sign in sign up
<<
Home , Gentile

THE GENTILE BIAS IN MATTHEW

T IS commonly held that the of Matthew was written I bya converted . In proof of this are usually noted such features as the genealogy, the blocks of teaching material, the many quotations from Jewish scripture, the eschatological pas­ sages, the Jewish particularism, Semitic words and idioms, and particularly the use of "kingdom of Heaven" instead of "king­ dom of God." It then becomes necessary to explain the gentile bias of the Gospel as a secondary trait, which crops forth in the story of the virgin birth, the heightening of miracIe,I the rejection of (e.g. 2143), the denunciation of (Ch. 23) and Sadducees (e.g., 166), and the Great Commission. In this particular connection, we seldom are reminded that the gentile Luke also presents a genealogy, that Luke and even the pagan Epictetus were also much interested in the type of teaching materials employed in Matthew, that aII Christians - both J ewish and gentile - had long since become accustomed to scriptural proof texts and prophecies (whether from the LXX or the Hebrew text) as also to the eschatological background of Christian belief. Furthermore, Jewish particularism in the earlier part of Matthew is overshadowed by the main theme of the Gospel which is better presented in the Great Commission. As for Semitic terms and rabbinic avoidance of the divine name, the usual generalities are subject to refutation by detailed an­ alysis. In short, the oft repeated argument for Jewish author­ ship seems more traditional than rational, and may profitably be reviewed especially in the light of the possibility that no part of it rules out a gentile authorship.

1 See M. S. Ens1in, Christian Beginnings (New York, 1938), pp. 395-6. 2 THE GENTILE BIAS IN MATTHEW [166]

But as to the gentile bias in the gospel, always remembered yet relegated to secondary importance, there is real difficulty in ascribing it to a Jew. Many a Jew in Syria had been hellenized, but a Jewish Christian of about 90 A.D. would hardly be found writing a gospel whose theme is the definite and final rejection of Israel by her God. It is sometimes suggested thata convert from would thus react vehemently against the religion to which he had previously held. But this is quite subjective and merely speculative; Paul illustrates a less vehement reaction of one who still insisted that God had not repudiated His people (Rom 11 1). Furthermore, at the time of the writing of Matthew a Jew did not feel the need to renounce Judaism in order to con­ fess belief in Jesus Christ. Such a renunciation is more natural from the viewpoint of a gentile "Matthew." The Matthean thesis is not the same as the earlier message of Paul, that gentiles also may be saved by inclusion in the new Israel; nor is it yet like the later message of Marcion that lews and gentiles have different gods and separate destinies. It is instead the message that , now predominantly gen­ tile, has displaced 1udaism with God as the true Israel. "The children of the kingdom will be cast out" (8 12); "in his name will the gentiles trust" (1221). "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to a people producing the fruits of the kingdom" (21 43). "Go and make disciples of all the gentile peoples ('Ta. ~()V1J) •••• teaching them to obey all the commands I have laid on you." This gentile bias is the primary theme in Matthew. The lews as a people are no longer the object of God's salvation. They have rejected and killed God's son (21 39)'; now God has rejected them and shut them out of the kingdom, transferring his favor to Christian believers as the true Israel. This theme is repeatedly illustrated, in an impressive succession of stories (peculiar to Matthew): the Two Sons (21 28-32), the Vineyard Tenants (2133-43), the Wedding Feast (22 1-14), the Ten Virgins (25 1-13),

• This story is also told by Mark and Luke, but without the Matthean climax of 2143; the accusation is repeated in 274-5, another passage peculiar to Matthew.