Module Eleven

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

11.1 Introduction

Fig. 11.1: Evangelist Matthew writing his Gospel. Lindisfarne Gospels, early 8th century. British Library, London.

Appearing first in the New Testament canon, the Gospel of Matthew has taken a prominent role among the Gospels throughout the history of the Church. Matthew is a little shorter in length than Luke and over fifty percent longer than Mark. Although Matthew shares numerous similarities with Mark and Luke, it contains episodes and sayings that make it distinct. For example only Matthew includes the Magi in the Christmas story, powerful proclamations about discipleship, resurrection of dead saints, and the Great Commission. Matthew has a distinctly Jewish character, portraying Jesus as a devout advocate of the Law, a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, and as rabbi par excellence. Matthew is also known for containing some of the strongest language directed against Jewish religious leaders—so much so that some have even speculated that the Gospel is anti-Semitic. 

11.2 Matthew’s Sources

Fig. 11.2: Matthew and Mark from Jacob Jordaens, “The Four Evangelists,” c. 1639. Louvre Museum, Paris.

Did the author of Matthew use any sources in the composition of his Gospel? The majority of scholars answer this question in the affirmative by confidently pointing to three major sources. The first, and most important, source is the Gospel of Mark, whose relationship to Matthew was discussed in chapter nine. Most of Mark’s content is found in Matthew, albeit in edited form. Mark not only provided many of the episodes and sayings, but also the structure and chronology of events. Mark lays the foundation for a one-year ministry that begins in Galilee and ends in Jerusalem. 

Info Box 11.1: Material Matthew Omitted
Although Matthew used Mark as a source, he did not utilize all of the material. Matthew was selective. The following sections are found in Mark, but omitted by Matthew.

1:21–28         Exorcism of unclean spirit from man in synagogue
1:35–38        Morning prayer interrupted
4:26–29       Parable of seed growing secretly (“automatic growth”)
7:31–37        Healing of deaf and dumb man
8:22–26       Healing of blind man of Bethsaida
9:38–40       Disciples rebuke an exorcist who does not follow them
12:41–44      Story of the widow’s mite
14:51–52      Flight of young man in the garden

Second, the author of Matthew relies on the Q material, which is sometimes called the Q Gospel. To review, the material that is common to only Matthew and Luke is called Q (for the German Quelle, which means “source”). The content of Q is made up of Jesus sayings that are firmly rooted in Judaism. Q does not contain narrative portions, the birth account, or the resurrection account. Some Matthew scholars like Ulrich Luz argue that the Q sayings of Jesus can be dated to the 40s CE and stem from a group of evangelistic Jewish Christians who eventually founded Matthew’s community. The author of Matthew used Q extensively. For example, the Q material is the basis for Jesus’ main discourses. For a list of the contents of Q, see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html

Fig. 11.3: “Jesus’ Temptation on the Mountain” by Duccio di Buoninsegna, c. 1310, Frick Collection, New York City Museum. The extended temptation accounts in Matthew and Luke are part of the Q material because they very similar, in contrast to Mark. Note, however, how the last two temptations are reversed.

The third source is variously called “special Matthean material,” “Matthew’s special sayings material,” “M Source” or simply designated as the letter “M.” This is the material that is unique to Matthew, and is not included in Mark or Luke. The origin of this material is not restricted to the author. It could have originated in the early church, among Jesus’ disciples, or possibly even with Jesus. Several scholars have speculated that the M material should be dated around 30-50 CE. 

Info Box 11.2: The M Material
If M were a written document it would have included the following sections.

1:2-25                           Genealogy to Abraham; Joseph in birth narrative
2:1-21                            Visit of the Magi from the East; Flight to Egypt
5:17-20                        Fulfilling the Law
7:6                                Pearls before Swine
10:5-6                          Limited mission to Israel
11:28-30                       Invitation to rest
13:24-30; 36-52          Parables: weeds, treasure, pearl, and net
14:28-31                       Peter’s attempt to walk on water
16:17-19                       Peter’s blessing as Church leader
17:24-27                      Peter paying the temple tax
18:15-35                      Church policy; Peter’s question; Parable of the servant
20:1-6                          Parable of the labourers in the vineyard
21:28-32                      Parable of the two sons
23:7-22                       Prohibition against authority; Critique of Pharisees
25:1-13                        Parable of the Bridesmaids
25:31-46                     Description of the last Judgment
27:3-10                       Death of Judas
27:24-25                    Pilate washes his hands
27:52-53                    Awakening of the sleeping saints
27:62-66; 28:11-20 Guard at the Tomb; The Great Commission

11.3 Authorship

Fig. 11.4: In the history of Christianity Matthew the evangelist has been symbolized as a winged man or angel because his Gospel begins with Jesus’ human ancestry. This symbol is from the Book of Kells, c. 800. Trinity College Library, Dublin.

The author of Matthew does not identify himself. The title at the top of the Gospel, which is today found in every modern translation, was probably not included in the original autograph. The titles of all the Gospels were most likely added when they began to circulate together in the second century. Throughout the history of the church, Matthew’s Gospel was attributed to the tax collector Matthew, also known as Levi, who became one of Jesus’ disciples (Matt 9:9-13). Today, scholars express diverse opinions about the authorship of Matthew. Some even argue that Matthew’s name was attributed to this Gospel posthumously by his followers in order to give it apostolic authority. 

11.3.1 Matthean Authorship - The Papias Tradition

The earliest reference to Matthew as the author of the First Gospel comes from Papias, who was the bishop of Hierapolis (in today’s Turkey) in the early part of the second century. This is the same bishop we encountered in the previous chapter on Mark. Unfortunately, we do not have the writings of Papias. However, his testimony about the authorship of Matthew is preserved by the fourth century church historian Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. According to Eusebius, Papias writes (in c. 120 CE), “Matthew composed the sayings [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language and each interpreted them as best as he could” (Eccl. Hist. 3.39.16).

Fig. 11.5: Ruins from the ancient city of Hierapolis, which is today’s Pumakkale, Turkey.

The testimony of Papias, however, is very difficult to translate because some of the original Greek terms can convey more than one meaning. The term “composed” can also be translated as “compiled” or “arranged.” The term “sayings,” logia in Greek, can also be translated as “gospels” or “accounts.” The Greek word for “Hebrew” is also the same word for “Aramaic.” The word “interpreted” can also mean “translated.” Finally, the term for “language” can also be translated as “style.” With so much ambiguity, we are not exactly what Papias meant.

Fig. 11.6: Ruins of the theatre in Hierapolis, which is one of the best preserved from the Roman period.

The second century Church Father Irenaeus (130-200 CE) affirms much of what Papias says, writing, “Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church” (Against Heresies 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 5.8.2). Since the language is so similar to Papias, many scholars believe that Irenaeus depended on him or that both men relied on a common source. Irenaeus’ use of “Hebrews” is most likely a reference to Jews living in Palestine.

Later Church Fathers echo the same tradition. Many of these are also recorded by Eusebius. For example, Origen (185-254 CE) writes, “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language” (Eccl. Hist. 6.25.3-4). Eusebius himself follows the same tradition, writing, “For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence” (Eccl. Hist. 3.24.6).

Fig. 11.7: While both Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of manuscripts have been discovered, such as the above Book of War (11Q Sefer ha-Milhama), dated to about 50 CE, none are of the New Testament. Our earliest and best manuscripts are in Greek. Courtesy of the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library.

A handful of scholars today still hold that Matthew the tax collector wrote the Gospel. Although they do not endorse the traditional view that Matthew wrote the Gospel in a Semitic language, be it Hebrew or Aramaic, they nevertheless speculate that as a tax collector, Matthew could have been fluent in Greek. Since the Gospel is dated to the mid 80s (which would have made Matthew quite old), it is also speculated that Matthew could have been a teenager when he began to follow Jesus.  Several decades ago a few scholars proposed that Matthew may have been responsible for an early Aramaic edition of the Gospel, which was later edited and translated into Greek. 

11.3.2 Non-Matthean Authorship

With the rise of historical criticism, most Gospels scholars have been skeptical that Matthew the tax collector wrote the First Gospel and that it was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. After approximately1800 years of unchanged thinking about the authorship of Matthew, a shift occurred for several reasons. Three of the most common objections to Matthean authorship are as follows.

Fig. 11.8: “Calling of Matthew,” by Vittore Carpaccio, 1502. Scuoloa di San Giorgio degli Schiavoni, Venice.

First, since Mark’s Gospel appears to have been the primary source for Matthew, it is unthinkable for many scholars to imagine that an Apostle, like Matthew, would have relied on the writing of a non-Apostle, namely Mark. Even if Mark relied on the Apostle Peter as his main source, why wouldn’t Matthew simply rely on the recollection of his own experiences of Jesus. Why copy and rework Mark? 

It is particularly interesting to compare the two versions of the calling of the tax collector, who is called Levi in Mark’s Gospel and Matthew in Matthew’s Gospel. The author of Matthew seems to agree with much of what Mark says, which raises questions for historians. If Mark’s account is second hand, should we not expect some changes in the details of the calling by the person who was actually there? The main difference in the accounts is that Matthew’s Gospel includes a theological meaning of the event by having Jesus say, “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’” which explains his cryptic saying “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” 

Matthew and Mark’s accounts of the calling of Matthew/Levi, read as follows:

Fig. 11.9: Click on the image to expand.

Fig. 11.10: Jamnia, known as also as Yavneh. Click on the image to expand.

Fig. 11.11: One of the most important discoveries from Jamnia was this inscription from the Seleucid period period, which is written in Greek. The inscription contains a request to Antiochus V by the Sidonians. Archaeological Museum Beit Miriam in kibutz Palmahim, Israel. Photo courtesy of Hanay.

Second, the theological perspectives and the nature of the dialogues in Matthew reflect the concerns of a second-generation Christian rather than those of Jesus’ disciples. For example, the author seems to be comfortable with Trinitarian terminology, which is a later development according to the best estimates (Matt 28:19). The author also uses the term “church” in the context of an institutional structure, which again points to at least a second generation Christian setting. In addition, many scholars have attempted to locate the fierce debates between Jesus and the religious leaders, which have come to characterize this Gospel, within the context of Jewish-Christian hostility that occurred around the time of the Jewish council of Jamnia (or Yavneh), held sometime between 80 and 90 CE. The documents that emerged from this council express very tense relationships, and even hatred, between Jews and Christians. As a result the council often serves as a touchstone for the dating of Matthew.

Fig 11.12: Ending of Matthew. Codex Vaticanus, early 4th century. VaticanLibrary. 

Third, it is commonly argued that the author did not write the Gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew, but in Greek. None of our early extant manuscripts are written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Our earliest and best textual evidence is in Greek. In addition, grammarians have found little evidence to indicate that Matthew is a translation. The Gospel contains word plays that only function in Greek (e.g. 6:16; 21:41; 24:30), and most of the quotations from scripture are taken from the Septuagint (e.g. 1:23; 11:10; 12:21; 13:14–15; 21:16), which is indicative of the author’s familiarity with the Greek language. 

In the end, it is unlikely that Matthew the Apostle was the author of the Gospel as we have it today. There is a caveat here, however. It is conceivable that the Apostle Matthew may have been connected with a group of Jewish Christians responsible for the writing of Q. If Q was originally written in Aramaic or Aramaic style, it may well be the very “sayings” (logia) of Jesus to which Papias referred. So, while the Apostle may not have written the final form, he may have played a preliminary role in the compositional history of this Gospel. In the end, we simply do not know.

11.4 Date of Writing

As with the other Gospels, the dating of Matthew is difficult to determine. The evidence is often circumstantial and the arguments are usually based on inference. However, in comparison to contemporary literature from the Roman period, we are in a much better position to offer hypotheses due to the amount of later testimonies about the evangelist and his Gospel, even if they are indirect.

11.4.1 Post-70 CE Dating

Fig. 11.13: Roman Sestertius with Emperor Vespasian on one side and the depiction of the Roman victory over the Jews on the other, 71CE. The Latin phrase IVDEA CAPTA is translated “Judea Conquered.”

The Gospel of Matthew is usually dated somewhere between 85-90 CE. Several reasons are offered for making this determination. None of these reasons, however, stands alone. The weight of the arguments rests on their cumulative force. First, and perhaps foremost, is the dating of Mark, Matthew’s most important source. Mark is often dated around the time of the Jewish war with Rome (66-70 CE). Allowing sufficient time for Mark to circulate and gain popularity, Matthew’s earliest possible dating would be the mid 70s. 

Second, Matthew depicts particularly hostile relations between the protagonists of the story (which include Jesus, the disciples, and John the Baptist) and the antagonists (the Jewish religious leaders). Scholars often see the hostilities between these two groups as representative of the conflict in Matthew’s setting. In other words, the views of the protagonists in the story represent the views of Matthew’s Christian community and the views of the antagonists represent the views of the Jewish opponents of that community. Such representations are commonplace in history. Anyone who is familiar, for example, with medieval art will immediately notice that biblical scenes are portrayed from the perspective of the artist’s contexts. Biblical characters are dressed in medieval garb and set alongside medieval architecture.

Fig. 11.14: Duccio di Buoninsegna, Christ before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26), 1311. Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Siena.

From this vantage point, scholars try to pinpoint when and where such strained relations may have been particularly intense during the first century. By comparing the Jewish-Christian conflicts in the first century with those depicted in Matthew, scholars are better able to date and locate the Gospel. Most reconstructions of Matthew situate the conflict between 85-90 CE. As was mentioned above, the council of Jamnia is often used as a touchstone for locating the hostile relations between Jews and Christians in that period. If Matthew’s Gospel represents an intense conflict between Jews and Christians, then it most likely arose in synagogue settings where Jews would have intensely debated the messianic identity of Jesus. At the root of the conflict was the question “If Jesus was the messiah, why was he not crowned in Jerusalem; but was instead crucified outside its gates?” What we don’t know, however, is whether Matthew is writing before, during, or after a conflict that most likely led to a schism within the synagogue.

The third reason why so many scholars date Matthew between 85-90 CE is that Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24 is viewed as a post-eventu prophecy. In other words, the predictions appearing in Matthew 24 are regarded as “foretelling after the event,” which was a common practice in early Jewish and Christian literature when a writer wanted to demonstrate the authoritative identity of his subject. This may at first seem strange or even controversial to modern readers, but it is important to step back for a moment and appreciate that Matthew, like the other evangelists, is fusing the past story of Jesus with the present conflicts that face his community. In a genre that is probably Greco-Roman biography, he is arguing for the messianic identity of Jesus in the context of hostile Jewish antagonism.

Fig. 11.15: Ruins from the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, Jerusalem.

11.4.2 Pre-70 CE Dating

A few scholars have resisted dating Matthew in the 80s. They have instead argued for a pre-70 dating, which requires an even earlier date for Mark. One of the main reasons why some opt for an earlier dating is that Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction is viewed as a pre-event prediction. This is certainly a legitimate reason. If Jesus was calling the people of Israel to repentance and they were rejecting his call, it seems reasonable to assume that Jesus might predict the destruction of the Temple as a symbol for the coming judgment, in much the same way that the prophets before him had done. After all, Jewish history was no stranger to Temple destruction.

Fig. 11.16: The Half Shekel, which was used for the Temple tax, 36-37 CE.

There is another argument that is sometimes presented in favor of a pre-70 dating. The evangelist writes his Gospel with an assumption that the Temple is still in operation. A few examples appear to indicate this. First, in 5:23-24 Jesus commands his listeners to heal their relationships before presenting an offering at the Temple altar. Second, in 17:24-27 it is implied that Jesus supports the payment of the Temple tax. Third, in 23:16-22 Jesus commands that one is not to swear by the sanctuary of the Temple. It is assumed that the evangelists would not have included these stipulations if the Temple were already destroyed. 

Many scholars are, however, uncomfortable with arguments like these because the setting of the story is in Jesus’ lifetime, when the Temple was in full operation. 

11.5 Place of Writing 

Since the author does not say where he is writing the Gospel, historians have to resort to educated guesses or theories that are based on clues from the text, called internal evidence, and testimonies from later Christian writers, called external evidence. Over the last two centuries, a variety of options have been proposed, such as Jerusalem, Caesarea Maritima, Edessa, and Alexandria. Most scholars today, however, argue that the evidence leads toward Syria or even more specifically to its capital in the first century, Antioch.

11.5.1 External Evidence

Fig. 11.17: Antioch (modern Antakya, Turkey) is labelled in red. Click on the image to expand.

Scholars usually point to four external factors in support of Antioch as the place of writing. Each is consistent with historical and social reconstructions of the Gospel. Again, it is the accumulation of evidence that gives the theory of Antioch its weight. First, since Matthew was widely know throughout the eastern Mediterranean basin in a relatively short period of time, it must have been written in a large city with close access to a major land route. Antioch was not the only city in Syria with access to roads, but it was centrally connected with all the other nearby towns of Syria. Second, Antioch was well known for its large Jewish population, which attracted Jewish refugees during and after the war. Third, Peter’s position in Matthew reflects his prominence in Antioch. We know from Gal 2:11 that he visited Antioch. Early tradition even records him as the first bishop of Antioch. Also, Simon’s name change to Peter was found in early Syrian-Christian traditions. Fourth, the earliest references to Matthew in the church are found in the writings of Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch. Ignatius was martyred in Rome some time between 98 and 117 CE, which makes his references to Matthew very early. 

Info Box 11.3: Ignatius’ familiarity with Matthew
In the Letter to the Smyrnaeans (1.1), Ignatius writes, “I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ in both body and spirit, and firmly established in love by the blood of Christ, totally convinced with regard to our Lord that he is truly of the family of David with respect to human descent, Son of God with respect to the divine will and power, truly born of a virgin, baptized by John in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him.” The italicized words sound very much like Matt 3:15 (“But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness’”). In the Letter to the Philadelphians (3.1), Ignatius writes, “Stay away from the evil plants, which are not cultivated by Jesus Christ, because they are not the Father’s planting. Not that I found any division among you: instead, I found that there had been a purification.” Once again, this language is reminiscent of Matthew. In 15:13, Jesus says, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.”

Fig. 11.18: Martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch, Monologion of Basil II illuminated manuscript of Orthodox liturgy, c 1000, Vatican Library.

11.5.2 Internal Evidence

The evidence from within the Gospel is meager, but there are hints that support the external evidence. First, the evangelist includes material that implies a Jewish audience living in an urban centre. For example, Matthew is fond of the term “city” (polis). He refers to it twenty-seven times, whereas Mark only uses it eight times. Does this suggest that Matthew is writing to an audience living in an urban centre? We are not certain, but it does not detract from the hypothesis.

Second, scholars have repeatedly pointed out that the Gospel was written for people living in much more prosperous conditions than Jesus and his disciples. The living conditions of Matthew’s audience/community appear to be on a higher level when compared to Luke and Mark, which is indicative of an urban setting. Note, for example, the difference between these two versions of the same parable.

Fig. 11.19: Click on the image to expand.

In Luke’s version the value of a “pound” was equivalent to about three months’ wages for a labourer, whereas in Matthew’s version, a “talent” was worth more than fifteen years’ wages.

Fig. 11.20: Floor mosaic found at Daphne-Harbiye in 1937 near Antioch, 2nd century. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. The image is of a wealthy woman, which may symbolize the affluence of the household.

Other examples are also noteworthy. In Mark 6:8, Jesus tells his disciples before sending them on their evangelistic mission to take nothing “except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts.” In Matt 10:9, Jesus tells them, “Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts.” The description of Joseph of Arimathea is particularly interesting in light of Matthew’s pattern. In Mark, he is “a respected member of the Council” (Mark 15:43); in Luke, he is “a good and righteous man” (Luke 23:50); and in Matthew, he is “a rich man” (Matt 27:57).

Third, several historians have pointed to Antioch as one of the most important Christian missionary centres after the Jewish war with Rome. If it was the hub for missionaries and prophets, then it may explain some of Matthew’s evangelistic comments, such as Matt 4:23-24.

Syria receives special treatment when compared to Mark, even though it used to indicate the whole region. In Matt 4:24, we read that the news about Jesus spread “into all Syria.” Mark does not mention Syria, but instead writes that Jesus’ “fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee” (Mark 1:28).

The Great Commission, which is unique to Matthew (28:19-20), has also been viewed as a reflection of the centrality of Antioch in early Christian mission. Generations later, Antioch remained an important centre for Christian life. Later Church Fathers refer to Antioch as an intellectual centre, influential in the practice of scriptural interpretation.

Info Box 11.4: Antioch in the Book of Acts
Antioch is also an important location in Acts, which was probably written within a decade after Matthew. According to this tradition, it was the location where the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians.” Acts 11:25-30 reads, “Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for an entire year they met with the church and taught a great many people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called ‘Christians.’ At that time prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine over all the world; and this took place during the reign of Claudius. The disciples determined that according to their ability, each would send relief to the believers living in Judea; this they did, sending it to the elders by Barnabas and Saul” (NRSV).

11.6 Purpose

Why did the author of Matthew write his Gospel? The answer to this foundational question informs how we interpret the writing. Since there is no explicit statement provided by the author, historians engage in reconstructive work, trying to isolate the issues, problems, or conflicts that may have led to the composition. Reconstructions of Matthew’s community are approximate because the Gospel only gives us the author’s response to issues or conflicts he is addressing. Imagine, for example, trying to reconstruct the topic of conversation from only the text or voice messages of the sender in today’s culture. Words, names, phrases, and entire arguments would have no explanations or definitions attached to them because they are assumed in the strands of conversation. So it is with Matthew’s Gospel (and indeed all the writings of the New Testament).

Reconstructions of Matthew’s Gospel and the community wherein it was written have not always been consistent. Since scholars differ on what is regarded as the best evidence in their reconstructions, multiple options have been proposed. In the search for the purpose, scholars try to isolate the editorial patterns found in Matthew, by applying the insights of redaction criticism (see Module 9). Since the author of Matthew used both Mark and Q as his primary sources, scholars focus on those parts that are unique to Matthew—his alterations, additions and omissions. These parts are believed to convey the evangelist’s perspective, and hence his aim. 

When compared to the other Gospels, there are two distinguishing patterns in Matthew that play a key role in determining the purpose. On the surface they are antithetical to one another. The first is Matthew’s strong Jewish character. The second is the apparent anti-Jewish tone.

Fig. 11.21: Christ portrayed in the figure of Orpheus playing his lyre, 3rd century. Catacomb of Domitilla, Rome. Some scholars have argued that the image of David is also implied. This Orpheus-David-Christ parallel has been found on several 3rd and 4th century sarcophigi and catacomb walls. The figure may symblize Jesus’ ability to tame the wild beasts and the human heart. 

Matthew has often been said to be the most Jewish of the Gospels. The others certainly contain Jewish features, but for Matthew’s author they are emphasized. Consider a few examples. (1) Jesus is compared to biblical figures, especially Moses and David. Like Moses, Jesus delivers the (new) law on a mountain in the Sermon on the Mount. (2) Jesus’ genealogy is creatively associated with David. 

Info Box 11.5: Jesus as the New David
In Matthew’s version of the genealogy, there are three sets of fourteen generations. In Jewish numbering, called gemetria, letters are given numerical value. David’s name has three consonants which add up to “fourteen.” Moreover, David’s name appears in the fourteenth position in the genealogy, appears at the beginning of the genealogy, and then twice at the end.

Fig. 11.22: This is a decorative manuscript illumination of the first letter “L” (Latin for Liber, meaning “book”) in Matthew’s Gospel in the Stavelot Bible (Add MS 28107, f 142v), 11th century. Courtesy of the British Library, London. Liber Generatis is translated “the book of the genealogy...”

(3) Matthew is fond of changing the focus of Jesus’ teaching from the “kingdom of God” to the “kingdom of heaven.” Both have the same meaning, but the latter was a common Jewish idiom. (4) Matthew’s interpretation of scripture has a midrashic character. Midrash, as it was discussed in chapter five, refers to the Jewish practices of interpretation, which often contained expansions. One example is the story of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus (27:3-10), which is often regarded as a midrash on Zech 11:12-13. (5) Only Matthew has Jesus identify himself as one who does not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (5:17). (6) In Matthew, Jesus’ agenda is focused on the “lost sheep of Israel” (10:6). (7) Finally, even Matthew’s structure reflects Jewish tradition. After the infancy account, the Gospel takes on a fivefold structure, which may intentionally reflect the five books of Moses (the Pentateuch). 

Info Box 11.6: Matthew’s Torah-like Structure
Each of the five major sections in Matthew contains a narrative and a discourse, followed by the phrase “And it happened, when Jesus had finished sayings these things, that...” (7:28-29; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). Was this structure intended to serve as the new Law—the new five books—given by the new Moses, Jesus? Whatever meaning was originally intended, the following fivefold structure was clearly intentional.
Book 1 on righteous living (narrative, ch. 3-4; discourse, ch. 5-7)
Book 2 on discipleship (narrative, ch. 8-9; discourse, ch. 10)
Book 3 on the kingdom of heaven (narrative, ch. 11-12; discourse, ch. 13)
Book 4 on the church (narrative, ch. 14-17; discourse, ch. 18)
Book 5 on the end of the age (narrative, ch. 19-22; discourse, ch. 23-25)

Alongside Matthew’s Jewish character, we find hostile interactions between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders. The frequency and intensity of these interactions surpasses the other Gospels. Had this Gospel not been written by a Jewish writer, it could easily be deemed anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. Consider a few examples. (1) Matthew 23 contains seven woes or condemnations against the scribes and Pharisees, which are the most severe of any Gospel. (2) Only in Matthew does Jesus call the Jewish leaders a “brood of vipers” and “evil” (12:33-34). (3) The scribe who is praised in Mark (12:28-34) is presented as Jesus’ opponent in Matt 22:34-40. (4) Gentiles appear to be more favored than the Jews. For instance, in 21:43 Jesus tells the Jewish leaders that “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it,” and in 27:25 the Jewish people take responsibility for Jesus’ execution, saying, “Let his blood be on us and our children.” Yet there are also passages in this Gospel that do not portray the Gentiles in a good light (e.g. 6:7).

Fig. 11.23: Jesus giving the law to Peter, late 4th century sarcophagus. Musée de l’Arles Antique, Arles. Courtesy of Ad Meskens. The implication in this portrayal is that Jesus has the authority to take the law from the Jews and give it to the Church, which reflects the theme of Matthew. 

In summary, scholars try to unpack the social context of this Jewish Christian author writing a Gospel that contains a strong Jewish character along with an anti-Jewish tone—no small task. While the Gospel was clearly written to a Christian audience, the ethnic biases have been interpreted in a variety of ways. Was this Gospel pro-Jewish Christian, pro-Gentile Christian, anti-Jewish, or some kind of amalgam? Was the Gospel intended for Jewish Christians in the synagogues or for Gentile Christians in the churches? Alternatively, was it written against non-believing Jews in the synagogues? Conflicts between Jews and Christians are well attested in the first century. We also know from the writings of the New Testament, especially Paul’s letters, that there were conflicts between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians (cf. Module 5). Are these also evident in Matthew? Reconstructions have led to several scenarios. 

11.6.1 Matthew as Pro-Jewish Christian

Some scholars have argued that Matthew targets Christians who preach that the Jewish Law is no longer relevant or required. These Christians, who were primarily Gentiles, argued that a life of faith is grounded on grace and not legal or ethnic requirements. Paul and his followers have often been associated with this group of Christians, who have sometimes been called “antinomian,” which means “anti-law.”  Paul for instance, did not require the Galatians to be circumcised or to follow Jewish dietary laws. In another example, Mark contains a parenthetical comment stating that Jesus made all foods clean (which does not occur in Matthew). If Matthew wants his Christian audience to be grounded in Judaism, then it is no surprise that Jesus is portrayed as a devout, ritual-observant Jew. One of the key supporting passages is 5:17, in which Jesus affirms, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.”

Fig. 11.24: Russian icon of the Twelve Apostles, early 14th century. The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow.

It is also argued that the mission of Jesus and his disciples is firmly focused on the people of Israel. For example, in Matt 10:5-6 we read “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’” This verse indicates that Jesus did not intend his message to be for the Gentiles at all, but rather for the Jews. Another example appears in 15:24, where a Canaanite woman shouts at Jesus to heal her demon-possessed daughter. His disciples, however, urge him to send her away, and so Jesus seemingly complies answering her, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Supporters of this view also point to Matthew’s anti-Gentile passages. For example, in Matt 6:7 Jesus instructs his disciples, “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think they will be heard because of their many words.” If we start reading from Matt 6:5, we notice that the term “hypocrites” is used in parallel with “Gentiles,” implying that hypocrites and Gentiles are synonymous for the author and, probably, his audience as well. Similarly, in Matthew 18 Jesus concludes his instructions to the disciples on how to deal with unrepentant sinners by explaining, “If the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (18:17). Here “Gentile” occurs in parallel with “tax collector.” Later in the story Jesus tells his disciples, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and that their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you” (20:25–26). Elsewhere, Gentiles are understood to be synonymous with vanity and greed.

11.6.2 Matthew as Pro-Gentile-Christian

Other scholars take an entirely different approach. By focusing on positive references to the Gentiles, they argue that Matthew has a pro-Gentile agenda. Much of the evidence for this position is implicit. Several passages are regularly presented as support. (1) The implicit evidence is immediately spotted in Jesus’ genealogy with the inclusion of the Gentiles Rahab and Ruth (1:5). (2) Only Matthew contains the story of the Magi (Gentiles) visiting the newborn Jesus and paying him homage as the king of the Jews (2:1-12). (3) After healing the centurion’s Gentile servant, Jesus declares, “Truly I tell you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel” (8:10). (4) At the end of a lengthy quotation taken from Isaiah 42, Jesus implies that his ministry includes the Gentiles, saying, “And in his name the Gentiles will hope” (12:21).

Fig. 11.25: Fresco if the magi approaching the Virgin and child, 3rd century. Catacomb of Priscilla, Rome. This is the earliest known image of the magi.

In addition to individual passages that include references to the Gentiles, advocates of this position also point to Jesus’ parables, which imply a pro-Gentile agenda. Two parables that often surface are the parable about the wicked tenants (21:33-46) and the parable of the marriage banquet (22:1-10). In the parable about the wicked tenants, Jesus explains how the landowner sent his slaves to collect the harvest from the tenants. After several failed attempts, the landowner sends his son, but the tenants kill him. Then Jesus asks his audience, “Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” The crowd renders its sentence: “He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time.” If the tenants represent Israel, then the Jewish crowd answers ironically, implying that God should choose other tenants, namely the Gentiles.

Fig. 11.26: Fresco of a Roman banquet, 3rd century. Catacomb of Marcellinus and Peter, Rome.

In the parable of the wedding banquet (22:1-10), Jesus tells a story of a king who invited all the people of his land to the wedding banquet for his son. Invitations were sent, but no one responded. After punishing his subjects for not responding, the king ordered his servants to “Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.” The secondary invitation is often taken to be a reference to the Gentiles. This explains why Jesus concludes the parable by saying, “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation that produces its fruit” (21:43).

Finally, supporters of this view point to two explicit references where the Gentiles are the recipients of the gospel message. The first is 24:14 where Jesus prophecies that there will be trials and persecutions for his followers, which will inevitably lead to the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom throughout the world “as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come.” The second reference is the Great Commission, where Jesus commands his disciples, “Go and make disciples of all nations” (28:10).  

11.6.3 The Gospel as Anti-Jewish

Since Matthew contains numerous confrontations between Jesus and the Jewish religious authorities (along with some Jewish crowds), some scholars have argued that the Gospel is anti-Jewish. This is not to be equated with the long-standing anti-Semitic sentiment woven throughout the history of Christianity. It is not directed at ethnicity. Rather Matthew’s purpose, according to this view, is to show that those Jews who reject Jesus’ messianic identity are mistaken and culpable for not recognizing God’s message of restoration. Their rejection results in their exclusion from the promised good news of the kingdom of God. It must be remembered that Matthew is not a reconstruction of the animosity between Jesus and the “Jews.” For Matthew’s audience, the antagonists would have represented the Jewish leadership, which probably had strong ties to the Pharisees. From this perspective, the purpose of the Gospel would have been to challenge and denounce the opposition of other Jewish communities to Matthew’s community. As the main protagonist, Jesus takes on the voice of Matthew’s group.

Fig. 11.27: Depiction of two Jews being killed by crusaders as revenge for the death of Jesus, c. 1250. Manuscript illumination from a French Bible. Courtesy of the Granger Collection.

A few selections demonstrate Matthew’s sharp denunciations. (1) Matthew contains several references to synagogues that imply distance, describing them as “their synagogues” (4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54) and “your synagogues” (23:34), never as “our synagogues.” Matt 10:17 is particularly harsh: “Beware of them [Jews], for they will hand you over to the councils and flog you in their synagogues.” (2) Matthew‘s hostile depiction of the scribes and Pharisees is unrivaled among the writings of the New Testament. The author goes out of his way to describe them as inferior to Jesus in matters of morality and the interpretation of scripture. This is clearly expressed at the end of the Sermon on the Mount where the narrator says, “Now when Jesus had finished saying these things the crowds were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (7:28-29). One of the most blatant condemnations, however, is found in a series of “woes” against the Pharisees in Matthew 23, the last of which reads:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, and you say, “If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.” Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors. You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell? (23:29-33 NRSV)     

(3) In addition to the condemnation of the Jewish religious leadership, Matthew contains a few texts that also incriminate the broader Jewish population. A particularly strong condemnation is found in 27:25 which places the guilt of Jesus’ death on the Jewish establishment, the crowds, and their descendants. Matthew has them say, “His blood be on us and our children.” This passage has unfortunately contributed to centuries of anti-Semitism throughout Europe.

Info Box 11.7: Matt 27:25 and Anti-Semitism
For centuries in Christianized Europe, the crowd’s response in Matt 27:25 to the sentencing of Jesus has been used to justify unspeakable suffering that was inflicted on the Jews. During the Middle Ages, Passion plays were followed by personal violence, the burning of synagogues, and destruction of Jewish property. Passages like Matt 27:25 incited Christians to call all Jews “Christ killers.” Many scholars, however, have had a difficult time verifying that such a chant or exchange of prisoners in the context of this passage ever happened. The passage my well be analogous to Jer 26:15 where the prophet warns the religious leaders of his day to heed his words or risk the consequences. It is also similar to the attribution of guilt in Josh 2:19; 2 Sam 1:16; Ezek 18:13; Acts 5:28; 18:6; and 20:26. If so, then in Matthew’s context, it should be seen as a Christian apologetic for the innocence of Jesus. While it is a condemnation of one Jewish group (namely Jewish Christians) against that of another (non-Christian Jews), it is not intended to be a castigation of an entire ethnic group. The Diaspora Jews are not even mentioned in this story. Also, it is as much an exoneration of Pontius Pilate, which historically does not line up with Pilate’s ruthless reputation. If Matt 27:25 is taken as an “in house” Jewish condemnation, then it is very similar to Jewish associations between disobedience and disaster, where the culpability is visited on later generations. For Matthew (like for many Church Fathers), the disaster resulting from the guilt of those who condemned Jesus is probably the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

11.6.4 A Jewish-Christian Gospel

The difficulty of determining an overarching purpose should seem evident at this point. The problem lies in the selection of texts that are used to constitute evidence. On the one hand, Jesus’ ministry can be interpreted as pro-Jewish. He calls for legal and ethical restoration. He views his teachings as the fulfillment of scripture. He also focuses on Israel as the object of his ministry, in contrast to the Gentiles. Yet on the other hand, as we have just seen, Matthew contains references that clearly condemn the Jewish religious leadership, even warning of their exclusion from the kingdom. In some of those cases, the Gentiles are the recipients of the promise. In order to resolve this apparent tension within the Gospel, some scholars have proposed an alternate purpose.

Fig. 11.28: Church of St. Peter, Antioch (modern Antakya). It contains a cave which is believed to have been used by the first Christians, including Peter himself. The oldest parts of the building are dated to 4th century. Strands of Christian tradition consider Peter to be the founder of the church at Antioch.

Everyone agrees that Matthew reflects deep tensions between the Jews and the Christians. There is also widespread agreement that Matthew’s intended audience was Jewish Christians who were firmly planted within the Jewish faith tradition, yet believed that Jesus was the messiah. In a sense, this group found itself in a unique position. On the one hand, they wanted to maintain their Jewish identity, but they were at odds with their fellow Jews who did not believe that Jesus was/is the messiah. On the other hand, they needed to relate with the growing number of Gentile Christians who may have had little exposure to the Jewish scriptures and traditions. It is argued that Matthew was written to address this tension from at least two interrelated vantage points. 

First, Matthew contains more quotations and allusions to the scriptures than any other writing in the New Testament. Often the quotations are preceded by a short preface (called a quotation formula) that includes a reference to fulfillment. The quotation formula in 2:15 is representative: “that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying….” Since the scriptures were a common source of authority, they are used in Matthew to argue that Jesus is the messiah and that his suffering and death are part of God’s plan foretold by the prophets. In response to the non-Christian Jewish opponents, Matthew provides its Jewish Christian audience interpretations of numerous scripture texts that support their position. Some scholars even suggest that Matthew should be viewed as an early Christian instruction manual for reading scripture. In the process, Matthew’s community would have gained confidence, perhaps in the context of synagogue rivalry, that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s plan.

Fig. 11.29: “Saints Peter and Paul,” Jusepe de Ribera, 1612, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. This scene reflects the disputes between Peter and Paul when they met in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14). As Christianity began to spread beyond Palestine, disagreements arose among Jewish Christian leaders whether or not Gentile converts to Christianity should observe the Jewish laws, particularly circumcision and dietary requirements. Decades later, when Matthew wrote his Gospel, the problem may have persisted.

Second, the gospel was written to address the problem of why the mission to the Gentiles was successful while the mission to the Jews was moving in the opposite direction. For Jewish-Christians, the large number of Gentile converts was unexpected and maybe even embarrassing. How would they explain to their fellow Jews that the restoration of Judaism was occurring among the Gentiles? Matthew’s answer was fairly simple. Since the Jewish establishment and many of its followers rejected the message of Jesus and his disciples, God offered the gospel to the Gentiles who willingly received it. While Jesus’ mission was initially to the house of Israel, it inevitably broadened. Consequently, Jesus’ message found a home among Gentiles and receptive Jews, whose community came to be called “the Church.” Matthew implies that the Church is the continuation of true Israel through which salvation would be preached to the world. 

11.7 Themes

11.7.1 Fulfillment

One of the most prominent themes in the Gospel of Matthew is the fulfillment of the scriptures. Matthew contains over sixty explicit quotations and countless allusions, far more than any other Gospel. This dependence on the scriptures suggests that Matthew wanted his readers to understand that the events in his narrative were the fulfillments of what God promised in the scriptures. We have already mentioned that many of the quotations contain a preceding formula that includes a reference to their fulfillment (e.g. 1:22-23; 2:15; 2:17-18; 2:23; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4-5; 27:9-10). The common formula in the other writings of the New Testament is “it is written.”

What does Matthew mean when he writes that the scriptures are fulfilled? Sometimes it is clear. It simply refers to the realization of past prediction. The quotation is taken from a prophecy that predicts a future event, and in Matthew the event is considered fulfilled because it has been realized in Christ. 

At other times, Matthew refers to scripture quotations, which are not prophetic, as being fulfilled. Since these are not texts that predict future events in their original contexts, Matthew appears to expand the meaning of fulfillment. Take, for example, the quotation from Hos 11:1 in Matt 2:14-15, which reads: 

Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.”

Fig. 11.30: Chester Beatty Papyrus VI (p963) containing 50 leaves from a codex that contained Numbers and Deuteronomy, 3rd century. Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. Photo originally from Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible & the Ancient Manuscripts (4th edition, 1939) p. 65, Plate VII. Digitized photo taken from http://www.katapi.org.uk/BibleMSS/P963.htm.

In the context of Hosea, there is no prediction or prophecy. The line in Hos 11:1 “Out of Egypt I have called my son” is simply part of a description of God’s affection for Israel. So how is this a fulfillment in Matthew? It is likely that this use of fulfillment refers to typology, which was a common interpretive technique among early Christians. Typology is a technical term referring to the comparison between figures and events in the Jewish scriptures and Jesus. So, in Matthew, Jesus’ exodus from Egypt is compared to Israel’s exodus from Egypt. That which happened to the former son of God now happens to the new son of God. 

Some have argued that Matthew’s fulfillment theme extends beyond scripture quotations and encompasses the entire Gospel. The entire ministry of Jesus is regarded as fulfillment. For example, as we have already noted, Jesus takes on the characteristics of Moses in Matthew. He is the fulfiller of the law, and the new lawgiver. He is also the new David, the new king of Israel, and hence the new son of God. Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom of heaven can be viewed as the fulfillment of God’s promises. 

11.7.2 The Kingdom of Heaven

All of the Synoptic Gospels record that the focus of Jesus’ preaching was the kingdom of God. Matthew, however, prefers the Jewish sounding equivalent “kingdom of heaven.” This is an important part of Matthew’s theology. He refers to “kingdom” more than any of the other evangelists (three times as often as Mark). Some scholars have even said that it is the most comprehensive concept or symbol. The preaching of the kingdom is not reserved only for Jesus, as it is in Mark. In Matthew, both John the Baptist and Jesus’ disciples participate in the announcement of the good news (or gospel) of the kingdom (e.g. 3:2; 10:7). While the kingdom of God is symbol for the reign or strength of God, its central referent is the person of God.

Fig. 11.31: Roman coin with the head of Tiberius Caesar, 27-30 CE. The inscription on the obverse side reads “Tiberius Caesar son of the divine Augustus.” On the other side is depicted the peace of Rome seated, holding an olive branch and sceptre, with the inscription Pontifex Maximus (“the greatest bridge-builder”). “Pontiff” was later attributed to Christian bishops. The bishop of Rome (later the “Pope”) was called the “Supreme Pontiff.” If Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God is viewed as a direct challenge to the kingdom of Rome, then the peace which Jesus offers is a subversion of the peace that Rome offers. 

The “gospel of the kingdom of heaven” (4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13) is an enigmatic expression that summarizes the message of Jesus and his disciples as they confront Israel, yet it continues to be debated among theologians and biblical scholars. At its core, the expression refers to the good news that the strength or reign of God has come through the presence of Jesus the Christ in both word and deed. This encapsulates Matthew entire Gospel. Matthew is not saying that Jesus is an agent of God on par with figures like Moses or David. Jesus may take on their roles, but he surpasses all prior biblical figures. He is born of God and is identified as Emmanuel (“God with us”). The relationship between God and Jesus is not explained, however. It is somewhat enigmatic. For instance, on the one hand, Jesus affirms that only God ought to be worshipped (4:10), yet, on the other hand, Jesus is worshipped several times without offering a rebuke (14:33; 20:20-21; 28:9, 17). It is difficult to apply later Christian theological categories to the relationship between God and Jesus. Matthew is written well before concepts of the Trinity surfaced and well within the confines of Judaism, which adhered to strict distinctions between God and humanity. Despite the enigma, we can say for sure that in Matthew, God draws near in and through his son, Jesus the Christ in the realm of humanity.

Fig. 11.32: Mosaic of the temptation of Christ, St. Mark’s Basilica, 12th century. Venice. The scene depicts Jesus’ victory over the kingdom of Satan.

The concept of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew conveys at least three dimensions. The first dimension has to do with time. The kingdom is present in the ministry of Jesus and his followers, but it is not fully realized. As the kingdom of heaven breaks into the human experience, it confronts the kingdom of Satan with the aim of destroying its grasp on the world. From this vantage point, Matthew’s plot is generated by a conflict between two kingdoms. But the presence of the kingdom of heaven is also a mystery. It has come in an unexpected way. It delays the inevitable judgment of evil. It is not visible to everyone, but only to those who “have ears to hear” and “eyes to see” (13:16-17). Since Matthew has written the Gospel for his congregation, it is assumed that Jesus’ message of the kingdom continues to be preached and experienced without distinction by his fellow congregants. While God is at work in the present, Matthew wants his readers to know that there will be a future consummation of the kingdom through Jesus, who will come as the “Son of Man” and put an end to injustice, evil, and opposition (e.g. 13:36-43; 16:28; 25:31-36). The righteous will be vindicated and their hopes will be realized. Then, Jesus as the Son of Man will exercise his divine rule openly over the whole world.

Info Box 11.8: The Kingdom of Satan
In antiquity, many Jews believed that the entire world had come under the control of Satan (also known as Azazel, Mastema, Beliar, Belial, Devil, Prince of this world). In the temptation account, Matthew even implies that he is able to give Jesus the kingdoms of this world (4:8-9). This belief was well founded. Since the righteous Jews suffered and their enemies prospered, Satan’s rule was to blame. It was believed that he caused havoc with both people and nature. Demons were believed to have inhabited human beings. The present age was considered to be an evil age. The good news of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew’s Gospel announces that the present age is on the verge of demise. Through Jesus (as partly enacted through exorcisms and healings), the strength of God has come to confront the present age and its ruler.

The second dimension is the growth of the kingdom. While the Jews have always believed that God reigns over the heavens and the earth, his rule is manifested through the ministry of Jesus and his followers. As Jesus preached the good news of the kingdom to Israel, so his followers take the same message to the “ends of the earth” (28:19-20). It is in this sense that the kingdom grows. This dimension of the kingdom appears in several parables, such as the Parable of the Mustard Seed (13:31-32) the Parable of the Leaven (13:33), and the Parable of the Tares of the Field (13:36-43).

The third dimension is ethical. This refers to the change in a person’s behaviour when he or she is confronted with a decision to choose to follow Jesus. The decision to choose Jesus requires repentance and is is portrayed as an “entering” into a new sphere. The choice is portrayed as being difficult and narrow, but it leads to “life.” At the same time that one enters the kingdom of God, one leaves the kingdom of Satan, which leads to “destruction” (7:13-14). For Matthew, there is no middle ground. 

11.7.3 The Church Community

Matthew is the only evangelist to use the term ekklesia (“church”) for his community. He uses it only on two occasions, though his discussion of the community is far more extensive. The first use of ekklesia occurs immediately after Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ. In response, Jesus tells Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (ekklesia), and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (16:18). Roman Catholics have traditionally interpreted the “rock” as Peter himself, and hence the first Pope. Some Protestants have tended instead to interpret the “rock” as the confession of Peter. Nevertheless, for Matthew, the exchange between Jesus and Peter (who is awarded the keys of the kingdom of heaven) is foundational for the Christian community. 

Fig. 11.33: Fresco of Christ giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter, Pietro Perugino, 1482. Sistine Chapel, Vatican. The keys are given to Peter because he confessed that Jesus is the Christ. In traditional Catholic thought, Peter is pronounced as the head of the church. Others argue that it is not Peter who is singled out, but rather his confession, which implies that all who confess receive the keys of the kingdom of God.

The second use of ekklesia occurs in 18:17 in the context of disciplinary action. Matthew’s church appears to have been one of the first communities that saw the need to apply institutional disciplinary actions against members who have wronged others in the community. The authority that was first given to Peter is now extended to the church community. Matt 18:15-17 reads,

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (NRSV).

In addition to these two references to ekklesia, there are indications throughout Matthew that the community is experiencing stress rooted in a division between true and false disciples (e.g. 13:29-30, 47-50; 22:11-14). The division seems to be caused by Christian prophets who are at odds with the teachings of the evangelist. They are described in Matt 7:15-23 as “false prophets” and charismatic enthusiasts who are practicing exorcisms and healings “in the name of Jesus.” The disciples are warned by Jesus, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” For Matthew, the church community should strive to be unified, obedient, disciplined, and forgiving.

Although the risen Christ was no longer physically present among his followers, he was nevertheless considered spiritually present in Matthew’s church community. His presence, for example, is found in prayer gatherings (18:20) and in evangelism (28:20). Some texts even indicate that the presence of Christ is the very fabric of the church. For example, Matthew equates the treatment of the church by its opponents with the treatment of Jesus himself (10:40-41). For Matthew, the church as Christ’s presence becomes the locus of God’s kingdom. 

As the locus of Christ, the church was viewed as the vehicle of God’s presence in the world. The church was neither a static entity nor elected for its own sake. Its goal was rather to reveal God through Christ in the world. What was originally the role of ancient Israel as the people of God is now in Matthew taken up by the church, which is identified as the “light of the world” and the “salt of the earth” (5:13-14). Its power and protection are unmistakable. Though the world may be opposed to it, Jesus assures Peter that the “gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (16:18).

11.7.4 Discipleship

Closely related to the theme of the church is discipleship. The word “disciple,” which means “learner,” occurs more in Matthew than any other Gospel. Since discipleship is the bedrock of the church, Matthew places emphasis on both teaching and learning. Jesus is the teacher of the disciples, who in turn become the teachers of the church.

Fig. 11.34: While the location of the Sermon on the Mount is not stated in Matthew, it has traditionally been identified as being on the shore of the Sea of Galilee between Capernaum and Gennesaret. In the distance is the chapel at the Mount of Beatitudes, taken from Capernaum. Courtesy Berthold Werner

In Matthew, Jesus is characterized in the role of the quintessential Jewish teacher (or rabbi) more emphatically than in the other Gospels. As we have mentioned earlier, even the fivefold structure of Matthew conveys the teaching program (see Info Box 11.6). In each of the five sections, Jesus engages in discourses that are intended to communicate what authentic discipleship entails. The Sermon on the Mount contains a good summary of Jesus’ expectations (Matthew 5-7). Disciples should strive to be perfect (5:48) by keeping even the smallest commandments (5:18-19), though not necessarily in an outward or visible way. Sincerity, inner purity, and love are the foundations for a life of perfection. The emphasis is on intentionality instead of performance (5:21-22, 27-28; 6:2-6, 16-18). Jesus conveys that intentions rooted in compassion lead to good actions.

The disciples in Matthew serve as representatives for the evangelist’s contemporaries, and Peter is the prototype of Christian leadership. Peter’s role as the leading disciple is emphasized and developed in Matthew. Only Matthew, for instance, contains the story of Peter’s attempt to walk on water (14:28-31) and Jesus’ promise of the keys of the kingdom, which bestows on him (i.e. the church) the divine sanction to exercise the authority of heaven (16:17-19). If Matthew was written in Antioch, where Peter probably lived for a time (cf. Gal 2:11-14), Peter’s influence would have been far-reaching. We already know that one of his disciples, the evangelist Mark, became a significant influence in the writing of Matthew. 

11.7.5 Interpretation of Scripture

In Matthew, Jesus’ teachings are often rooted in his interpretation of scripture. Since Jesus is from God, his interpretations (and hence that of the disciples) are accurate in contrast to the interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees. Since the voice of Jesus in the narrative of the Gospel is the voice of the evangelist and his community some fifty years later, Matthew and his congregation also believe that they have the correct interpretation of scripture in contrasted to their Jewish opponents. Since scripture is the common source of authority for both the church and the synagogue, it forms the locus of many conflicts. 

The evangelist believed it was possible to know the scriptures and yet fail to understand them. The ability to interpret the scriptures correctly was paramount. The religious leaders in the Gospel possess a sophisticated knowledge of the scriptures (see 2:3-6; 17:10; and 19:7), but Jesus frequently chastises them for not understanding their deeper meanings (e.g. 9:13; 12:3; 19:4; 26:54). For Matthew, the key to interpreting the scriptures lies in the teachings and actions of Jesus (5:20), who came to unlock their meaning, thus revealing God’s true intent.

Fig. 11.35:Mosaic of Jesus holding the scripture, 11th century. Hagia Sophia, Istanbul. Medieval iconography commonly depicted Jesus holding the scriptures, implying he is their fulfillment. 

The church is given the authority to continue and to expand Jesus’ interpretation of the scriptures, which is guided by several principles. These include a commitment to fulfilling scripture instead of abolishing it (5:17-19), a commitment to treat others as one desires to be treated (7:12), a recognition of the divine preference of mercy over sacrifice (9:13; 12:7), a priority of loving God and loving others (23:34-40), and a focus on the weightier matters of the law such as justice, mercy, and faith (23:23). In Matthew, the church is required to view the letter of the law through the lens of the spirit of the law, which implies a concern for compassion. 

Info Box 11.9: Fulfilling and Abolishing, Binding and Loosing
More than any other Gospel, Matthew presents Jesus speaking about the law in terms of “fulfilling and abolishing” and “binding and loosing” (Matt 5:17; 16:19; 18:18). In Rabbinic Judaism, the concept of binding and loosing are legal categories. The primary goal for Jewish teachers, called rabbis, was to instruct their congregations how they might fulfill the law and not to abolish it. To abolish the law was to interpret it in a manner that would contradict God’s intent. This would constitute an incorrect interpretation, and would lead to sin. By contrast, to fulfill the law was to interpret it correctly, which leads to proper living and righteousness. So when Jesus declared that he came to fulfill the law, he was saying that he came to interpret it correctly.

Jesus claimed that the law will remain until heaven and earth pass away (5:18) – and yet he set aside certain regulations. Was he contradicting himself? The concept of binding and loosing clarifies the paradox. Those laws that were no longer regarded as relevant were reinterpreted to meet new situations. Thus, their original meaning was “loosed” and the new interpretation was “bound.” For example, the destruction of the Temple demanded new interpretations of laws that dealt with sacrificial practices. In the same way, the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as an authoritative teacher who binds certain laws and looses others. The church carried on the practice.

Try The Quiz

Bibliography

Allison Jr., D. C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. 

Aune, D. E., ed. The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Carter, W. Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. 2nd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. 

France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Kingsbury, J. D. Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Luz, U. Studies in Matthew. Trans. R. Selle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

–––––. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew. New Testament Theology. Trans. J. B. Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Powell, M.A. God with Us: A Pastoral Theology of Matthew’s Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995.

Edwards, R. A. Matthew’s Story of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

Saldarini, A. J. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994.

Senior, D. What Are They Saying About Matthew? New York: Paulist Press, 1983.

Sim, D. C. The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1998.

Stanton, G. N. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Edingurgh: T & T Clark, 1992.