent events. Although Jesus' sinlessness is not taught in Matthew, it is probably assumed (cf. Jn 8:46; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 7:26). And because John's baptism involves the confession of sins (3:6), Jesus' submission to it is awkward. But Matthew's Jesus declares that the act fulfils all righteousness. Here fulfilment is probably, as elsewhere, a reference to biblical prophecy. In line with this, v. 17 draws upon both Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1. Jesus, knowing the messianic prophecies, obediently fulfils them and thereby fulfils all righteousness. Because prophecy declares God's will, to fulfil prophecy is to fulfil righteousness.
(Ex 32). On each occasion he quotes from Deuteronomy— from Deut 8:3 in v. 4, from Deut 6:16 in v. 7, and from Deut 6:13 in v. 10. Unlike Israel, Jesus neither murmurs nor gives in to temptation.
Although the forty days of temptation are the typological equivalent of Israel's forty years of wandering, they also have rightly reminded Irenaeus, Augustine, Calvin, and many others of Moses' fast of forty days and forty nights (Ex 24:18). As in Mt 2, so also here: the Israel typology exists beside the Moses typology. In line with this, when the devil takes Jesus to a very high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the world
(v. 8), one may think of Moses on the top of Pisgah, for, among other things, not only does v. 8 use the language of Deut 34:1,4 LXX, but Jewish tradition expands Moses' vision so that it is of all the world. See further Allison (1993:165—72).
The appearance of the symbolic dove has occasioned much speculation. Since Tertullian it has often been connected with Noah's dove: the former dove announced deliverance from the flood, the latter dove deliverance from sins (cf. Theophylact and i Pet 3:20-1). It is also possible to associate the dove with the new-exodus motif, for in the Mekilta the Holy Spirit rests upon Israel as she crosses the Red Sea and the people are compared to a dove (cf. Ps.-Philo, LAB 21:6) and granted a vision. But the best guess relates the text to Gen 1:2, which involves the Spirit of God, water, and the imagery of a bird hovering. Further, in b. Hag. 153 the hovering of the Spirit over the face of the waters is represented more precisely as the hovering of a dove. The meaning is then once again that the last things are as the first: Jesus inaugurates a new creation. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by a Dead
The three temptations contain a spatial progression: we move from a low place in the desert to a pinnacle in the temple to a mountain from which all the world can be seen. This progression corresponds to the dramatic tension which comes to a climax in the third temptation. The mountain here forms an indusio with the mountain of 28:16-20. On the first mountain the devil offers to give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory on the condition that he worship him. On the last mountain, where Jesus is worshipped by others, Jesus declares that he has been given all authority in heaven and earth. The two texts mark the beginning and end of Jesus' labours: he rejects the devil's temptations, choosing instead to travel the hard road of obedient sonship which in the end brings exaltation.
Sea scroll fragment, 4(3521. In line 6 ('his Spirit will hover over the poor') the language of Gen 1:2 characterizes the eschatological redemption: just as the Spirit once hovered over the face of the waters, so too, at the end, will the Spirit hover over the saints and strengthen them. This pre-Christian application of Gen 1:2 to the eschatological future has the Spirit hovering over human beings as opposed to lifeless material. The striking parallel with Matthew evidences a similar creative application of Gen 1:2.
The devil is the same as Satan (v. 10; 12:26; 16:23) and Beelzebul (10:25; I2:24> 27)- He is 'the enemy' (13:39) who, in tempting Jesus, only acts as he does towards all (cf. 6:13; 26:41). But throughout Matthew he and his evil underlings (4:23; 8:16, 28; 9:32; 12:22; 23:39; 15:22; 17:18) always wear faces of defeat. The devil's failure with Jesus in the temptation narrative is paradigmatic: he nowhere wins. Jesus, for instance, easily casts out demons. So there is in Matthew a recognition of the limitations of the powers of iniquity. These are strictly circumscribed.
The divine voice of v. 17, which anticipates 17:5, conflates two scriptural texts, Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1 (which is formally quoted in 12:8). The result is that Jesus is revealed to the
MATTHEW 852
Greek (anebe eis to oros: he went up the mountain) does recall pentateuchal passages having to do with Moses (e.g. Ex 19:3, 12,13). And Jewish tradition spoke of Moses sitting on Sinai (so already the Exagogue of Ezekiel; cf. b. Meg. 2ia). Furthermore, other Moses typologies from antiquity have their Mosaic heroes sitting on a mountain (e.g. 2 Esdras 14); Mekilta on Ex 19:11 and 29:18 and other sources claim that Israel was healed at the foot of Sinai (cf. 4:23); and 8:1, the conclusion of the SM, is identical with Ex 34:29 LXX A, which recounts Moses' descent from Sinai.
(4:12-17) On the literary level these verses signal the beginning of the public ministry, move Jesus from Nazareth to Capernaum, and introduce in summary fashion the content of Jesus' proclamation. On the theological level, they underline three recurring themes—the fulfilment of Scripture
(w. 14—16), the salvation of the Gentiles (v. 15), and the announcement of the kingdom of God (v. 17). This last calls the most attention to itself; for it not only repeats words of the Baptist (3:2), but the ingressive aorist (erxato) connotes repetition: Jesus evidently utters the words again and again. So just as 1:1 stands over the whole gospel, so does v. 17 stand over the entire public ministry.
In its entirety, this passage, which gives us a brief overview of Jesus' ministry to Israel, introduces the SM. It makes the crowds as well as the disciples hear Jesus, who heals them. So before the demands there is healing. The crowds, having done nothing, are benefited. Grace comes before task.
Jesus, like the Baptist, proclaims the nearness of the kingdom of God (or heaven; the expressions are, pace some scholars, equivalent). In Matthew this kingdom is God's eschatological rule which is even now establishing itself. In fact, it is entering the world through a complex of events, some of which have taken place (e.g. the Messiah's first advent; cf. 11:12: 12:28), some of which are taking place (e.g. 10:16-23), and some of which will take place in the near future (e.g. much of chs. 24, 25).
Jesus' Demands upon Israel (y^>-rj:2rj)
4:23—5:2, which opens the SM, and 7:28—8:1, which concludes it, share several words and phrases—'great crowds followed him', 'the mountain', 'going up/down', 'teaching'. The correlations mark the intervening material in 5:3-7:27 as a distinct literary unit with its own beginning and end. Within that literary unit the eschatological blessings of the faithful in 5:3-12 are balanced by the eschatological warnings of 7:13-27. The beatitudes are followed by 5:13-16 (salt and light), a section which supplies a general heading for the detailed paraenesis that follows. It is a transitional passage which moves from the life of the blessed future to the demands of life in the present, in which the theme switches from gift to task, and in which those who live as 5:17—7:12 directs are summarily characterized.
(4:18-22) The structure of the two short passages in this paragraph—(i) appearance of Jesus; (2) disciples at work; (3) call to discipleship; (4) obedient response—reappears in 9:9. The source of the common arrangement is i Kings 19:19—21, Elijah's call of Elisha. There Elijah appears and finds Elisha at work, after which the former puts his mantle upon the latter, that is, calls him to share his prophetic office. The story ends with Elisha following Elijah. The difference between Kings and the NT accounts is that whereas Elisha asks if he may first kiss his parents and perform a sacrifice and then is (in the LXX and Josephus' retelling) given permission so to act, in the NT Jesus permits no tarrying. His radical demand leaves no time even for saying farewell (cf. 8:21-2; 10:35-7). See further Hengel (1981). Within their broader context, w. 18-22 illustrate the nature of Christian discipleship. They offer an example of wholehearted obedience to the call of Christ, an obedience which is expected of all, even to the point of great personal sacrifice. (Cf. further FGS F.)
5:17-7:12 in turns divides itself into three major sections. There is first of all 5:17-48, on Jesus and Torah. Then there is the 'cult-didache' (Betz 1985) in 6:1—18. It covers properly ecclesiastical issues—almsgiving, prayer, fasting. Thirdly there is 6:19-7:12, the first half of which has to do with worldly cgoods and cares (6:19-34), me second with, primarily, attitude towards others (7:1—12). So the section in its entirety covers social issues. One suspects that the very structure of the SM reflects the famous maxim attributed to Simeon the Just, according to which the world stands on three things—Torah, temple service, and pious social acts (m. 'Abot 1.2). The period after 70 CE evidently saw discussion of the traditional pillars because the second, after the destruction of the temple, became problematic (cf. 'Abot R. Nat. 4). Was the SM a Christian answer to the old Jewish question, What does the world stand upon?
(4:23-5:2) This is the first of many editorial summaries (of which there at least two between each major discourse). They do not just summarize what comes before or after, but also supply narrative continuity, lengthen narrative time, expand the geographical range, create a picture of movement (Jesus goes from here to there), highlight central themes, and tell us that Matthew's material is only a selection: Jesus did much more.
Valid interpretation of the SM must keep several things in view. First, the SM is not an adequate or complete summation of anybody's religion (contrast Betz 1985; Betz interprets the S M as an epitome). It was never intended to stand by itself; it is rather part of a larger whole. The SM's demands are perverted when isolated from the grace and Christology which appear from Matthew in its entirety. The S M is in the middle of a story about God's gracious overture to his people through his Son. Read in its entirety it brings together gift and task, grace and law, benefit and demand. Secondly, the SM presupposes the existence of the Christian community. This is why God is 'our Father'. The church is the surrogate family which lightens the Messiah's Torah: tasks jointly undertaken become easier. In
Between 4:23 and 9:35, which together create an indusio, Jesus first teaches (the Sermon on the Mount—hereafter SM) and then secondly acts (chs. 8—9). Afterwards, in ch. 10, where he instructs and sends out the disciples for mission, he tells them to do and say what he has said and done. This circumstance means that Jesus is the model missionary, and it explains the parallelism not only between 4:23 and 9:35 but also between 4:17 and 10:6 and 4:24 and 10:1.
It is common to view the mountain of 5:1 as a counterpart to Sinai. As Matthew Henry had it, 'Christ preached this sermon, which is an exposition of the law, upon a mountain, because upon a mountain the law was given.' Matthew's
853 MATTHEW
(hoti) clause, is attested elsewhere (cf. Gen 30:13; Tob 13:16), as are the eschatological orientation (cf. Dan 12:12; i Enoch 58:2— 3), the grouping together of several beatitudes (cf. 4(^525 2; 2 Enoch 52:1-14), and the third person plural address (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:44; Tob 13:14).
addition, the church belongs to salvation history; its story is the story of Israel and the story of Jesus, and these stories, it is assumed, have altered human existence and changed the historical possibilities. Thirdly, the SM must be associated with the Kingdom of God. The SM does not speak to ordinary people in ordinary circumstances. It instead addresses itself to those overtaken by an overwhelming reality. This reality can remake the individual and beget a new life. Beyond that, the SM sees all through the eyes of eternity. It does not so much look forward, from the present to the consummation, as back from the consummation to the present. Mt 5—7 presents the unadulterated will of God because it proclaims the will of God as it will be lived when the kingdom comes in its fullness. This is why the SM is so radical, so heedless of all earthly contingencies, why it always blasts complacency and shallow moralism and disturbs every good conscience.
'Blessed are the poor in spirit' (cf. iQM 14:7) means much the same as 'blessed are the meek', and 'for theirs is the kingdom of heaven' is another way of saying 'they will inherit the earth' (cf. Ps 37:11). Both beatitudes are about eschatological reversal. Those who are without power or status and who depend upon God will be given the kingdom of heaven and inherit the earth when things are turned upside down at the last judgement. As it says in b. Pesah.. 503, 'those who are on top here are at the bottom there, and those who are at the bottom here are on the top there'.
'Those who mourn' (v. 4) are not, against Augustine, sorry for their sins so much as they are aggrieved that while now the wicked prosper, the saints do not, and God has not yet righted the situation. The 'righteousness' that the saints hunger and thirst for (v. 6) is neither justification nor eschatological vindication but the right conduct that God requires (cf. v. 10). Seemingly implied is the notion that the saints are not as a matter of fact righteous; rather, righteousness is always the goal which lies ahead: it must ever be sought. To be 'pure in heart' (v. 8; cf. Ps 24:3-4) means harmony between inward thought and outward deed; it involves a singleness of intention, that intention being the doing of God's will. To 'see God'
Finally, the SM is a Christological document. Not only do the beatitudes imply that Jesus is the eschatological herald of Isa 61, but the qualities they praise—e.g. meekness and mercy—are manifested throughout the ministry (cf. 9:2731; 11:29: 20:29-34; 2I:5)- Again, the paragraph aboutturning the other cheek (5:38—42) has been moulded so as to foreshadow events from the last days of Jesus, and the Lord's Prayer is echoed in Jesus' own prayer (see 26:42). The SM then is partly a summary of its speaker's deeds; or, put differently, Jesus illustrates his demands. In Matthew Jesus is a moral model, and the SM proclaims likeness to the God of Israel (5:48) through the virtues of Jesus Christ.
(v. 8) has been understood as a literal vision of God's body (cf. Ps. Clem. Horn. 17:7), a literal vision of the glorified Christ (cf. 17:1—8; Cor 15:3—11; so Philoxenus), a spiritual or mental apprehension (cf. T see the point'; see Origen, C. Cels. 7.33-4), an indirect perception through unspecified effects of God (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 4.20.6), or an apprehension of the image of God in the perfected saints (so Gregory of Nyssa and much Eastern Orthodox tradition). The text unfortunately does not decide the point. But one thing is obvious: the vision of God is here eschatological. Nothing is said of the possibility of seeing God in the present life. One day the saints will enjoy what the angels, according to 18:10, even now experience (cf. Augustine, DC civ. dti 22.29). (Cffurther FGS G.)
(5:3-12) The beatitudes do not exhibit any obvious structure; but it may be significant that the triad is the structural key to the SM and that there are nine (=3x3) beatitudes (cf. Epiphanius, Apophthegmata Patrum, 13, where the number of the beatitudes is reckoned as three times the Trinity). However that may be, w. 3-12 contain first of all eschatological blessings; that is, the beatitudes are first of all promise and consolation. The first half of each beatitude depicts the community's present; the second half foretells the community's future; and the juxtaposition of the two radically different situations permits the trials of everyday life to be muted by contemplation of the world to come. This hardly excludes the implicit moral demand: one is certainly called to become what the beatitudes praise (cf. the beatitudes in Sir 25:7-10; 4Qj2j 2). But Matthew's beatitudes are not formally imperatives. Like the eschatological blessings in 13:16 and Rev 19:9 and 22:14, mey offer hope and indeed function as a practical theodicy. Although there is no explanation of evil, the imagination, through contemplation of God's future, engenders hope and makes the present tolerable.
The last two beatitudes (w. 10-12) envisage the most difficult aspects of discipleship—persecution and ridicule. They offer consolation not only by promising reward in heaven but also by observing the similar ill-treatment of 'the prophets'. The effect is to draw into Israel's sacred history the community of readers who find themselves in Matthew's text.
(5:13—16) The parables about salt, light, and lamp are the general heading for 5:17—7:12. They together offer a summary description of those who live the SM. It is no longer the Torah or the temple or Jerusalem or Israel that is the salt or light of the world (cf. Isa 60:1-3; Bar 4:2> bBer. 28b) but the church. Moreover, Jesus' followers are not the salt or light of Israel (contrast T. Levi 14:3) but of the whole world (the Gentile mission is presupposed). 'What the soul is in a body, this the Christians are in the world' (Ep. Diogn. 6.1).
Because Isa 61:1, 2, and 7 speak of good news for the poor (cf. Mt 5:3), comforting all who mourn (cf. Mt 5:4), and of inheriting the earth or land (cf. Mt 5:5), Matthew's beatitudes make an implicit Christological claim: they are uttered by the anointed one of Isa 61. The Spirit of the Lord is upon Jesus (3:16); he has been anointed to bring good tidings to the poor, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, to comfort those who mourn (cf. Lk 4:18—19 and the messianic application of Isa 61 in 4(3521).
(5:17—20) In denying the suspicion that Jesus abolishes the Torah, these verses look forwards, not backwards, for no such suspicion could arise from what has gone before. They introduce 5:21—48 and declare thatthe so-called 'antitheses' are not
There is nothing formally remarkable about Matthew's beatitudes. The form, 'blessed' (makarios) + subject + 'that'
MATTHEW 854
encourages, appropriate hatred and anger (cf. Sir 1:22; Eph 4:26).
antitheses: Matthew's Jesus does not overturn Moses or set believers free from the law. (Alternative interpretations of this passage are often motivated by a desire to bring Matthew closer to Paul; but the NT appears to have more than one judgement on the status of the Torah, and we should read Matthew on its own terms.)
(5:27—30) Jesus' prohibition of lust and its equation with adultery (cf. T. Iss. 7:2) do not contradict the biblical injunction against adultery (Ex 20:14; Deut 5:18), for Jesus himself speaks against this sin (5:32; 15:19; 19:9)- Rather does he pass beyond the Decalogue to require more: w. 27—30 at once uphold and supplement the law. While the verses assume that the external act is evil, no less evil is the intention that brings it forth, and 'it is each one's intention that is examined' (Ps.-Phoc. 52; cf. Ep. Arist. 133; in holding that intention is to be judged as deed—as also in 5:21—6—Jesus is closer to the rabbis associated with the House of Shammai than those associated with Hillel; see b. Qidd. 433). Matthew's construction (pros to epithumesai, 'to lust') implies that the sin lies not in the entrance of a thought but in letting it incite to wrongful passion.
These verses not only rebut in advance a wrong interpretation of 5:21-48 but also supply a clue for the right interpretation. In announcing that the righteousness of disciples must exceed that of the Jewish leaders, v. 20 anticipates that Jesus' words in the subsequent paragraphs will require even more than the Torah itself requires. The tension between Jesus' teaching and the Mosaic law is not that those who accept the former will transgress the latter; rather it is that they will achieve far more than they would if the Torah were their only guide.
(5:21—48) This section, which falls into two triads— 5:21—6 + 27-30 + 31-2 11 5:33-7 + 38-42 + 43-8—has generated many conflicting interpretations, but four propositions seem more probable than not. First, 5:21—48 does not set Jesus' words over against Jewish interpretations of the Mosaic law; rather there is contrast with the Bible itself. 'You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times' refers to Sinai. Secondly, although Jesus' words are contrasted with the Torah, the two are not contradictory (cf. 5:17—20). Certainly those who obey w. 21—48 will not find themselves breaking any Jewish law. Thirdly, 5:21-48 is not Jesus' interpretation of the law. The declaration that remarriage is adultery, for example, is set forth as a new teaching grounded not in exegesis but Jesus' authority. Fourthly, the six paragraphs illustrate, through concrete examples, what sort of attitude and behaviour Jesus requires and how his demands surpass those of the Torah without contradicting the Torah.
The vivid demands for personal sacrifice in w. 29-30 (which reappear in 18:8—9) are hyperbolic: they underscore the seriousness of the sin. Literal amputation is hardly envisaged, for the problem is not the body as such but the sin that dwells in it (cf. Rom 7:17, 20). Nor should we (despite Jn 20:20,25) visualize a mutilated resurrected body. The bizarre images, which arouse the imagination and enhance memory, instead underline that one cannot disclaim responsibility by blaming the body. Actions are psychosomatic, and body and soul, being united, are judged as one accountable individual.
(5:31—2) If lust is like adultery, so too is divorce. Jesus summarizes Deut 24:1-4, where allowance is made for remarriage, and then goes on to say that (for a man) to divorce (a woman) except for porneia causes her (because she will remarry) to commit adultery. As it stands no explanation is offered; but 19:3—9 will provide such. The assumption is that monogamy must be upheld.
Many have complained that the teaching of w. 21-48 is impractical. As Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor says, Jesus 'judged humanity too highly', for 'it was created weaker and lower than Christ thought'. But the SM, which is so poetical, dramatic, and pictorial, offers not a set of rules—the ruling on divorce is the exception—but rather seeks to instil a moral vision. Literal (mis)interpretation accordingly leads to absurdities. The text, which implies that God demands a radical obedience which cannot be casuistically formulated, functions more like a story than a legal code. Its primary purpose is to instill principles and qualities through a vivid inspiration of the moral imagination. What one comes away with is not an incomplete set of statutes but an unjaded impression of a challenging moral ideal. That ideal may ever be beyond grasp, but that is what enables it ever to beckon its adherents forward.
Erasmus and most Protestants have thought Matthew allows the innocent party to divorce and remarry in the event of porneia. But according to the almost universal patristic as well as Roman Catholic opinion, separation but not remarriage is permitted. Unfortunately the text does not admit of a definitive interpretation.
The meaning of porneia has been disputed. Most take it to mean either sexual unfaithfulness within marriage or incest. In favour of the latter, we can envisage a situation in which Gentiles entering the community were found to be, because of marriages made before conversion, in violation of the levitical laws of incest (see Lev 17). But there is no patristic support for the equation of porneia with adultery, and in 1:18-25 Joseph, who determines to divorce his wife because of suspected adultery, is 'just'—an odd comment if Jesus' ruling does not cover his case. (5:33-7) The OT permits oaths in everyday speech—provided they are neither false nor irreverent. But for Jesus oaths are not needed (cf. Jas 5:12); for the presupposition behind the oath is that there are two types of statements, one of which demands commitment (the oath), one of which does not (the statement without an oath). But Jesus enjoins invariable commitment to every statement so that the oath becomes superfluous.
(5:21—6) Moses prescribes punishment for murder (cf. Ex 21:12; etc.), Jesus punishment for anger and insulting speech. The hyperbolic equation of murder with anger (also found in Jewish tradition) shifts attention from the outward act to the inward state (cf. 5:27—30) and makes anger and harsh words grievous sins to be exorcized at all costs. In contrast to later Christian interpretation, Jesus makes no allowance for justified anger (such as anger towards the devil). This seems to take us beyond the wisdom tradition, which permits, even
855 MATTHEW
passage superimposes three images: the suffering Christian, the suffering Christ, and the suffering servant. Jesus' own story offers an illustration of his imperative. If he speaks of eschewing violence and not resisting evil, of being slapped, of having one's clothes taken, and of being compelled to serve the Romans, the conclusion to his own life makes his words concrete: he eschews violence (26:51—4); he does not resist evil (26:36-56; 27:12-14); he is struck (26:67); he has his garments taken (27:28, 35); and his cross is carried by one requisitioned by Roman order (27:32). Here then we meet two themes found throughout Matthew: the congruence between word and deed, speech and action—an idea so important for Hellenistic philosophy—and Jesus' status as moral exemplar, which requires an imitation of Christ.
The paragraph opens by summarizing the teaching found in Ex 20:7; Lev 19:12; Num 30:3—15, and elsewhere. Perhaps Ps 50:14 in particular is in mind. Despite the reservation shown to oaths in some Jewish sources (e.g. Sir 23:9; m. Dem. 2:3), one wonders whether Jesus' command is to be understood literally as forbidding all oaths. (Tolstoy went so far as to affirm that Jesus' words require the abolition of courts.) Perhaps indeed the situation envisaged is not swearing in court but swearing in everyday speech. However that may be, early Christian literature does not show much aversion to swearing (e.g. Gal 1:20; Rev 10:6; Prot. Jas. 4:1), and Matthew itself seems to presuppose the validity of certain oaths (23:16-22). Further, the reduction of speech to 'yes» 7es> and 'no, no' is obviously hyperbole. (The meaning of this last appears to be: let your yes be true and your no be true; or perhaps: let your yes be only yes—not yes and an oath—and let your no be no—not no and an oath.)
(5:43—8) The material on love of one's enemy, as the last of the six paragraphs introduced by 5:17-20, is climactic, and it contains the most important and most difficult commands. Jesus begins by quoting Lev 19:18 ('Love your neighbour'), which he will again quote—and uphold—in 19:19 and 22:39. But 'hate your enemy' is not found in the OT, although similar sentiments appear (e.g. Deut 7:2; the closest parallels occur in the Dead Sea scrolls, where the sons of light hate the sons of darkness). Jesus does not contradict Lev 19:18 but goes beyond it. For the Pentateuch understands 'neighbour' as fellow Israelite, and this allows one to confine love to one's own kind, or even to define 'neighbour' in opposition to 'enemy'. These verses, however, give 'neighbour' its broadest definition (cf. Lk 10:29-37). If one loves even one's enemies, who will not be loved?
In the Mishnah oaths by heaven, by earth, and by one's own head are all viewed as not binding by at least some authorities
(e.g. m. Ned. 1.3). This may explain their appearance here. If it was claimed by some that oaths by heaven or earth or Jerusalem or one's head were, because not binding, not covered by Jesus' prohibition, w. 34—5 counters by linking heaven and earth and Jerusalem to God, thereby making all oaths binding and so nullifying any casuistic attempt to circumvent v. 340.
(5:38-42) Following the citation of the law of reciprocation in v. 38 (cf. Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21) Jesus goes on to offer a general principle in v. 39 which has four illustrations: the disciple is (i) personally insulted then (2) taken to court then (3) impressed to do a soldier's bidding then (4) asked to help one in need of funds. The brief scenes vividly represent the demand for an unselfish temperament, for naked humility and a willingness to suffer the loss of one's personal rights: evil should be requited with good. There is no room for vengeance on a personal level (cf. Rom 12:19).
The context equates enemies with those who persecute the faithful. This means those enemies are not just one's personal opponents but God's opponents. Further, 'love' is clarified by what follows: one must pray for enemies, do good to them, and greet them. Jesus is speaking of actions which benefit others. In this the disciple is only imitating God, who causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall upon all, not just the righteous.
These verses are not a repudiation of Moses. While in the Pentateuch the lex talionis belongs to the judiciary process, this is not the sphere of application in Matthew. Jesus does not overthrow the principle of equivalent compensation on an institutional level—that question is just not addressed—but declares it illegitimate for his followers to apply it to their private disputes.
v. 48 belongs first to the unit that begins in v. 43. Certainly the motif of imitating God takes one back to v. 45. At the same time v. 48 is the fitting culmination of all of 5:21 ff, for throughout the section Jesus asks for 'perfection', for something that cannot be surpassed. What more can be done about lust if it has been driven from one's heart? And who else is left to love after one has loved the enemy? 'Be perfect' is not a call to sinlessness; nor does the imperative posit two sorts of believers, the merely good on the one hand and the perfect on the other. Jesus' call to perfection is a call to completeness. (6:1-18) While the subject of 5:21-48 is Jesus and the Torah, in w. 1-18 the cult becomes the subject. The former has mostly to do with actions, the latter with intentions. That is, this passage is a sort of commentary on 5:21—48: having been told what to do, one now learns how to do it.
This passage shares language with Isa 50:4-9 LXX. There are also thematic parallels—both this and Isa 50:4—11 depict the unjust treatment of an innocent individual and use the terminology of the lawcourt. Clearly Matthew alludes to the third Servant Song; the allusion does more than inject a vague scriptural aura, rather do we see the truth when we observe that Isa 50:4—9 is again alluded to in the passion narrative, in 26:67 (cf27:3°): the scriptural text associated with turning the other cheek is also associated with the passion of Jesus. Furthermore, of the seven words shared by this passage and Isa 50:4—9, two appear again in the passion narrative—'strike' (rapizo) (26:67) and 'cloak/clothes' (27:31, 35). Indeed, 'strike' appears only twice in the First Gospel, here in v. 39 and in 26:67; an(^ in both places an innocent person is struck—just as in v. 40 and 27:31, 35, an innocent person's clothes are taken. So the allusions to Isa 50:4-9 are in effect allusions to the passion of Jesus. Put otherwise, this
The little cult-didache opens with a general statement of principle. Righteousness is not to be done in order to be seen by others (cf. Rom 2:28—9); right deeds must come from right intention, which involves humility and self-forgetfulness (v. i). The idea is elaborated upon in the three subsequent paragraphs. The first is on almsgiving, the second on prayer, the
MATTHEW 856
healthy' (ungenerous, cf. 20:15) one is f^U of darkness means that covetousness is a sign of inner darkness, w. 24—34 follow 19—23 as encouragement follows demand. The commands to serve God instead of mammon, especially when interpreted in the light of the rest of the gospel (e.g. 5:39—42; 19:16—30), are difficult, and their observance will bring insecurity. So w. 24— 34 are the pastor's addendum: they are respite from the storm that is the SM. Those who undertake the hard demands of the gospel have a Father in heaven who gives good gifts to his children.
third on fasting. Each opens with a declaration of subject
(w. 2 a, 5 a, 16 a), follows with a prohibition of wrong practice (w. 2b, 5/7, i6b), and gives instruction on proper practice (w. 3— 4, 6,17-18). w. 2-4 concern not whether one gives alms but how. The teaching is akin to b. B. Bat. gb: 'One who gives charity in secret is greater than Moses.' The blowing of a trumpet is probably just a picturesque way of indicating the making of an announcement or the calling of attention to oneself. But trumpets may sometimes have been blown when alms were asked for (cf b. Ber. 6b), so it is just possible that some unknown custom is being protested. There may also be a pun on the shofar chests that were set up in the temple and in the provinces. If the trumpet-shaped receptacles for alms could be made to resound when coins were thrown into them, perhaps our verse was originally a polemical barb at the practice.
(7:1—12) Matthew now turns from one social issue, what to do with and about mammon (6:19-34), to another, how to treat one's neighbour. The new subject opens with the imperative not to judge or condemn. This is not a prohibition of simple ethical judgements but rather a way of calling for mercy, humility, and tolerance. The verses about the 'speck' and the 'log' (w. 3-5) continue the theme of w. 1-2 but focus on hypocrisy (cf. Jn 7:53—8:11; Rom 2:1). But v. 6 is difficult.
The section on prayer, w. 5—15, rejects praying in public places with the intent to be seen by others and then goes on to spurn long-winded or repetitious prayer (cf. Eccles 5:2; Matthew's 'do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do' is consistent with his audience being largely Jewish Christians). There follows the Lord's prayer, a model of brevity. Although Christian tradition has usually understood the prayer as having to do with everyday needs, much is to be said for interpreting it as an eschatological prayer. 'Hallowed be your name', 'your kingdom come', and 'your will be done' may ask God to usher in his everlasting reign. The request for 'bread of the morrow' (NRSV marg.) may be a prayer for the bread of life or heavenly manna of the latter days. 'Forgive us our debts' may envisage the coming judgement. And 'do not bring us to the time of trial' may refer to the messianic woes
Some have even thought it without meaning in its present context. The point, however, is that if there must not be too much severity (w. 1-5), there must at the same time not be too much laxity (v. 6). While this much is plain, one does not know whether 'your pearls' stands for any particular thing. Should we think of the gospel itself (cf. 13:45-6) or of esoteric teachings or practices? w. 7-11 follow. They are the twin of 6:24—34. Both follow an exhortation (6:19—21; 7:1—2), a parable on the eye (6:22—3; 7:3~5)> and a second parable (6:24; 7:6), and both refer to the heavenly Father's care for his own. Both also argue from the lesser to the greater and offer encouragement for those bombarded by the hard instruction in the rest of the SM.
The Golden Rule (which was well known to pre-Christian Jewish tradition) brings to a climax the central section of the SM (5:17—7:11). Mention of'the law and the prophets' creates an indusio within which Matthew has treated the law, the cult, and social issues, v. 12 is then, in rabbinic fashion, a general rule which is not only the quintessence of the law and the prophets but also of the SM. Interpreted within this gospel as a whole it is certainly not an expression of 'naive egoism' (Bultmann 1963:103); nor is it even an expression of'common sense' or 'naturallaw' (Theophylact). Rather, as Luz (1985:430) has it, the Golden Rule is 'radicalized' by the SM: 'everything, without exception, which is demanded by love and the commandments of Jesus you should do for other people'. (7:13-29) The SM winds down with warnings. There is first the declaration about the two ways (w. 13-14), then the warnings about false prophets (w. 15-23), then the parable of the two builders (w. 24—7). All this balances the blessings which open the SM.
(cf. Rev 3:10), (see further Lk 11:1-13).
The Lord's prayer is followed by two verses on forgiveness. A similar sequence appears in Mt 11:23—5 and Lk 17:3—6. There appears to have been a traditional connection between prayer and forgiveness: prayer is not efficacious unless the members of the community are reconciled to each other.
(6:19-34) Th£ four paragraphs which make up this passage have to do with earthly treasure—w. 19—21 with not storing it up, w. 22—3 with being generous, v. 24 with serving God instead of mammon, and w. 25-34 wrth not being anxious about food and clothing.
The passage contains three antitheses—earth/heaven (w. 19—21), darkness/light (w. 22—3), wealth (= mammon)/ God (v. 24). The focus of the first is the heart, the second the eye, the third service. The determination of the heart to store up treasure in heaven or on earth creates either inner light or darkness while the resultant state of one's 'eye' (intent) moves one to serve either God or mammon. So one's treasure tells the tale of one's heart.
v. 14 is not a dogmatic calculation that most human beings will go to hell. Not only does this interpretation clash with the use of'many' in 8:11 and 20:28, but hyperbolic declarations are common in Jewish hortative material (cf. m. Qidd. i.io: 'If one performs a single commandment it will be well with him and he shall have length of days and shall inherit the land; but if he neglects a single commandment it shall be ill with him and he shall not have length of days and shall not inherit the land'). It probably means that one should act as if only a very few will enter Paradise.
w. 22—3 do not liken the eyes to a window but to a lamp (cf. Dan 10:6; Zech 4; b. Sabb. I5ib). The picture is not of light going in but of light going out. This accords with the common pre-modern understanding of vision, according to which the eyes have their own light (so e.g. Plato and Augustine). To say that when one's eye is 'healthy' (generous, cf. Prov 22:9; m. 'Abot 2.19) one is full of light means that generosity is proof of the light within—just as to say that when one's eye is 'un-
857 MATTHEW
will enjoy eschatological salvation—and (3) he heals the boy.
The identity of the false prophets in w. 15-23 is unknown, although suggestions abound (e.g. Pharisees, antinomians, enthusiasts). We can say no more than that they were Christians (cf. 7:21) whom Matthew wished to attack (cf 24:23-8).
(Cf. further FGS H.)
(8:14—17) Following the simple short story of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law there is a brief summary (cf. 4:23—5; 9:35) which offers the NT's only explicit citation of Isa 53. (But Matthew alludes to the chapter in 20:28; 27:12; 26:28.) The quotation attributes Jesus' healings to his spirit of selfsacrifice.
The memorable concluding parable in 7:24-7 stresses the gravity of Jesus' imperatives by taking a dualistic point of view: there are really only two responses, obedience and disobedience, and only two human fates, salvation and destruction. Shades of grey do not have much place in Matthew's moral exhortation. Many take the storm that strikes the two houses to stand for the calamities and afflictions of everyday life, but in the OT God's judgement can come in a storm (as with Noah's flood); and in later Jewish literature the trials of the latter days are sometimes pictured as terrible tempests (e.g. 2 Apoc. Bar. 53:7—12). Maybe our parable should conjure up in the mind the storm of the eschatological ordeal.