Matthew, Disciple and Scribe
Page 28
Though the direct object of the command, “all nations” (μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη), initially seems clear, the meaning of the noun is debated.41 However, the point is that the mission expands; the command to witness to Israel (10:6; 15:24) is not revoked, but added to.42 The family of Abraham, as a particular family, was always meant to bless all nations. The son of Abraham (1:1) extends the universality of salvation in a climactic way in this passage although it has been hinted at from the beginning. Matthew opens his narrative with hints of the universality of salvation, but this is positively allied with the election of Israel from the start. Now gentiles are children of Abraham if they become disciples of Jesus. Matthew is the “discipled scribe,” teaching his readers how to become disciples of this Jewish rabbi.
The hoped-for gathering of all nations on Mount Zion is replaced with a call to make disciples out of all nations. Two texts in Isaiah connect the gathering to Mount Zion with an explicit mention of all nations (Isa. 2:2; 56:7). Jesus thus seems to be fulfilling this idea and transforming it. “It is Christ who has replaced Zion as the center of eschatological fulfillment, and the mount motif in Matthew acts as a vehicle by which Zion expectations are transferred to Christ.”43 The shift to the universal mission is based on the comprehensive authority of Jesus, founded upon his death and resurrection. He now is the new mountain to which the nations will stream, but the disciples must “go” to make this happen.
Gentiles are disciples through baptism into the trinitarian name of God and with instruction about Jesus’s commandments. What is not mentioned here is circumcision, or even following Jewish customs. Yet they are to follow the one who did say he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. So once again, Matthew pairs this universal dimension with a particular dimension. That is because Jesus is a particular messiah. He is of the seed of Abraham, and he came to fulfill the promises made to Abraham about a new family.
Other Indications of Universal Salvation in the Conclusion
While the Great Commission contains the most explicit data concerning the universal dimension of salvation in the conclusion, there are also a few other indications in Matt. 26–28.44 The Great Commission is predicated on the narrative preceding it. But to look for the universal dimensions only here is misguided; as I have been arguing, the universal dimension emerges from the particular. This is seen especially with regard to the use of the titles “King of the Jews” and “the Son of God” in the passion. In Matt. 27 Jesus affirms before Pilate that he is the “King of the Jews” (27:11). In Gen. 17:6, Abraham is promised, “Kings shall come from you.” Here Jesus indicates that he is the true king from the line of Abraham. The soldiers then mock Jesus as the “King of the Jews” (Matt. 27:29) and put a sign above his head, which reads: “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” (27:37). Readers should notice that this phrase occurs three times in this chapter (27:11, 29, 37). Jesus is crucified on the charge that he is “the King of the Jews.”
Yet readers should also note that three times Jesus is mocked or described also as the “Son of God” (27:40, 43, 54). The rebels who are crucified with Jesus hurl insults at him, saying, “If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross” (27:40; Ps. 2:7, 12). A few verses later they say, “He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (Matt. 27:43 NIV). After Jesus’s death the centurion also declares, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (27:54 NIV).
Konradt has argued that these two titles (king of the Jews and son of God) represent a narrative development for Matthew.45 The king of the Jews is the son of David and the son of Abraham. And in Jesus’s earthly ministry, this correlates with Jesus’s ministry to Israel. But Jesus is also born “by the Holy Spirit” and therefore is the Son of God.46 The inclusion of the nations is on the basis of the Son of God’s death and his installation as the Son of God and the universal Lord.47 The extension of salvation to the nations intersects with his title “the Son of God.”
The universal lordship of the Son of God is hinted at when the centurion confesses that Jesus is “the Son of God.” As in chapter 2, it is not the Jewish people or leaders who recognize and worship Jesus, but rather a centurion (27:54). Pairing the centurion’s confession with that of the magi can help us see the development of the universal and particular dimensions of Jesus’s ministry. The magi recognize Jesus as “king of the Jews” (2:2), but in Matt. 27, only after Jesus is on the cross or dead, do people recognize him as “the Son of God.” The rebels mock him as the Son of God, and the centurion confesses Jesus as “the Son of God” after his death.48
Matthew has generally reserved the title “Son of God” for unique circumstances (either supernatural beings, revelatory events for the disciples, or the trial of Jesus). This might be because, although the reader knows that Jesus is the Son of God because he is born from the Holy Spirit, the title is not confirmed until after his death on the cross. Jesus is declared to be the Son of God from his birth, but he is not appointed as the Son of God until his death and resurrection. The confession of the centurion therefore begins to close the narrative loop that began in the introduction (1:18–25, “born from the Holy Spirit”). Jesus is both the King of the Jews and the Son of God, but these titles correlate with the focus on Israel and the focus on the nations, respectively.
As the son of Abraham and the son of David, Jesus is the king of the Jews. But he is also the Son of God with universal authority. Although we as readers know this from the beginning, and the rest of the NT shows us how these two titles are inseparable, the original witnesses to Jesus needed to have this revealed to them. Jesus turned from being a national figure to a universal figure. Matthew is the discipled scribe who reveals the nature of Jesus and his mission to both Israel and to all nations. Jesus establishes Abraham’s new family as the son of Abraham. All people and all nations are welcomed into a particular family.
Summary
Both the introduction and the conclusion of Matthew indicate that Jesus is the new Abraham, who establishes the new family of God, which includes both Jews and gentiles. Although the title “Abraham” does not appear in the conclusion, the universal dimension begun in 1:1 comes to a climax. The genealogy and the magi worshiping Jesus indicate that the apocalyptic son of Abraham is on the scene; the conclusion brings this theme to a culmination. In the Great Commission, Jesus declares that he has authority over all spaces, and therefore he sends his disciples into all the world. This is based on the fact that Jesus is now appointed as the Son of God. This King of the Jews has become, by virtue of his sacrifice, the Son of God. Neither Jewish particularism nor gentile inclusion is diminished. Rather, the two interweave, and the gentile inclusion emerges from the Jewish particularism.
Development of Abraham’s New Family
We have examined the introduction and conclusion to Matthew’s Gospel, focusing on the genealogy and the Great Commission. In some ways, the focus has been on the universal dimension, for Abraham was promised that he would be the father of many nations and that through him the world would be blessed. But it is also true that Abraham is known not only as the father of many nations but also as the founder of the Jewish nation. Therefore, although the introduction and conclusion indicate that “all nations” will be included, Jesus’s mission as the son of Abraham is also to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6; 15:24). He is sent to deal with Israel first. What we find in Matthew is that the mission to Israel has both positive and negative results. While the crowds and disciples are presented more positively in the First Gospel than in Mark, the religious leaders (and sometimes the nation as a whole) are condemned in Matthew. Therefore, the developing theme of God’s new family in the middle of the Gospel includes three themes that at first seem contradictory but actually fit together.
These themes are not given in order; they weave their way throughout the Gospel, many times making it difficult for interpreters to know where to focus.49 First, before the cross and resurrecti
on, the disciples’ and Jesus’s mission is primarily to Israel. Second, this mission to Israel results in a prophetic condemnation and the formation of an alternate school. Third, Matthew indicates that the family of Abraham is now open to all (not excluding Israel but including them). In Matthew, Israel as a nation is not rejected but is judged because of their jealousy. As in the OT, the words of Jesus and his followers serve as a confirmation of judgment on those who do not follow Jesus. But like the prophets, hope arises out of judgment. Only through judgment will Israel be saved; the warning and condemnation function as the means by which true Israel is saved. In other words, there is a genealogical participation in Abraham’s family by faith, and this comes on the heels of the condemnation of Israel.
The middle section of the First Gospel (Matt. 3–25) explores these themes, and although the lines do not run entirely straight, there is progression. The family of Abraham is open to all but only because of the condemnation on those in Israel who will not accept the message. Like Paul, Jesus goes first to those of Israel, but when they reject his message, the way becomes open to the gentiles.
John the Baptist’s Declaration concerning Abraham’s Family (Matt. 3)
The open nature of Abraham’s family is anticipated and prefigured even before Jesus begins his ministry. John the Baptist’s words give readers an early clue to what to look for in the rest of Matthew’s narrative. John the Baptist comes as the last OT prophet and in the clothing of a prophet (Matt. 3:4). The text says that Jerusalem, Judea, and the region of Jordan are “going out to him” and being “baptized, . . . confessing their sins” (3:5–6). Matthew therefore implies that there are positive movements from within the nation of Israel, and some of Israel will walk through the desert with this new Abraham figure. But when John the Baptist sees the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he calls them “offspring of serpents” (γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, AT).50 Though the people are repenting, the Pharisees and Sadducees are not “bear[ing] fruit in keeping with repentance” (3:8). Then John mentions Abraham in his words to the religious leaders: “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (3:9–10). John warns them not to base their acceptance on their ethnic identity. Interestingly, he uses both familial and founder imagery. Abraham is their “father,” which communicates both genealogical and authoritative relations. The familial imagery continues as John says, “God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham” (emphasis added).
The Baptizer claims that ethnic identity is not determinative for who is part of the family; rather, it is fruit in keeping with repentance that regulates the family boundary. At the same time, the importance of the family of Abraham is highlighted. The stones that God is able to raise up become children of Abraham. John doesn’t downplay Abraham’s family but redefines it based on faith and repentance. Abraham’s family is not rejected; John clarifies the nature of the family and its founder. In a way, he also expands the family by saying that stones can become children. John tells them that one is coming who will baptize them with the Holy Spirit and fire, indicating both salvation and judgment. He will clear the threshing floor and gather the wheat but burn the chaff. Judgment will come upon those who do not follow the way of the Lord through the wilderness. In sum, the doorway to being a child of Abraham is repentance. If there is no repentance, then an unquenchable fire awaits. The founder still stands, but the family is redefined. Not all of Israel is judged, but their leaders are rebuked.
Jesus’s Mission to Israel First (Matt. 4:12; 10:5–6; 15:24)
As John’s ministry was to Israel, so too Jesus goes to Israel first. In Matt. 4:12 readers hear that Jesus retreats into Galilee; for a good portion of the rest of the Gospel, he performs his ministry in Galilee (in 16:21 he heads toward Jerusalem; in 21:10 he arrives in that city). Matthew claims that this movement of Jesus fulfills the geographical statement from Isa. 9:1–2.
The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned. (Matt. 4:15–16)
This quotation must be paired with Jesus’s and his disciples’ mission to “Israel first” (10:5–6; 15:24). In going to Galilee, he still goes to Israel, but to northern Israel, attempting to establish his rule over all Israel.51 Zebulun and Naphtali were the first two tribes to go into exile (2 Kings 15:29), and therefore Jesus returns to restore those who were first conquered. Yet as Isaiah also predicts, whenever Jesus goes through the land of Israel, there is impact on the nations (the gentiles), as we saw in the genealogy. The people of Israel (even despite their failings) serve as a vehicle to bless the nations (Tamar, Ruth, Rahab, Uriah). So although Galilee has a mixed population of Jews and gentiles, Jesus’s mission is first to the lost sheep of Israel.
Two other texts in Matthew confirm this Israel-first idea. In Matt. 10:5b–6 Jesus instructs his disciples to limit their mission to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.”52 He tells them to go nowhere on roads that lead to gentiles or even any Samaritan towns.53 As they go, they are to declare the same message Jesus has announced: “The kingdom of heaven has come near” (10:7 NIV). Their ministry should mirror the messianic ministry of the shepherd of Israel by healing the sick and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom. This mission to Israel seems connected to the restoration of the twelve tribes, since the commission to the disciples comes immediately after 10:1–4, where Matthew introduces the twelve disciples for the first time.
The limitation on the disciples’ mission has confused many Gospel readers. Readers wonder how this fits with the gentile-inclusion theme that has tracked its way through the pages of the First Gospel. There are two errors to avoid when approaching this text. First, sometimes when people speak of the new family of God in Matthew, they completely ignore or at least downplay the mission of Jesus and his disciples to Israel. It is easy to do this because the gentile inclusion seems so prominent that it is confusing to introduce a singular mission. The other error is to emphasize the mission to Israel at the expense of the mission to the nations.
At least partial clarity comes in reading these singular mission statements not as isolated proclamations, but through the narrative as a whole. If the mission to Israel is a reality in the Gospel, the question becomes, What happens to Israel in light of this mission?54 The parallel passage in Matthew, where Jesus speaks of his own mission “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” is clarifying (15:24). Justification for jumping here can be found in that this phrase “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” appears in only these two texts (10:6; 15:24).55
In Matt. 15 Jesus withdraws to Tyre and Sidon (gentile territories), and a Canaanite woman comes out crying to Jesus as the “Son of David” (15:21–22). Jesus does not answer her and says to the disciples, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But the Canaanite woman persists, and Jesus says, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She replies, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Jesus responds by speaking of her great faith and heals her daughter (15:28). Two things are worth mentioning about this text in light of the disciples’ and Jesus’s mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
First, Jesus confirms that his mission is to Israel. He does not respond to the Canaanite woman at first but explicitly says that he is sent to Israel. He describes his message to Israel as “the children’s bread” and likens the gentiles to “dogs.”56 But second, we see that the same text that elucidates the mission to Israel also speaks to the inclusion of gentiles. The question is How do they relate? The metaphor that Jesus and the woman toss back and forth
is instructive in this regard. The analogy concerns a table.57 On the table is the children’s bread. Most likely it is Jesus’s message to Israel that they are to partake of.58 Jesus says it is not right to take this message and throw it to dogs (gentiles). Jesus confirms that the bread is a metaphor for the message, and the bread is for Israel first. The woman replies by continuing the metaphor. Even the dogs eat the crumbs falling from their masters’ table. The crumbs are the leftovers of the message, and Jesus is the master. She affirms Jesus’s mission to Israel, but she says that as Israel eats the message, some of the crumbs fall to the ground for the dogs to eat.
The point is that though the mission is to Israel primarily, a secondary mission to gentiles follows as crumbs fall. While an order and a priority exists, this order does not exclude others. Although Jesus tells his disciples, “Do not go anywhere among the gentiles” (Matt. 10:5 AT), which sounds exclusive, it also can be interpreted merely in terms of priority. This is what Jesus confirms in Matt. 15. We can even go further and say that the order is part of the means of including the gentiles. When the children eat the bread, some will fall, and then dogs can also eat from their masters’ table. Israel’s eating of the bread is the means by which gentiles receive crumbs.59 While we don’t want to press the metaphor too far, it is hard not to think of the falling crumbs as a picture of Israel not eating the bread as they should. They are not paying attention to The Bread given to them.60
When exploring the family of Abraham in Matthew, readers should neither overemphasize nor underemphasize the singular mission to Israel. Rather, we should see the two factors as part of an interplay. The message goes first to Israel, because Israel must be offered their messiah first, but crumbs will fall to the ground. Both Jesus and John the Baptist affirm that the true sons of Abraham are those who follow the son of Abraham in repentance. The mission is to Israel first, but this does not exclude gentiles; it merely speaks to a divinely ordained order. In the same way, when the mission to the gentiles is confirmed in the Great Commission, this does not exclude Israel but includes them, since the mission to Israel has already been authorized.