It seems that Matthew intentionally emphasises the importance of the Torah for his community. He highlights Jesus’ high regard for the continuing validity of the Torah. However, he demonstrates that Jesus interpreted the Torah differently from Judaist groups of those times. The intention of this article is to demonstrate this significant role of the Torah in the first Gospel. It is argued that the Torah holds a central position in Matthew and that the Torah continues to remain valid, but that Jesus teaches and enacts an alternative interpretation of the Torah.
The Torah forms a significant theme in Matthew’s Gospel, much more than in any of the other synoptic Gospels. It forms the focus of the Sermon on the Mount with its strong Sinai typology, and disputes about the Torah are repeated throughout the Gospel (e.g. Mt 12:1–14; 15:1–9 and 22:34–40).
It seems that the importance and interpretations of the Torah were contentious issues in the society in which this Gospel was written. It seems that Matthew intentionally emphasised the importance of the Torah for his community. He highlighted Jesus’ high regard for the continuing validity of the Torah. However, he demonstrates that Jesus interpreted the Torah differently from Judaist groups of those times, such as the Pharisees. He argues that Jesus had the superior knowledge and authority to do so. It might be that other Judaist groups in their society, presumably the Pharisees, accused Matthew’s community of disregard for the importance of the Torah and that Matthew intended to defend the position of his community.
The intention of this article is to demonstrate the significant role of the Torah in the first Gospel. The article argues that:
the Torah holds a central position in Matthew
the Torah continues to remain valid; but that
Jesus teaches and enacts an alternative interpretation of the Torah.
The research proposes that the central role of the Torah must be seriously considered when reading the first Gospel.
The central position of the Torah in Matthew is especially notable from the way Jesus teaches the Torah and proceeds to enact the intention of the Torah.
The Sermon on the Mount especially signifies the importance of the Torah in Matthew. This sermon holds a prominent position in the Gospel as the first of five great discourses. These discourses are the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7), the missionary charge (Mt 10:5–42), the parables discourse (Mt 13:3–52), instructions to the community (Mt 18:3–35), and the woes and eschatological discourse (Mt 23–25) (cf. Davies & Allison
Chiastic structure of Matthew’s discourses.
Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7).
Missionary charge (Mt 10:5–42).
Parables discourse (Mt 13:3–52).
Instructions to the community (Mt 18:3–35).
Eschatological discourse (Mt 23–25).
The Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7) parallels the woes and the eschatological discourse (Mt 23–25). The missionary charge (Mt 10) parallels the community discourse (Mt 18). The parables discourse (Mt 13) is framed by the above-mentioned parallels.
Each of these discourses is followed by a narrative on the actions or sayings of Jesus that are related to the preceding discourses. These five discourses serve as main building blocks or the architectonical structure of the first Gospel. It seems that this fivefold structure could be a deliberate imitation of the Pentateuch to indicate the relation between Matthew’s Gospel and pentateuchal material (cf. Bacon
In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew alludes to Moses when presenting Jesus (cf. Allison
In Judaism it was a well-known concept that the mosaic character could transmigrate to later legislators and teachers (e.g. Ezekiel). According to 4 Ezra 14 the scribe received the old revelation of Sinai plus additional new revelations (Allison
Beyond the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’ teaching on the Torah echoes in several other passages as well, for example Matthew 15:1–20
Once the Matthean Jesus ended the Sermon on the Mount, with its strong emphasis on the meaning of the Torah, Matthew tells that Jesus came down from the mountain (Mt 8:1) as Moses once did from Mount Sinai (Ex 19:14; 32:1; 34:29). Matthew thus apparently draws a parallel between Jesus and Moses, and the Mount of Jesus’ sermon and Mount Sinai (Carter
Matthew links the Sermon on the Mount and the narrative describing Jesus’ 10 miracles with two summaries of the teaching and the miracles Jesus performed (Mt 4:23–25 and 9:35), forming some sort of compositional frame around them (Morris
The summaries and composition of miracle stories in Matthew.
†, It is significant that the series of healing miracles includes one nature miracle, namely the stilling of the storm (Mt 8:23–27). Matthew moves this nature miracle from the context in which it is found in Mark and places it within a series of healing miracles (Mt 8–9). After presenting Jesus as the Messiah of the Word in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew continues to describe Jesus as the Messiah of the deed in the miracle narrative. The evangelist brings out a new motif by the context in which he places the miracle of the stilling of the storm. Before this miracle he places Jesus’ teaching on the cost of following Jesus (Mt 8:18–22) and afterwards Jesus’ calling of Matthew to follow him (Mt 9:9–12) and the question why Jesus’ disciples do not fast (Mt 9:14–17). Matthew interprets the journey of the disciples with Jesus in the storm and the stilling of the storm with reference to discipleship. The scope of the miracle is widened to become a description of discipleship and the church. When following Jesus one can expect tribulation and rescue, and storm and security (Bornkamm
The healing narrative describes a series of 10 miracle stories. Matthew tells a series of 9 healing miracles stories (Mt 8–9)
Miracle and discipleship sections of Matthew’s healing narrative.
Miracles 1, 2 and 3 | Discipleship | Miracles 4, 5 and 6 | Discipleship | Miracles 7 and 8–9, 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Matthew 8:1–17 | Matthew 8:18–22 | Matthew 8:23–9:8 | Matthew 9:9–17 | Matthew 9:18–34 |
As Moses performed signs and miracles, so did Jesus. Jesus can therefore be regarded as the new Moses. As early as 1927 Klostermann (
Matthew frequently affirms that the Torah continues to remain valid. It seems that Matthew intends to refute accusations that Jesus abrogated the Torah.
Bearing in mind the religious world of the Matthean community, it seems that a reconsideration of the correct interpretation of the Torah was an important and contentious issue in those times. Rome destroyed Jerusalem, the temple and the temple service in 70
It seems that Matthew firmly entered this debate on the importance of the Torah and its correct interpretation in terms of meaning and praxis.
Jesus makes a very significant statement in Matthew 5:17–20. He starts off with an emphatic statement about his mission. In Matthew 5:17 Jesus uses ἦλθον-sayings [I have come-sayings] in parallel form to firmly state that he did not come to abolish (καταλῦσαι) the Torah, but to fulfil (Πληρῶσαι) it. The Gospel teaches that Jesus brought and taught the intended meaning of the law. These words are probably both polemically and apologetically intended (Betz
This statement is reinforced in Matthew 5:18 with a solemn declaration (ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν; [for I tell you]) about Jesus’ respect for even the seemingly insignificant parts of the law (ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία; [one jot or one tittle]). Matthew 5:19 presents a double
The statement concludes with yet another solemn declaration in Matthew 5:20 with a
The requirement of greater righteousness (ἡ δικαιοσύνη Πλεῖον; Mt 5:20) confirms the continuing validity of the Torah. The word δικαιοσύνη fulfils an important role in the first Gospel, and Matthew uses this word primarily with an ethical meaning.
Jesus is depicted as the righteous One who is committed to fulfil all righteousness (δικαιοσύνη). Matthew 3:13–17 describes how John tried to dissuade Jesus from being baptised, but that Jesus demonstrated his determination to fulfil all righteousness (γὰρ ΠρέΠον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν Πληρῶσαι Πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην; [it is proper for us to fulfil all righteousness]; Mt 3:15). In the synoptic Gospels only Matthew describes how John tried to dissuade Jesus from baptising him, and of how Jesus responded with this determination to fulfil all righteousness (cf. Davies & Allison
The character of John demonstrates commitment to enacting God’s will. Later in Matthew’s narrative John is described as the prototype of a loyal follower of Jesus and δικαιοσύνη is identified as his distinctive attribute (Mt 21:32). John came in the way of righteousness (ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης), an idiom that implies the full spectrum of proper response to God’s will. Jesus’ and John’s righteous act (Mt 3:15) is balanced in this passage (Mt 21:32) about John’s righteousness, forming a wide
As John has acted faithfully according to God’s will, Jesus’ disciples are required to do the same. This is apparent from the use of δικαιοσύνη in the Sermon on the Mount. This word plays an important role in this sermon and could be considered to express the essence of this sermon (Davies & Allison
In the fourth beatitude Matthew’s Jesus mentions the intense longing for righteousness (μακάριοι οἱ Πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην; [blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness] as attribute of blessed ones (Mt 5:6). This implies a passionate and persistent longing for the ideal conduct in adherence to God’s ordinances (Davies & Allison
Δικαιοσύνη is mentioned again in the eighth beatitude, where the blessed ones’ adherence to δικαιοσύνη is the cause of persecution (Mt 5:10).
In Matthew 6:1 Jesus urges his followers to practice their acts of δικαιοσύνη in a sincere manner, not to impress people as the hypocrites do, but to adhere to the will of the heavenly Father. Matthew 6:1 warns against the pitfalls of practising insincere δικαιοσύνη (Strack & Billerbeck
In Matthew 6:33 Jesus urges his disciples to put themselves under the rule of God and constantly seek to do his will (ζητεῖτε δὲ Πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν [τοῦ θεοῦ] καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ; [but seek first the kingdom {of God} and his righteousness]). This implies thoroughgoing determination to continuously obey the deepest intent of the law (Mohrlang
In Matthew 5:20 δικαιοσύνη is described in the six
Following his foundational statement on the continuing validity of the law and its fulfilment (Mt 5:17–19), and his call for a higher form of righteousness (Mt 5:20), Jesus proceeds by arguing how the Torah continues to be valid and what this higher form of righteousness means in practice. It rather seems that Jesus objects to a literal and narrow interpretation of the Torah, since it causes the true intention of some stipulations of the law to lose their meaning (Barth
Though it might seem that Jesus with his third argument (Mt 5:31–32) objects to the order of Moses to a formal certificate in case of a divorce, Jesus rather argues that the certificate was intended to protect women within the harsh reality of men who abused them, and not as a means to easily dissolve a marriage (Luz
Though it might seem as if Jesus in the fourth argument (Mt 5:33–37) objects against Moses’ rules for the taking of oaths, it is rather that Jesus argues that the taking of oaths is only necessary in unjust societies. In the ideal and truthful society, the taking of oaths should not be necessary.
Though it might seem as if Jesus in the fifth argument (Mt 5:38–42) objects against Moses’ regulation on fair (the restriction of excessive) retaliation, Jesus argues that retaliation should rather be avoided and be replaced by benevolence. The thought is not that evil should remain unopposed, but that evil should be answered with good (Osborne
Jesus objects in the sixth argument (Mt 5:43–47) to an interpretation of the commandment of neighbourly love, which was understood in such a way that enemies could be hated.
The antitheses are concluded with an admonishment to be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect (Ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ Πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν; Mt 5:48). With this concluding statement Jesus shows that his explication of the Torah, as described in the preceding six
Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ objection that he ate with tax collectors and sinners (Mt 9:13) remarkably demonstrates his regard for God’s will. The introductory words, Πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν [but go and learn what it means], represent a rabbinic formula to urge pupils for careful Torah study. This means that they should ‘go and discern the sense of Scripture’ or ‘go and make a valid inference from the scriptural statement’ (Davies & Allison
Jesus makes a similar remark about the ignorance of the Pharisees in Matthew 12:7, εἰ δὲ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν [if you had known what this means]. Jesus expresses his disappointment with the fact that the Pharisees do not understand the meaning of Scripture. Green (
Jesus’ response to the Pharisees and the teachers of the law after they have accused the disciples for breaking the tradition of the elders (Mt 15:2) once again demonstrates reverence to the commands of God. The Παράδοσις [tradition] was a technical term referring to the collection of Jewish traditions. These traditions went beyond what was written in the Torah
Jesus begins his response with ‘and why do you break (Παραβαίνετε) the command of God (τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ)?’ (Mt 15:3). Jesus contrasts the tradition (Παράδοσις) of the Pharisees with the command of God (ἐντολὴ) and the Word of God (λόγος). This juxtaposition intensifies the contrast between God’s commandments and man-made legislation (Repschinski
It is therefore clear that Matthew is firmly committed to the adherence of the Torah in its true meaning. He does not intend to present a Jesus who brought a new or a differing law, but one for whom the Torah remains valid and important.
While Matthew argues that the Torah remains valid, he argues that the meaning and practice of the Torah is understood differently from Jewish traditions they encountered.
It seems that in the post 70
In such polemic the need for a group to find in the Torah its own self-affirmation had the inevitable corollary of making the Torah an instrument by means of which one group condemned another. (Dunn
In Matthew the evangelist similarly developed a subtle dialectic with his opponents. Matthew describes Jesus as the One who brought the definitive interpretation of God’s will (cf. Foster
Jesus’ alternative teaching of the Torah is particularly noticeable in his pronouncements on righteousness and his
The alternative teaching and praxis of the Torah is demonstrated in the use of δικαιοσύνη [righteousness] in Matthew 5:20 and 6:1. As argued before, δικαιοσύνη is used in an ethical sense. The righteousness that Jesus required should in quality transcend what the scribes and Pharisees considered as righteous.
In Matthew 5:21–47 this transcending form of righteousness (ἡ δικαιοσύνη Πλεῖον) as required in verse 20 is explicated in Jesus’ six antithetical
The alternative form of δικαιοσύνη is again explained in Matthew 6:1. While Matthew 5:20 deals with the nature of true δικαιοσύνη as demonstrated with six examples (Mt 5:21–47), Matthew 6:1 warns against practising insincere δικαιοσύνη. In a polemical context Jesus denounces the demonstrative religious performances of the Pharisees when giving alms (Mt 6:2–4),
Jesus was not impressed … with a theatrically altered appearance. Such behaviour may have been the norm for actors who sought the crowd’s applause, but it is singularly inappropriate for disciples who seek the Father’s approval. (p. 191)
Matthew’s Jesus contrasts such theatrical conduct with the righteousness that he considers to be pleasing to the Father in heaven. The contrast does not lie in what is done, but in how it is done. The Pharisees also gave alms, prayed and fasted, but according to Matthew they did it hypocritically in order to promote their personal reputations.
Jesus’
Each of these arguments opens with a common understanding of a stipulation of the law, introduced by a repetitive formula, either the full formula ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ([you have heard that it was said to or by the people long ago]; Mt 5:21 and 33), or the medium formula ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη ([you have heard that it was said]; Mt 5:27, 38 and 43) or the short formula ἐρρέθη δέ ([it was said]; only in Mt 5:31). These introductions are presented in two triads (see
The triadic composition of the introductory formulas of the antitheses in Matthew 5:21–47.
Each of these statements is followed by an antithetical response with the definite alternative interpretation of Jesus. Jesus time and again declares ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν [but I say to you], implying that there are deeper principles to the law than what is commonly assumed. The dominant note hinted at by the emphatic
The antitheses are concluded with an admonishment to be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect (Ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ Πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν; Mt 5:48). This concluding statement strongly echoes Leviticus 19:2: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ and Deuteronomy 18:13: ‘You must be blameless (LXX: τέλειός) before the Lord your God’. These texts imply perfect adherence to the Torah (cf. Ps 15:2; 84:11). By this concluding statement Jesus shows that his alternative explication of the Torah, as described in the preceding six
Besides his alternative teaching of the Torah, the Matthean Jesus also enacts the Torah differently. The following two short narratives serve as significant examples of this.
Matthew 9:9–12 describes Jesus calling a ‘tax collector’ as a disciple and having dinner with Matthew’s fellow tax collectors and
Through his behaviour Jesus expresses full acceptance of tax collectors and sinners. Jesus cuts the Pharisaic religious understanding and practice of who should be regarded as righteous and worthy of fellowship (Davies & Allison
Another clear example of Jesus’ alternative enactment of the Torah is demonstrated in the controversy story about the Sabbath (Mt 12:1–13). This short narrative emphasises a basic hermeneutical difference between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding the Sabbath observance (Overman
The Pharisees object to the conduct of Jesus’ disciples when they pick grain on the Sabbath. In their accusation they explicitly refer to the law: Ἰδοὺ οἱ μαθηταί σου Ποιοῦσιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν Ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ ([your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath]; Mt 12:2). Jesus does not dispute what the disciples have done, but challenges the Pharisees on their evaluation of the disciples’ conduct. Jesus argues that God wants the expression of loving-kindness on the Sabbath, rather than blind religious practice (Lybaek
Matthew argues this point in several ways. The Sabbath controversy is preceded by the invitation of Jesus that all who are weary and burdened should come and take his yoke upon them (Mt 11:28–30).
Matthew narrates that this conduct enflames the Pharisees, as they went out to plot against Jesus to kill him (Mt 12:17). Their dismay accentuates the alternative enactment of Jesus of the Torah.
This short narrative teaches that it is the divine will that mercy should be practised on the Sabbath (Carter
Jesus’ response to the accusation made by the Pharisees and the scribes that his disciples do not observe the tradition of hand-washing in Matthew 15:1–20 is another example of how Jesus practices the Torah differently. While the Pharisees are depicted as obsessed with external man-made rules to ensure purity, Jesus is depicted as being concerned with inner purity based on God’s Word.
While the Pharisees as well as other Jewish movements except the Sadducees supplemented the written Torah with oral traditions of the elders to ensure total adherence to the Torah, Jesus rejects these traditions. With the tradition of hand-washing the Pharisees adopted the requirement set for priests before they ate consecrated food and applied these requirements to themselves and all Jews, even when eating ordinary food (Booth
From these observations it is obvious that the importance and interpretation of the Torah forms a central part of the argument of the first Gospel.
As the composition of the Gospel alludes to the Pentateuch and Jesus’ character to that of Moses as Lawgiver, it appears that Matthew attentively presents Jesus as the superior and authoritative teacher of the Torah. In contrast to the 10 plagues in Egypt, Jesus performs healing miracles demonstrating God’s salvific activity through Jesus.
Matthew argues that for Jesus the Torah continues to remain valid. He therefore enters the debate of the Jewish society of those days on faithfulness to the law, seemingly to defend his community’s stance as followers of Jesus. He makes every effort to affirm Jesus’ commitment to the Torah, e.g. with Jesus’ foundational statement on the continuing validity of the Torah; the greater righteousness he requires from his disciples; his sixfold
It is, however, clear that Jesus upholds an interpretation of the Torah that differs from that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. This probably reflects a separation of the Matthean community as followers of Jesus from other Judaistic groups of those days. Matthew’s Jesus repetitively teaches righteousness that is alternative to that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Jesus also enacts stipulations of the law differently, which is significantly demonstrated by his association with tax collectors and sinners and his defence of his disciples’ conduct on the Sabbath and eating with unwashed hands.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
The classic publication of Bacon in 1930 on the structure of Matthew considers Matthew as a ‘new Pentateuch’. Though scholarship, since this publication has critiqued Bacon’s assumption (cf. Osborne
These words are probably both polemically and apologetically intended (Betz
The six theses (or examples) are all introduced by variations of a repetitive formula (
These three examples were central to Jewish piety during the Second Temple Period (Betz
In Matthew 15:1–20 the oral law, as observed and developed by the Pharisees, is in dispute (cf. Evans
Matthew 22:34–40 describes yet another scene where the Jewish leaders confront Jesus about the Torah. This scene concludes a series of hostile interrogations (
The nine healings are that of the leper, the centurion’s servant, Peter’s mother-in-law, the Gaderene demoniacs, the paralysed man, the ruler’s daughter, the woman with blood flow, the blind men and the dumb man.
Micah prophesied that Israel and Judah would experience a new exodus from exile: ‘As in the days when you came out of Egypt, I will show them my wonders’ (Mi 7:15). Some early Christians applied this prophecy to the ministry of Jesus: As Moses did signs and miracles, so also did Jesus. And there is no doubt but that the likeness of the signs proves him (Jesus) to be that prophet of whom he (Moses) said that he should come ‘like myself’ (Pseudo-Clementine,
Of the nine verses where ἐξουσία [authority] is found in Matthew, four occur in the miracle narratives (Mt 8:9; 9:6, 8 and 19:1).
Matthew probably had a specific pharisaic faction in mind. It should therefore be recognised that the Pharisees are depicted from the perspective of Matthew.
Matthew 5:10 is very similar to a phrase found in 1 Peter 3:14: ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ Πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι. τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε [but even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed]. This is probably a reflection of the same logion contained in oral tradition (Hagner
In an honour and shame society, one’s good reputation is sustained by the esteem of others who benefit from one’s public actions (Carter
Foster (
Matthew’s criticism of oaths surfaces in several instances: Matthew’s Jesus rejects the misuse of the
Such a prohibition of the swearing of oaths also occurs in the Damascus Document of Qumran (Vermes
Matthew’s Jesus probably responds to the popular understanding of the love of neighbours, which in practice leads to a negative attitude towards enemies. This attitude appears strongly in the Qumran Manual: ‘They may love all the sons of light … and hate all the sons of darkness’ (1 QS 1:3–4, 9–10).
While the Pharisees called Jesus
In contrast to the burdensome yoke of the Pharisees, Jesus invites people by saying δεῦτε Πρός με ([come to me]; Mt 11:28) and to take up his yoke, which echoes Wisdom’s call (Pr 8:1–7; 9:4–5; Sir. 24:19; 51:23–27). The ultimate wisdom is to be found with him (Davies & Allison
In the time of Jesus the tradition was still quite fluid and the use of such tradition to apply the Torah was regarded as quite innovative (Senior
It should be acknowledged that for many stipulations of the law, not only one interpretation existed among the Jews. Interpretations of Jesus do show similarities with some of these interpretations. It seems, however, that the Matthean Jesus objected to some specific interpretations.
Hands (
Prayer is intended as communication with God and not as means to build one’s reputation in front of people (Morris
The word ὑΠοκριτής [hypocrite] was mostly used for actors who consciously performed in a play. Batey (
The six arguments are on murder (Mt 5:21–260), adultery (5:27–30), divorce (5:31–32), oaths (5:33–37), retaliation (5:38–42) and love of enemies (5:43–47).
Tax collectors were associated with shameful characters such as beggars, thieves and adulterers (cf. Mt 5:46; Lk 3:12–13; 5:29–30; 7:34, etc.). Τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ [tax collectors and sinners] represent a disgraceful formulaic pair in the synoptic Gospels (Malina & Rohrbaugh
It was custom for the Jews to sit for meals, while reclining was done at feasts and parties. The festive character of the event is thus emphasised. Table fellowship and feasting in particular were regarded as important social events and symbols of closeness of those participating (Blomberg
Pharisees were scrupulous regarding what they ate and with whom they shared their meals. For the sake of righteousness they guarded their separation from sinners (Hagner
Jesus often shared meals with such people. He therefore was accused of being a ‘glutton and drunkard’ and a ‘friend of tax collectors and sinners’ (Mt 11:9 and Lk 7:34; Sanders
During the Second Temple Period the term