Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)

Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

ROBERT W. YARBROUGH

AND ROBERT H. STEIN, EDITORS

Volumes now available

Matthew   David L. Turner

Mark   Robert H. Stein

Luke   Darrell L. Bock

John   Andreas J. Köstenberger

Acts   Darrell L. Bock

Romans   Thomas R. Schreiner

1 Corinthians   David E. Garland

2 Corinthians   George H. Guthrie

Galatians   Douglas J. Moo

Ephesians   Frank Thielman

Philippians   Moisés Silva

1–2 Thessalonians   Jeffrey A. D. Weima

James   Dan G. McCartney

1 Peter   Karen H. Jobes

1–3 John   Robert W. Yarbrough

Jude and 2 Peter   Gene L. Green

Revelation   Grant R. Osborne

© 2008 by David L. Turner

Published by Baker Academic

a division of Baker Publishing Group

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

www.bakeracademic.com

Ebook edition created 2014

Ebook corrections 02.03.2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

ISBN 978-1-4412-0118-8

To Beverly

Contents

Cover

Series Page

Title

Copyright Page

Dedication

Series Preface

Author’s Preface

Abbreviations

Transliteration

Map

Introduction to Matthew

    I. Prologue/Introduction: Origin of Jesus the Messiah (1:1–2:23)

A. Title and Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah (1:1–17)

B. Birth of Jesus the Messiah (1:18–25)

C. Visit of the Magi (2:1–12)

D. Escape to Egypt (2:13–15)

E. Massacre at Bethlehem (2:16–18)

F. Return to Nazareth (2:19–23)

  II. Early Days of Kingdom Word and Deed (3:1–7:29)

A. Narrative 1: John and Jesus and the Kingdom of God (3:1–4:25)

B. Discourse 1: Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)

III. Galilean Ministry Continues (8:1–11:1)

A. Narrative 2: Three Cycles of Miracles and Discipleship (8:1–10:4)

B. Discourse 2: Mission and Suffering (10:5–11:1)

 IV. Growing Opposition to the Kingdom of Heaven (11:2–13:52)

A. Narrative 3: Three Cycles of Unbelief and Belief (11:2–12:50)

B. Discourse 3: Parables of the Kingdom of Heaven (13:1–52)

  V. Opposition to the Kingdom Continues (13:53–19:2)

A. Narrative 4: Various Responses to the Son of God (13:53–17:27)

B. Discourse 4: Values and Relationships in the Kingdom Community (18:1–19:2)

 VI. Opposition Comes to a Head in Judea (19:3–26:2)

A. Narrative 5: Ministry in Judea (19:3–23:39)

B. Discourse 5: Judgment of Jerusalem and the Coming of Christ (24:1–26:2)

VII. Epilogue/Conclusion: Passion, Resurrection, and Commission (26:3–28:20)

A. Preliminary Events and Preparation of the Disciples (26:3–46)

B. Arrest and Trial (26:47–27:26)

C. Crucifixion (27:27–56)

D. Burial of Jesus (27:57–66)

E. Resurrection of Jesus (28:1–15)

F. Commission by the Risen Lord (28:16–20)

Works Cited

Index of Subjects

Index of Authors

Index of Greek Words

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings

Notes

About the Author

Back Cover

Series Preface

The chief concern of the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT) is to provide, within the framework of informed evangelical thought, commentaries that blend scholarly depth with readability, exegetical detail with sensitivity to the whole, and attention to critical problems with theological awareness. We hope thereby to attract the interest of a fairly wide audience, from the scholar who is looking for a thoughtful and independent examination of the text to the motivated lay Christian who craves a solid but accessible exposition.

Nevertheless, a major purpose is to address the needs of pastors and others involved in the preaching and exposition of the Scriptures as the uniquely inspired Word of God. This consideration directly affects the parameters of the series. For example, serious biblical expositors cannot afford to depend on a superficial treatment that avoids the difficult questions, but neither are they interested in encyclopedic commentaries that seek to cover every conceivable issue that may arise. Our aim, therefore, is to focus on those problems that have a direct bearing on the meaning of the text (although selected technical details are treated in the additional notes).

Similarly, a special effort is made to avoid treating exegetical questions for their own sake, that is, in relative isolation from the thrust of the argument as a whole. This effort may involve (at the discretion of the individual contributors) abandoning the verse-by-verse approach in favor of an exposition that focuses on the paragraph as the main unit of thought. In all cases, however, the commentaries will stress the development of the argument and explicitly relate each passage to what precedes and follows it so as to identify its function in context as clearly as possible.

We believe, moreover, that a responsible exegetical commentary must take fully into account the latest scholarly research, regardless of its source. The attempt to do this in the context of a conservative theological tradition presents certain challenges, and in the past the results have not always been commendable. In some cases, evangelicals appear to make use of critical scholarship not for the purpose of genuine interaction but only to dismiss it. In other cases, the interaction glides over into assimilation, theological distinctives are ignored or suppressed, and the end product cannot be differentiated from works that arise from a fundamentally different starting point.

The contributors to this series attempt to avoid these pitfalls. On the one hand, they do not consider traditional opinions to be sacrosanct, and they are certainly committed to do justice to the biblical text whether or not it supports such opinions. On the other hand, they will not quickly abandon a long-standing view, if there is persuasive evidence in its favor, for the sake of fashionable theories. What is more important, the contributors share a belief in the trustworthiness and essential unity of Scripture. They also consider that the historic formulations of Christian doctrine, such as the ecumenical creeds and many of the documents originating in the sixteenth-century Reformation, arose from a legitimate reading of Scripture, thus providing a proper framework for its further interpretation. No doubt, the use of such a starting point sometimes results in the imposition of a foreign construct on the text, but we deny that it must necessarily do so or that the writers who claim to approach the text without prejudices are invulnerable to the same danger.

Accordingly, we do not consider theological assumptions—from which, in any case, no commentator is free—to be obstacles to biblical interpretation. On the contrary, an exegete who hopes to understand the apostle Paul in a theological vacuum might just as easily try to interpret Aristotle without regard for the philosophical framework of his whole work or without having recourse to those subsequent philosophical categories that make possible a meaningful contextualization of his thought. It must be emphasized, however, that the contributors to the present series come from a variety of theological traditions and that they do not all have identical views with regard to the proper implementation of these general principles. In the end, all that really matters is whether the series succeeds in representing the original text accurately, clearly, and meaningfully to the contemporary reader.

Shading has been used to assist the reader in locating the introductory comments for each section and concluding summaries, where these appear. Textual variants in the Greek text are signaled in the author’s translation by means of half-brackets around the relevant word or phrase (e.g., ⌜Gerasenes⌝), thereby alerting the reader to turn to the additional notes at the end of each exegetical unit for a discussion of the textual problem. The documentation uses the author-date method, in which the basic reference consists of author’s surname + year + page number(s): Fitzmyer 1992: 58. The only exceptions to this system are well-known reference works (e.g., BDAG, LSJ, TDNT). Full publication data and a complete set of indexes can be found at the end of the volume.

Robert Yarbrough

Robert H. Stein

Author’s Preface

I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge that in God’s providence numerous individuals have contributed in various ways to the completion of this project. I thank all of them, especially those mentioned below.

The editors at Baker Academic provided much help and encouragement while enduring my many delays in producing this manuscript. I especially thank Jim Kinney and Wells Turner. Robert Yarbrough’s work as BECNT editor was thorough and competent. His suggestions greatly improved this commentary. Former Baker editor Jim Weaver and former series editor Moisés Silva were of much help in the early stages of this project.

My professors at Cedarville University, Grace Theological Seminary, and Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion (Cincinnati) provided me with the tools for biblical studies and modeled the competent use of those tools.

Numerous scholars have helped form my understanding of Matthew. Those to whom I am most indebted include Dale Allison, Craig Blomberg, Dale Bruner, John Calvin, D. A. Carson, W. D. Davies, Robert Gundry, Donald Hagner, Jack Kingsbury, Andrew Overman, and Anthony Saldarini.

The administration of Cornerstone University/Grand Rapids Theological Seminary supported this project over the long haul. University president Rex Rogers encourages academic excellence and faculty publications. Provost Robert Nienhuis approved release time from classroom duties. GRTS president Doug Fagerstrom provided constant and enthusiastic encouragement. Former and current GRTS deans James Grier and John VerBerkmoes supported release time from my other duties so that more time could be spent on this project.

My faculty colleagues at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, David Colman, Joe Crawford, and Carl Hoch Jr. (all deceased), Steve Argue, Byard Bennett, David Kennedy, Mark Lamport, John Lawlor, Robert Lehman, David Livermore, Gary Meadors, Catherine Mueller-Bell, Peter Osborn, Noē Palacios, Robert Rapa, and Michael Wittmer provided encouragement and a community conducive to the ongoing study of Scripture.

The Dead Theologians’ Society, a motley crew of GRTS alumni, irreverently yet consistently calls me to intellectual honesty and spiritual accountability.

Four friends, Michael Forrest, John Lillis, Richard Sharpe, and James Van Stensel Jr., have helped me understand and live according to the spirituality of the Sermon on the Mount. Two special couples, Nate and Myrna Price and David and Denise Van Stensel, have encouraged and prayed for my wife, Beverly, and me for years.

It is a matter of course for authors to thank their spouses for patiently bearing with them during the long hours needed to complete a book manuscript, but the contribution of my wife, Beverly, vastly exceeds mere patience. At every significant point in my career she has believed in my dreams more deeply than I have, and her commitment to helping me accomplish my goals has been amazing.

Soli Deo gloria!

Abbreviations

Bibliographic and General

Hebrew Bible

Greek Testament

Other Jewish and Christian Writings

Josephus and Philo

Rabbinic Tractates

The abbreviations below are used for the names of the tractates in the Babylonian Talmud (indicated by a prefixed b.); Palestinian, or Jerusalem, Talmud (y.); Mishnah (m.); and Tosefta (t.).

Qumran / Dead Sea Scrolls

Greek Papyri

Classical Writers

Transliteration

Greek

Notes on the Transliteration of Greek

Accents, lenis (smooth breathing), andiota subscript are not shown in transliteration.

The transliteration of asper (rough breathing) precedes a vowel or diphthong (e.g., ἁ = ha; αἱ = hai) and follows ρ (i.e., ῥ = rh).

Gamma is transliterated n only when it precedes γ, κ, ξ, or χ.

Upsilon is transliterated u only when it is part of a diphthong (i.e., αυ, ευ, ου, υι).

Hebrew

Notes on the Transliteration of Hebrew

Accents are not shown in transliteration.

Silent šĕwāʾ, is not indicated in transliteration.

The spirant forms ת פ כ ד ג ב usually are not specially indicated in transliteration.

Dāgeš forte is indicated by doubling the consonant. Euphonic dāgeš and dāgeš lene are not indicated in transliteration.

Maqqēp is represented by a hyphen.

Introduction to Matthew

Overview

Matthew’s Unique Message

The Gospel according to Matthew equipped its original Christian Jewish readers with the teaching of Jesus the Messiah so that they might effectively spread the message of God’s reign to all the nations. Matthew’s story of Jesus sets the scene by presenting Jesus’s ancestral background and linking him to the ministry of John the Baptist. Jesus’s baptism by John is the occasion of his empowerment with the Spirit for ministry. Matthew presents this ministry in five chapters, each with a narrative about Jesus’s works and a discourse containing Jesus’s words. The story ends in Jerusalem, where God raises Jesus from the dead, reversing Jesus’s unjust crucifixion and empowering him to commission the disciples for world mission.

God’s reign is first announced by John the Baptist, whose message and fate anticipate that of Jesus. Jesus receives the Father’s endorsement and the Spirit’s empowerment at his baptism and begins his ministry of demonstrating the kingdom in Galilee by proclaiming the words of God and performing the works of God. Jesus’s ethical teaching is presented in the Sermon on the Mount as fulfilling that of the law and the prophets. His ongoing ministry of word and work in Galilee reaches out to marginalized persons of society but raises the hackles of some religious leaders. Jesus then teaches his disciples to expect serious opposition and persecution in their own ministries. As the Galilean ministry continues, opposition escalates, and Jesus is accused of collaborating with Satan. He then teaches his disciples through parables that reception of the kingdom message will be mixed. As the ministry continues, opposition becomes clearer, and Jesus again teaches his disciples. He promises to build his church but also speaks clearly of his upcoming death in Jerusalem. Despite his emphasis on self-denial, his disciples are preoccupied with greatness, so Jesus teaches them about values and relationships in their community. Jesus now turns toward Jerusalem, enters the city, and meets intense opposition from the religious establishment. After several heated arguments, he denounces Israel’s leaders and teaches his disciples how they must live in light of the destruction of the temple and his coming. One of his own disciples then betrays him to the leaders, who bring him before the Roman governor. Pilate crucifies Jesus and seals his tomb, but God raises him. Jesus meets his disciples in Galilee and commissions them to make disciples from all nations.

Matthew equips his Christian Jewish community with the Torahfulfilling teaching of Jesus on righteous living, on opposition during mission, on the mixed external reception of the message, on the internal values that characterize his community, and on how to live in light of his coming. This teaching along with Jesus’s powerful presence will enable the community to continue kingdom ministry to Israel and begin discipling the Gentiles.

Matthew’s Influence on the Church

As the first Gospel in the canon, Matthew has received a great deal of attention through the centuries (Kealy 1997; Luz 1994). Matthew is the NT book that influenced the early church most (Massaux 1990–93), leading to a rich reservoir of patristic commentary (tapped by Simonetti 2001, 2002). This prominence is mainly due to Matthew’s unique structure, which focuses the reader’s attention on the Sermon on the Mount and the other four major discourses of Jesus. The history of the interpretation of Matthew is outside the scope of the present volume, but it is clear that through the centuries the First Gospel has occupied the minds of many great expositors. The work of U. Luz has especially emphasized Wirkungsgeschichte, the history of Matthew’s influence on, and reception by, the church (1989: 95–99). Allison (2005b: 117–31) speaks appreciatively of the strengths and ongoing relevance of the patristic exegesis of Matthew.

Yet during the twentieth century, Matthean studies became somewhat passé, mostly because of the dominance of the Markan-priority view of synoptic origins. Many scholars who took this view held that Mark embodied an earlier and more authentic version of the historical Jesus. More recently, however, Matthew has begun to receive more attention, as evidenced by such commentaries as Beare (1981), Benoit (1972), Blomberg (1992a), Bonnard (1970), Bruner (1987, 1990), W. Davies and Allison (1988, 1991, 1997), France (1985), Garland (1993), Grundmann (1975), Gundry (1994), Hagner (1993, 1995a), Hare (1993), Harrington (1991), Hauerwas (2006), Keener (1999), LaGrange (1948), Limbeck (1986), Luz (1989, 2001, 2005), G. Maier (1979–80), Meier (1979, 1980b), Morris (1992), Nolland (2005), Overman (1996), Sand (1986), Schnackenburg (2002), Schweizer (1975), and Witherington (2006). In addition, numerous important works have addressed various themes related to Matthew’s provenance and theology; they include Allison (1993b, 2005b), Aune (2001), Balch (1991), Bauer (1988), Bornkamm, Barth, and Held (1963), Broer (1980), Didier (1972), Gaechter (1963), Gerhardsson (1979), Kingsbury (1988a, 1989), Marguerat (1981), Overman (1990b), Saldarini (1994), Schenke (1988), Shuler (1982), Sim (1998b), Stanton (1992b, ed. 1995), Westerholm (2006), and Wilkins (1988). This renewed interest in Matthew is mainly due to the rise of the disciplines of redaction and narrative criticism and to the increasing awareness of Matthew’s Jewish roots. (See Hare 1998, 2000.)

Distinctive Aspects of This Commentary

The availability of so many fine works on Matthew means that a new project must add something to what is already available (Engelbrecht 1995; Hagner 1995b). The distinctive aspects of this project are as follows. First, many treatments of Matthew assume that Matthew is rewriting and expanding Mark. Be that as it may, the original readers of Matthew most likely did not hold it in one hand and Mark in the other, assuming that Matthew could not be understood apart from Mark. The present commentary therefore approaches Matthew in its own right, utilizing what has come to be known as narrative criticism (Fokkelman 1999; Powell 1990; Resseguie 2005). This method relates the parts of a Gospel to its whole instead of reading Matthew as an adaptation of Mark.

Second, this commentary attempts to explain Matthew in the context of Second Temple formative Judaism(s). It is written from the perspective argued by Overman (1990b), Saldarini (1994), and Sim (1998b) to the effect that Matthew was written to a group of Christian Jews who were still in contact with non-Christian Jews in the synagogue. This view avoids the anachronistic reading of Matthew as promoting Christianity as a new religion for Gentiles in opposition to Judaism, a monolithic old religion for Jews. Matthew and his community were part of a process in which Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, followers of Jesus, and others were presenting somewhat diverse competing versions of Judaism. Judaism had not yet become unified by the ascendancy of the Jabneh (Jamnia; cf. Lewis, ABD 3:634–37; Lewis 1999–2000) rabbis after the 70 CE destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew should not be read from a perspective that reflects the result of this diversification—the second-century parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism. Rather, Matthew should be read as the voice of Jews for Jesus, as it were, during a time of much diversity within Judaism. (See Hare 2000 for another view.)

Third, in keeping with the objectives of the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series, this commentary provides both analysis and synthesis. Some treatments of Matthew excel in historical and exegetical analysis, notably W. Davies and Allison’s three-volume commentary in the International Critical Commentary series. Others provide exceptional theological depth, such as F. D. Bruner’s profound two-volume work. The present commentary does not have the depth of these two works in their respective areas but instead weaves analysis and synthesis together to provide comprehensive yet concise discussions of both historical-exegetical and literary-theological matters. The amount of interaction with current scholarship will not always satisfy academics, but bibliographic notes will at least point the way to additional recent studies.

Fourth, the theological perspective of the present work reflects a recent discussion among evangelicals that has led to a view known as progressive dispensationalism (Blaising and Bock 1992, 1993; Saucy 1993). While affirming such central dispensational tenets as the imminence of Jesus’s coming and a future national conversion of the Jews, this approach takes a much more sanguine approach to the continuity of Scripture than did classical dispensational approaches. Although full rapprochement with covenant theology is not likely, progressive dispensationalism has much in common with this approach, especially premillennial versions. The interpretation of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) and Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25) is directly affected by this approach, as is the exegesis of such cruxes as Matt. 11:12; 19:28; 21:43.

Fifth, this commentary provides both a readable dynamic-equivalence, or functional-equivalence, translation[1] and numerous comments on Matthew’s Greek syntax. Since translation is the briefest sort of commentary, the translation here reflects the views supported in the exegesis of the Greek syntax. Any translation by a single individual is bound to be somewhat idiosyncratic, and so readers should compare the translation found here with the Greek text and standard translations. The translation consistently attempts to avoid male language when the exegesis has determined that humans in general rather than males in particular are meant by the author. Although the noun man and pronouns he, his, and him have been used elsewhere for humans in general, such inclusive use of male language does not appear in this translation for the simple reason that it does not reflect sound exegesis to the current generation. Admittedly, this may at times lead to unfamiliar, even awkward phrasing (cf. Matt. 7:24; 16:24–26), but this is preferable to conveying the impression to some readers that Jesus is only concerned with males.[2]

Literary Matters

Gospel Genre: The Question of History and Theology

Due to apologetic concerns over the historicity of the Gospel traditions, conservative evangelicals have at times been reluctant to view the Gospels as theologically motivated. At the other end of the spectrum are liberal scholars who tend to view the Gospels as imaginative documents produced to meet the church’s needs rather than to transmit reliable Jesus traditions. Such scholars think the Gospel stories frequently reflect the situations and controversies of the post-70 CE church rather than the historical Jesus (e.g., Beare 1981: 13–15). Evangelicals have rightly responded in defense of the historical reliability of the Gospels (e.g., Blomberg 1987b; E. Ellis 1999), but their stress on historicity may neglect the theological import of the Gospels.

Others have argued, at times from misguided dispensational views, that the church derives history from the Gospels and theology from the epistles of the NT, especially those of Paul. This history-versus-theology dichotomy is false, whether in a conservative detheologizing context or in a liberal dehistoricizing context. The Gospels narrate what really happened but do so in part for theological reasons. According to Luke’s prologue, Luke did careful research in order to ascertain the reliability of oral and written traditions so that Theophilus might be taught reliable truths about Jesus (Bock 1994: 51–67). If one may extrapolate from Luke to the Gospels in general, their procedure was to transmit the Jesus traditions they had received, with a view toward meeting the spiritual needs of their audiences, which included the historical grounding of their faith.

The Gospels are theological interpretations of selected traditions that the authors accepted as reliable accounts of historical events that occurred during the life and ministry of Jesus. Some scholars argue that the Gospels are examples of the ancient genre of laudatory biography or encomium (e.g., Shuler 1982; Talbert 1977, critiqued by Aune in France and Wenham 1981: 9–60). Others hold that they constitute their own genre (e.g., Guelich in Stuhlmacher 1991: 173–208). Be that as it may, most if not all would agree that the Gospels are not comprehensive biographies or exhaustive histories of Jesus. A perusal of any Gospel synopsis or harmony dispels that notion. But each Gospel’s Jesus stories are calculated to meet the needs of its respective audience. There is overall continuity in the Synoptic Gospels’ accounts, but there is a great deal of individual freedom as the authors tailor their traditions for their respective communities. If John 20:30–31 provides a model, the theological purposes of the evangelists guided their editing of tradition, leading to literary narratives, not historical chronicles. Their purpose was not to satisfy intellectual curiosity by compiling historical data but to disciple their respective communities by bringing selected episodes from the life of Jesus to bear on the communities’ needs. The Gospels continue to teach the church by narrating reliable words and deeds of Jesus. The Gospel authors faithfully present story as history and creatively interpret history as story (Byrskog 2000; cf. 1994; G. Osborne 2005; J. W. Scott 1985).[3]

Source Criticism and the Synoptic Problem

A cursory reading of the Gospels reveals the fundamental difficulty known as the synoptic problem—why are the first three Gospels so similar in some respects and so different in others? Conservative evangelicals may attribute such matters solely to divine leading of the authors, but reflection on Luke 1:1–4 should lead one beyond such naive pietistic solutions. Luke researched earlier written accounts (singular διήγησις, diēgēsis, Luke 1:1; cf. Let. Aris. 1, 8, 322; Josephus, Ant. 11.68) and oral traditions emanating from eyewitnesses (αὐτόπτης, autoptēs, Luke 1:2; cf. Josephus J.W. 3.432; Ant. 18.342; 19.125; Ag. Ap. 1.55). Theories of synoptic origins can be divided into two main groups: those that posit the literary independence of each Gospel and those that see some sort of literary interdependence between the Gospels.

Literary independence. Certain scholars argue from the prevalence of oral transmission of sacred tradition in the ancient Near East that each Gospel author edited the available oral tradition without borrowing from another Gospel (Farnell in R. Thomas 2002: 226–309; Linnemann 1992; Rist 1978; Westcott 1895: 165–212; Ingolfsland 2006). In this approach, assuming the traditional view of apostolic authorship, Matthew reflected on his experiences as an eyewitness of Jesus’s ministry and augmented his own recollections with oral traditions. This approach accounts for the differences between the Synoptics with some plausibility, but it does not adequately account for the extensive and often verbatim agreements between the synoptic accounts (e.g., Matt. 3:7–10 and Luke 3:7–9; Matt. 9:14–17 and Mark 2:18–22).

Literary interdependence. Most scholars conclude that some sort of literary interrelationship is necessary to explain the phenomena of the Gospels.[4] In fact, such a view was held by Augustine and many of the church fathers, who believed that the canonical order of the Gospels represented their order of literary dependence.[5] In the late eighteenth century the Griesbach hypothesis, which posited that Mark used both Matthew and Luke, revised the patristic approach to Matthean priority.[6] Although some scholars still hold to Matthean priority (cf. Tuckett 1983b, 1984), the scholarly consensus today favors Markan priority, with Matthew and Luke composing their Gospels in dependence on Mark and the hypothetical source Q (Tuckett 1996; M. Williams 2006), which purportedly contained a collection of the sayings of Jesus. This view is known as the two-source theory (Mark and Q), but it has been further developed into the four-source theory, in which Mark and Q are supplemented by the additional hypothetical sources M, for unique Matthean tradition, and L, for unique Lukan tradition (Streeter 1924). (For critiques of this consensus, see Butler 1951 and Stoldt 1980.)

The Markan-priority theory tends to reduce Matthean studies to distinguishing between tradition and redaction by locating Matthew’s sources (Mark, Q, and M) and discerning Matthew’s editorial refinements as an indication of his unique theological interests. It is commonly assumed that Matthew’s redactional departures from his tradition are historically less reliable. Yet many evangelical scholars utilize this approach without diminishing the historicity of Matthew (e.g., Blomberg 1992a; Carson 1984). If one accepts the traditional view of apostolic authorship, one may wonder why an eyewitness of Jesus’s ministry would base his Gospel on the account of Mark, who was not an eyewitness. Yet patristic tradition places Peter’s recollections and authority behind the Gospel of Mark (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15; cf. Gundry 1994: 621). It has been argued that Mark would be rendered superfluous had Matthew been written first, but this overlooks the presence of vivid narrative details in Mark that are not found in Matthew. Ultimately, whether Mark abbreviated Matthew’s discourses and expanded Matthew’s narratives (minority view; cf. S. E. Johnson 1991; Kingsbury in Farmer 1983: 331–61) or whether Matthew adapted Mark’s narrative to his discourses derived from Q (consensus view; cf. Dermience 1985; Huggins 1992), what matters most to the church is the meaning of the Gospels as literary and theological wholes.

Narrative Criticism

The impossibility of arriving at certainty in solving the synoptic problem and the atomizing tendencies of source-critical studies have led some to adopt a more holistic approach commonly known as narrative criticism. Narrative criticism draws conclusions about meaning and theology by comparing the parts of each Gospel to the whole Gospel instead of its putative sources. According to Powell (1990: 20), in order to read the Gospels in this way, it is necessary to know everything that the text assumes the reader knows and to ‘forget’ everything that the text does not assume the reader knows. This approach seems fitting if the Gospels are viewed as theologically interpreted history, written for the edification of Christian communities. One would think that the Gospels functioned as wholes within those communities, not as overlays to be spread upon previous Gospels or other sources. Modern scholars have been understandably preoccupied with uncovering the history of the traditions they find in the Synoptics, but such an approach was hardly that of ancient Christian communities. It seems unlikely that such communities read one Gospel as an overlay of a previous Gospel, and it is difficult even today to utilize source-critical methodology for Gospel studies in the context of church ministry.

Narrative criticism seems much more appropriate than source criticism for the study of the Gospels in a church context, given the genre of the Gospels as theologically interpreted history and the canonical function of the Gospels as Holy Scripture. Therefore this commentary will be a narrative-critical study, although source-critical matters will occasionally be noted (see the plea for methodological eclecticism in W. Davies and Allison 1988: 1–4). A weakness of literary criticism in general and of narrative criticism in particular is that the historical referents of the literary documents are usually ignored as being beside the point. But when Holy Scripture is studied within an evangelical context, the historical events interpreted by the literary sources retain high value.[7]

Literary Structure

In the narrative-critical approach utilized by the present study, one attempts to articulate the role of the parts in framing the whole of the First Gospel. Grasping the structure of Matthew is crucial to this approach.[8] Although some scholars (e.g., Gundry 1994: 10–11; Harrington 1991: 4) despair of outlining Matthew, the following approaches are commonly found.

Markan outline. One regularly encounters analyses of Matthew along the chronological and geographical lines that work well with Mark (e.g., Hendriksen 1973: v–vi; Morris 1992: v–ix). Such an approach yields something similar to the following:

   I. Infancy narrative (1:1–2:23)

  II. Preparation for ministry (3:1–4:11)

 III. Public ministry in Galilee (4:12–15:20)

 IV. Public ministry outside Galilee (15:21–18:35)

  V. Journey to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)

 VI. Final days in Jerusalem (21:1–27:66)

VII. Resurrection and the Great Commission (28:1–20)

In some cases an outline like the above is used but with topical themes, such as King or Messiah (e.g., Toussaint 1980: 25–27). All such outlines are more or less artificially superimposed upon Matthew rather than derived from it. This approach has some value in clarifying the biographical and geographical flow, but it does not engage Matthew’s distinctive pattern of alternating narrative and discourse blocks of material.

"From then on Jesus began. . . ." Some scholars (e.g., Kingsbury 1988a; 1989: 7–25; Bauer 1988) have called attention to the phrase ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησoῦς (apo tote ērxato ho Iēsous), which occurs at two pivotal points. In 4:17, just after the account of John the Baptist’s arrest, Matthew announces the beginning of Jesus’s public ministry with the words from then on Jesus began to preach. In 16:21, just after Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah, Matthew characterizes Jesus’s messianic ministry as one of suffering with the words from then on Jesus began to tell his disciples plainly that he would go to Jerusalem . . . and be killed. In this approach Matthew’s structure appears as follows:

   I. Preparation of Jesus the Messiah (1:1–4:16)

  II. Proclamation of Jesus the Messiah (4:17–16:20)

 III. Passion of Jesus the Messiah (16:21–28:20)

Although it is significant that Matthew inserts ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησoῦς at two critical points in his narrative, this phrase seems to be more of a biographical or chronological marker than a literary device. This second approach to Matthew is not all that different from the previous approach, and it does not handle Matthew’s alternating narrative/discourse pattern, which is the most obvious structural difference between Matthew and the other Synoptics. For this reason, the following approach is preferable (but see Bauer 1988: 129–34).

"When Jesus had finished. . . ." Students of Matthew have long noticed the unique juxtapositioning of narrative and discourse materials. What is more, Matthew marks each of the five transitions from discourse back to narrative with the phrase καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησoῦς (kai egeneto hote etelesen ho Iēsous, when Jesus had finished; 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; C. R. Smith 1997). Acknowledging this structural pattern does not necessitate accepting Bacon’s view (1918, 1928, 1930) that Matthew contains five books of Jesus that correspond to the five books of Moses in the Pentateuch. This third approach has difficulties in that certain discoursive materials occur in narrative sections, most notably the warning to the disciples and the woes to the religious leaders in Matt. 23. But all things considered, this approach has the most to commend it.[9] A detailed outline based on this insight is found at the end of this introduction, but a condensed version is as follows:

   I. Prologue/introduction: Origin of Jesus the Messiah (1:1–2:23)

  II. Early days of kingdom word and deed (3:1–7:29)

A. Narrative 1: John and Jesus and the kingdom of God (3:1–4:25)

B. Discourse 1: Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)

 III. Galilean ministry continues (8:1–11:1)

A. Narrative 2: Three cycles of miracles and discipleship (8:1–10:4)

B. Discourse 2: Mission and suffering (10:5–11:1)

 IV. Growing opposition to the kingdom of heaven (11:2–13:52)

A. Narrative 3: Three cycles of unbelief and belief (11:2–12:50)

B. Discourse 3: Parables of the kingdom of heaven (13:1–52)

  V. Opposition to the kingdom continues (13:53–19:2)

A. Narrative 4: Various responses to the Son of God (13:53–17:27)

B. Discourse 4: Values and relationships in the kingdom community (18:1–19:2)

 VI. Opposition comes to a head in Judea (19:3–26:2)

A. Narrative 5: Ministry in Judea (19:3–23:39)

B. Discourse 5: Judgment of Jerusalem and the coming of Christ (24:1–26:2)

VII. Epilogue/conclusion: Passion, resurrection, and commission (26:3–28:20)

Some scholars attempt a synthesis of this approach with the second approach discussed above (e.g., Blomberg 1992a: 22–25, 49; McKnight in J. Green and McKnight 1992: 530–32). Derickson 2006 attempts to construe the narrative-discourse sections chiastically centering on Matt. 13 (cf. Lohr 1961).

Literary Style

Scholars generally view Matthew’s Greek style as aesthetically adequate if not exceptional. The author was relatively fluent in Semitic languages as well as Greek, which led to frequent Semitisms (W. Davies and Allison 1988: 80–85). These Semitisms emanate from Matthew’s sources, the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, and Matthew’s own personal writing style. They are incorporated into Matthew’s syntax in a way that avoids awkward or harsh expressions and retains acceptable Greek style (see Engelbrecht 1990).

Another matter of style is Matthew’s purported use of sources, primarily Mark, Q, and M. Those who scrutinize Matthew from the Markanpriority perspective conclude that Matthew regularly abbreviates Mark’s account of Jesus’s deeds and expands Mark’s account of Jesus’s words. From a narrative-critical perspective, this phenomenon indicates that Matthew features Jesus’s words more than his deeds. However one solves the synoptic problem, there are certain words and expressions that Matthew uses much more frequently than Mark and Luke (W. Davies and Allison 1988: 74–80; Gundry 1994: 674–82; Luz 1989: 52–73).

Matthew seems to be fond of various numerical patterns, such as the seven petitions in the Lord’s Prayer (6:9–13), the seven parables (13), and the genealogy’s format of fourteen (double-seven) generations (1:1–17). Matthew is fond of threefold structures (W. Davies and Allison 1988: 61–72). Additional features include repetition of contrast and comparison, particularization and climax, inclusio, and chiasmus.[10] Such features will be noted in the body of this commentary.

Historical Origins

The origins of the Gospel of Matthew are not easily ascertained. One can only read between the lines of the Gospel itself in search of historical implications and evaluate the patristic traditions about the book.

Authorship

The Gospel of Matthew is technically anonymous, as are the other Gospels, although the Gospel of John hints at its authorship (John 21:24; cf. 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). Hengel’s (1985: 64–84; 2000: 48–53, 77) plausible argument that the titles of the Gospels are very early, perhaps even original with each Gospel, has positive implications for traditional views of the Gospels’ authorship. Hengel shows that ancient custom tended to identify books by their authors (cf. Tertullian, Marc. 4.2). One should not assume (as does Hagner 1993: lxxvi) that the Gospels originally circulated anonymously and that their titles were added in the second century. The nearly unanimous attribution of the Gospels to their traditional authors by about 150 CE better supports the theory that their titles were original rather than the theory that they originally circulated anonymously.

Any view of authorship depends upon inferences drawn from the book itself (internal evidence) and upon assessment of the credibility of the patristic testimony that Matthew the apostle wrote the Gospel (external evidence).[11]

Internal evidence. Matthew’s grammar, syntax, literary style, and distinctive themes lead most scholars to conclude that he was a Jew who understood Hebrew and Judaism.[12] This conclusion allows for the traditional view of authorship but does not prove it. Some look at these details and take them differently—that Matthew was a Gentile who used Jewish terminology but often misunderstood it. Others argue that Matthew’s Jewish trappings amount to a literary ploy to advance a polemic against Judaism.[13] This is extremely unlikely.

External evidence. This Gospel was ascribed to Matthew the apostle by the first quarter of the second century CE. The titles of notable ancient MSS (e.g., א, B, D, L, W, f¹, f¹³, Byz, L) ascribe the book to Matthew (W. Davies and Allison 1988: 129n90). Patristic tradition agrees with this ascription. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39; 6.14; 6.25.4 (early to mid–fourth century CE), cites Papias (early second century CE; cf. Meredith in Tuckett 1984: 187–96), Clement of Alexandria (early third century CE), and Origen (mid–third century CE) to this effect. The words of Irenaeus (late second century CE) agree (Haer. 3.1.1; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.8.2; Köhler 1987). Additional fourth-century CE testimony is found in Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis 14), Epiphanius (Refutation of All Heresies 30.3), and Jerome (Prologue to Matthew). This tradition generally affirms the priority of Matthew (Farnell 1999). The patristic tradition that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew will be discussed later under Canonicity and Textual History. Although the patristic testimony to the apostle Matthew as the author of the First Gospel is early and unanimous, many current scholars discount the value of this testimony and prefer to think that authorship by Matthew the apostle is most unlikely (Nolland 2005: 4).

Matthew the tax collector. The traditional author of the First Gospel is mentioned five times in the NT (Matt. 9:9; 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13; cf. b. Sanh. 43a). The name in Hebrew means gift of Yahweh. The reference to Jesus’s calling Matthew in Matt. 9:9–13 is paralleled by Mark 2:13–17 and Luke 5:27–32, both of which have Levi, not Matthew. There are several explanations for this (Gnilka 1986–88: 1.330–31). Some Jews had two names (Acts 4:36; Josephus, Ant. 12.285; 18.35, 95; 20.196), and Jesus gave Simon the name Peter (16:18). On the assumption of Markan priority, the author of Matthew was aware of the reference to Levi in Mark and of the name Matthew, not Levi, in the list of apostles in Mark 3:16–19 (cf. Matt. 10:2–4; Luke 6:14–16). And if the author of Matthew is assumed not to have been Matthew the tax collector, the author may have conformed the name he found in Mark 2:14 (Levi) to the name he found in Mark 3:18 (Matthew). On the contrary assumption of the traditional view of authorship, it is plausible that Matthew the apostle was also called Levi. It is also plausible that the name Μαθθαῖον (Maththaion) is used because of its assonance with μαθητής (mathētēs, disciple), since discipleship is a key theme in the First Gospel (Kiley 1984).

Sources

On the assumption of Markan priority, Matthew’s narrative framework came from Mark. It is commonly stated that approximately 90 percent of Mark is also found in Matthew. Carson and Moo (2005: 96) affirm that 97 percent of Mark’s words are paralleled in Matthew (cf. Stein 2001: 52; Tyson and Longstaff 1978: 169–71). Yet this may overestimate the degree of Matthew’s putative dependence on Mark, since others as diverse as Streeter and Linnemann estimate the percentage of parallels to be in the fifties (Yarbrough 1997: 163–65).[14] The teachings of Jesus found in both Matthew and Luke are viewed as originating in Q, which may not have been a written document (Tuckett 1996: 83–106). Uniquely Matthean material derives from M (Streeter 1924). Synopses of the Gospels include charts that display Matthew’s putative Markan source, and scholars have also compiled a critical text and concordance of Q (J. M. Robinson et al. 2000). Yet a minority of scholars are not persuaded by the Q hypothesis (cf. Goodacre 2002). On the assumption of Matthean priority, the question of sources must be addressed with a very different paradigm (Farmer 1964: 199–286).

Date

It is very likely that there are allusions to Matthew in Ignatius (late first or early second century CE) and in the Didache (early second century CE).[15] When these allusions are taken in conjunction with Papias’s testimony cited in Eusebius (see above), it seems clear that Matthew was well known by the early second century. Accordingly, the Gospel must have been written by the turn of the first century CE at the latest. The current scholarly consensus, based on the Markan-priority view of Gospel relationships, places Matthew’s origin in the eighties or nineties CE. In some cases this view is buttressed by the idea that Matt. 24–25 constitutes a vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the event), written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. (See Nolland 2005: 14 for a critique of this line of thinking.) Additionally, it is sometimes argued that the historical situation reflected in Matthew is the conflict of the developing church with the formative rabbinic Judaism that emanated from Jamnia (Jabneh) after the destruction of Jerusalem.

On the other hand, if one accepts the patristic testimony to apostolic authorship, the date will probably need to be set earlier. Additionally, if one takes Matt. 24–25 as an authentic dominical logion, not as prophecy after the event, there is no need to date the Gospel after 70 CE (Nolland 2005: 16). And if one is not convinced of Matthew’s dependence upon Mark, this is another reason for an earlier date. Noteworthy scholars who favor a pre-70 CE Matthew include C. Blomberg, D. A. Carson, R. H. Gundry, G. Maier, J. Nolland, B. Reicke, and J. A. T. Robinson. But these scholars are generally not dogmatic.[16]

Recipients and Occasion

Matthew’s characteristic fulfillment formula quotations from the Hebrew Bible and his presentation of a Jesus who came not to destroy but to fulfill the law and the prophets are but two of the reasons every student of Matthew must come to some conclusion about the relationship of this Gospel’s recipients to Judaism. Scholars are divided on this issue, with some convinced that Matthew’s community contains many Gentiles and has already separated from the synagogue (Gundry, Stanton), and others holding the opposite view that Matthew’s community is largely Jewish and is still connected with the synagogue (Harrington, Overman, Saldarini, Sigal, Sim). Yet others occupy a middle ground between these poles, arguing that Matthew can be satisfactorily explained only when it is viewed against the background of an embattled minority in the process of leaving the synagogue (Hagner 1993: lxxxi; 2003). This commentary has adopted the view that Matthew’s community is still engaged with the synagogue.[17]

Although many theories have been proposed, the location of Matthew’s community will likely never be known with anything approaching certainty. The city of Antioch is most frequently advocated.[18] Witherington (2006: 26–28) favors Capernaum or, perhaps, Sepphoris. Others suggest Phoenicia (Kilpatrick 1946: 130–34), Galilee (Overman 1990b: 158–59), Alexandria (Brandon 1951), Caesarea Maritima (Viviano 1979), or even Pella in Transjordan (Slingerland 1979). Grasping the message of the book does not depend on knowing the location of its original recipients.[19]

The occasion of the Gospel’s writing and its purposes can only be approximated in hypotheses inferred from the text. Assuming that the audience is a Christian Jewish community (or multiple communities in various locations), it is evidently a community that needs to understand how the life of Jesus the Messiah fulfilled the Hebrew Bible and how Jesus’s teaching interpreted the Torah of Moses (Matt. 5:17–48). The community also needed to know why the entrenched non-Christian religious leaders were no longer to be emulated (Matt. 23). And the community evidently needed to expand its horizons toward gentile mission. Matthew regularly portrays Gentiles in a positive light, as when the gentile women are mentioned in Jesus’s genealogy (1:3, 5, 6) and the faith of certain Gentiles is stressed (8:10; 15:28; 27:54). Such details from the narrative prepare the reader for the climactic commission that the community take Jesus’s message to all the nations (28:19). The discussion below of Matthew’s theological emphases provides additional implications about the occasion and purpose of the Gospel.

Textual History

The testimony of Papias. A foundational question in the textual history of Matthew is its possible origin as a Semitic text later translated into the present Greek Matthew. Patristic sources that take this position have been cited in the previous discussion of authorship. The key patristic text is Eusebius (260–340 CE), Eccl. Hist. 3.39.16, which cites Papias to the effect that "Matthew collected the oracles [logia; sayings of or about Jesus] in the Hebrew language [Hebraidi dialektō, perhaps Hebraic style] and each one interpreted [hērmēneusen, perhaps translated] them as best he could."[20] Papias is dated variously from about 100 to 140 CE, and so his testimony is important for the date of the First Gospel.

At first glance this text implies that any Greek editions of Matthew have been translated from an original Hebrew document. But the present Greek Matthew does not read like a translation of a Hebrew original. Some scholars have argued that Matthew wrote both a Hebrew Gospel and a Greek Gospel. Others think that Papias’s logia were sayings of Jesus that modern source critics call Q or were even Jesus’s discourses that are found in canonical Matthew. No MSS, however, exemplify the putative Hebrew Matthew mentioned by Papias (G. Howard 1986, 1995; cf. W. L. Peterson 1998). For these and additional reasons, others (e.g., Gundry 1994: 619–20; Kürzinger 1983) propose that Hebraidi dialektō does not mean the Hebrew language but Semitic rhetorical style and that hērmēneusen does not refer to translation but to interpretation. If this is the case, Papias speaks of Matthew’s Jewish style of composition, which subsequent readers interpreted to the best of their ability. Perhaps such features as Matthew’s genealogy and stress on fulfillment are indicative of his Jewish compositional style.[21]

Greek Manuscripts

The textual history of Matthew is represented by a great number of Greek MSS.[22] More than twenty uncial MSS contain complete or nearly complete texts of Matthew, among them א and B (fourth century); C, D, and W (fifth century); O, Z, 042, 043 (sixth century); 0211 (seventh century); L (eighth century); F, K, M, U, V, 037, 038, 041, and 045 (ninth century); and G, S, 036 (tenth century). The fifth-century uncial A contains Matt. 25–28. The ninth-century uncial H (013) contains Matt. 15–28. Sixthcentury uncials N, O, and P (022, 023, 024) contain parts of Matt. 1–4; 6–24.

About twenty early and often fragmentary papyri MSS contain portions of Matthew, including 𝔓¹⁰³ (Matt. 13–14, second century); 𝔓¹⁰⁴ (Matt. 21, second century); 𝔓⁶⁴+⁶⁷ (Matt. 3; 5; 26, ca. 200);[23] 𝔓⁷⁷ (Matt. 23, second–third centuries); 𝔓¹ (Matt. 1, third century); 𝔓⁴⁵ (Matt. 20–21; 25–26, third century); 𝔓⁵³ (Matt. 26, third century); 𝔓⁷⁰ (Matt. 2–3; 11–12; 24, third century); 𝔓¹⁰¹ (Matt. 3, third century); 𝔓¹⁰² (Matt. 4, third century); 𝔓¹¹⁰ (Matt. 10, third century); 𝔓³⁷ (Matt. 26, third–fourth centuries); 𝔓²⁵ (Matt. 18–19, fourth century); 𝔓³⁵ (Matt. 25, fourth century); 𝔓⁶² (Matt. 11, fourth century); 𝔓⁷¹ (Matt. 19, fourth century); 𝔓⁸⁶ (Matt. 5, fourth century); 𝔓¹⁹ (Matt. 10–11, fourth–fifth centuries); and 𝔓²¹ (Matt. 12, fourth–fifth centuries).

In addition to its presence in the above papyri and uncial MSS, hundreds of additional minuscules of the Byzantine or Majority text-type testify to the text of Matthew. Matthew is also abundantly cited in patristic sources, widely used in church lectionaries, and translated into other languages by the early ancient versions.[24]

Canonicity

There was no doubt about the canonicity of Matthew, the most popular Gospel of the early church, among the orthodox in either the eastern or western regions of the church. The heretic Marcion (second century) and his followers, however, held to a canon that did not include Matthew, not to mention the Hebrew Bible, Mark, John, and the General Epistles. Marcion affirmed a sort of gnostic dualism between the Hebrew Bible and the NT as revelations of two different gods, and so Matthew’s insistence on the fulfillment of the Bible by Jesus was unacceptable. Marcion accepted only an edited version of Luke’s Gospel and the Pauline Epistles as his canon. Evidently, his attack on the incipient orthodox canon was a major factor leading to the formalization of the canon.

In addition to the patristic sources already cited, the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologues to Luke and John (date uncertain) and the Muratorian Fragment (probably late second century) both speak of the undisputed fourfold Gospel tradition of the church (cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.11.8; Cyprian, Epistles 73.10; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.13; Origen, cited by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.25.3ff.; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.25.1; Athanasius, Festal Letters 39; and many others [see further Bellinzoni 1992]).

Theological Emphases

It is difficult to select and briefly summarize the major themes of this Gospel, but the following themes are at the heart of Matthew’s distinctive presentation of Jesus the Messiah and his rule.

Matthew and the Hebrew Bible

Matthew’s pervasive use of the Hebrew Bible is one of the major reasons many interpreters note the Jewish orientation of this Gospel.[25] Indeed, the prevalence of this intertextuality calls into question the very notion of an Old Testament in Matthew’s theology. If Matthew’s Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17), it is doubtful that Matthew conceived of the Jewish Scriptures as old, at least in the connotative senses of antique, outmoded, quaint. Instead, Matthew viewed both the historical patterns and the prophetic oracles of the Hebrew Bible as filled with ultimate significance through the ministry and teaching of Jesus.

In addition to numerous informal allusions, which are difficult to count, there are about fifty formal quotations. These may be categorized in various ways, such as by introductory formula (in order that it might be fulfilled, for it is written, etc.) or speaker (Jesus, Matthew, etc.). This commentary