1. Introduction
Matthewâs relation to Judaism is a complex matter, which was controversially discussed in Matthean scholarship in the last decades.1 Since the nineties with the important monographs by Andrew Overman and Anthony Saldarini,2 there has been a â still growing â tendency to identify the social location of the Gospel of Matthew as within Judaism,3 whatever this means in detail. In 2020 Anders Runesson and Daniel Gurtner edited a volume with exactly this title: âMatthew within Judaism. Israel and the Nations in the First Gospelâ. In analogy to recent research on Paul, one could speak of a ânew perspective on Matthewâ. As with the new perspective on Paul, however, no overall consensus has been reached; there are still dissenting voices which reject the localization of Matthew within Judaism.4 And as with the new perspective on Paul, it seems to be time to move beyond the new perspective. In this paper, I will illustrate this with regard to Matthean ethics.
At first sight, Matthewâs ethics appears to be one of the most important features that closely connect the Matthean communities with their Jewish parent body, if one follows the currently prevalent understanding of Matthewâs Torah ethics. At closer inspection, however, the evidence forms a more complex image. My paper divides into three sections. First, I will briefly summarize my point of view concerning Matthewâs relation to Judaism. As a result, the simplistic binary logic of the debate, whether Matthew and his communities can still be located within or are already to be placed outside of Judaism, whether they still move on the same path or whether their ways have parted, will be questioned. I will then turn to examine Matthewâs ethics, which I will do in two sections because there are two main pillars which can be succinctly labeled as fulfilling the Torah on the one hand and following and imitating Jesus on the other hand.5
2. Matthewâs Relation to Judaism
The thesis that Matthew and his communities are to be located within Judaism is based on a number of good reasons. There are indeed strong indications for a Jewish milieu of Matthew and the social location of his communities. The following does not intend to be exhaustive, but will only highlight some characteristic points:
Matthew narrates his story of Jesus continuously in the light of Israelâs Scriptures. The Gospel of Matthew does not only contain a large number of marked citations, of which the fulfillment citations (1:23; 2:15, 18, 23; 4:15â16; 8:17; 12:18â21; 13:35; 21:5; 27:9â10) constitute just one particularly characteristic example,6 but also numerous unmarked citations and verbal as well as conceptual allusions.7 Thereby, references to the Scriptures of Israel do not only serve Christological purposes, but also illuminate the conflict between Jesus and the authorities8 and they are of great importance in Matthewâs endeavor to justify the universality of salvation.9 In light of the high density of the citations and allusions, the thesis suggests itself that Matthewâs Jesus story is the result of a long process of reflection by a Jewish-Christian group centered around (or, in any case, including) the evangelist â a group that, on the one hand, articulated in their gatherings the Jesus tradition that had been passed down to them (already containing scriptural quotations and allusions) and, on the other hand, intensively and independently read and reflected upon the Scripture. With regard to textual pragmatics, the numerous appeals to the Scriptures of Israel in Matthew emerge as an extremely important part of the evangelistâs communicative strategy in view of the conflict with the Pharisee-dominated synagogue: They serve to reassure the addressees that the Christ-believing ecclesia is the true custodian of the theological traditions of Israel.
The second aspect is closely related to the first. Matthew emphatically presents his Jesus story as the continuation of Israelâs salvation-historical story, as indicated already in the very beginning of the Gospel with the phrase
Î²á½·Î²Î»Î¿Ï Î³ÎµÎ½á½³ÏεÏÏ á¼¸Î·Ïοῦ ΧÏιÏÏοῦ , which connects the Jesus story withÎ²á½·Î²Î»Î¿Ï Î³ÎµÎ½á½³ÏεÏÏ Î¿á½Ïανοῦ καὶ γá¿Ï andÎ²á½·Î²Î»Î¿Ï Î³ÎµÎ½á½³ÏεÏÏ á¼Î½Î¸Ïá½½ÏÏν in Gen 2:4 and 5:1, and in the ensuing genealogy in 1:2â17. The periodization of the genealogy into 3 x 14 generations points to the notion that Israelâs history runs its course towards Jesus, its intended goal. This implies that the continuation of Israelâs salvation-historical story is also at the center of the self-understanding of Matthewâs ecclesia.Unlike Mark, Matthew stresses the Davidic messiahship of Jesus (1:1, 18â25; 9:27â31; 12:22â24; 15:21â28; 20:29â34; 21:1â17; 22:41â46)10 and thus ties into a traditional thread of Jewish messianic expectations (cf. Pss. Sol. 17; 18; 4Q161 Frags. 8â10 11â25; 4Q174 Frags. 1i+21+2 10â13; 4Q252 V,3â5 et al.),11 although he gives it a new twist by focusing Jesusâ Davidic messiahship on his healing ministry.12 Moreover, Matthew connects his unfolding of Jesusâ Davidic messiahship with his emphasis on Jesus turning particularly to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (15:24).13 Jesus is Israelâs shepherd, who was promised in the Scriptures of Israel (2:6).
The interpretation of the Torah is a central and indispensable part of Matthewâs ethics (cf. below).
Concerning Jesusâ messianic authority and his interpretation of the Torah, Matthew depicts a sharp conflict with the Jewish authorities, especially with the Pharisees. The intensity with which the conflict with the Jewish leaders is carried out suggests that these debates are of current significance for Matthew.14 In this context, it is of utmost importance to consider the role of the Galilean crowds, because Matthewâs interest in distinguishing the crowds from the authorities can only be sufficiently explained with the assumption that this reflects the situation of Matthewâs congregations as well: Matthew and his allies still try to convince their Jewish contemporaries of the message of Christ.15
Matthewâs references to âtheirâ or âyour synagoguesâ (4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54; 23:34) has often been taken as indicating a position outside of Judaism.16 This, however, is a premature conclusion. It undoubtedly cannot be denied that the ecclesia does have its own meetings and its own organizational structure and that at least some passages, in which the phrasing âtheir/your synagoguesâ occurs, indicate distance. In 12:9 and 23:34 the synagogues are identified as the synagogues of the Pharisees, and 10:17 and 23:34 speak about the flogging of disciples in their synagogues. At the same time, however, the flogging implies that the Christ-believers were still visiting the synagogues. The ecclesial meetings do not substitute synagogue attendance, but they coexist with one another.17
A major concern of Matthew is to mediate his strong emphasis on Jesusâ turning to Israel and the eschatological restitution of Godâs people with the universal relevance of Jesusâ ministry. In my monograph âIsrael, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthewâ, I argued that Matthewâs narrative Christology is connected with his presentation of Jesusâ two-stage mission first to Israel and then to the Gentiles. That is, the double unfolding of Jesusâ messianic identity as Son of David and Son of God, is interconnected with the narrative move from the exclusive turning of the Davidic messiah to Israel during his earthly ministry (and the corresponding limitation of the pre-Easter mission of the disciples to Israel in Matthew 10) to the universal post-Easter mission to the Gentiles. This post-Easter mission is Christologically grounded in the universal relevance of Jesusâ salvific death, his resurrection and his exaltation to universal Lordship, as it is stated by the Risen One in 28:18: âAll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.â This is definitely the climax of Matthewâs story. It is correct to criticize some radical approaches among the new perspective on Matthew at exactly this point, that the relevance of the ending of Matthew is underestimated in them. On the other hand, this ending does not overshadow the whole previous narrative as meaningless. On the contrary! Matthewâs emphasis on Israelâs special salvation-historical position can be sufficiently understood only on the basis of the current relevance of this perspective. For Matthew, Israel is not replaced by the church, but the church is formed in Israel. The universal mission does not supersede the mission to Israel, but extends the outreach by including the Gentiles. It must also be emphasized that Matthewâs narrative concept implies that Gentile believers who enter a Matthean congregation get to know the Jesus story in a form which points out the special role of Israel.18 Matthewâs universalism is clearly a variant form of Jewish universalism. In light of current debates among proponents of the âMatthew within Judaismâ-perspective, it is important to emphasize this point: Matthewâs universalism does in no way speak against hearing Matthew as a Jewish voice.
This last aspect, however, also points to the other side of the coin: Matthew clearly supports the inclusion of Gentiles into the congregation. It is difficult or even impossible to exactly quantify the Gentile Christians in Matthean communities at the time of the writing of the Gospel. One can only say that Matthewâs endeavor to mediate between the specific role of Israel and the universal dimension of the salvation that Jesus brought indicates that the justification of the inclusion of the Gentiles was of great current significance in Matthewâs context.19 This seems to reflect that Matthew saw himself confronted with community members who had some reservations against the expansion of mission beyond the borders of Israel as the people of God.20 But it is impossible to know whether Matthew tries to initiate a new mission or defends an established practice against objections that have newly emerged â for example in the wake of the influx of Christ-believing Jews from Judea who have fled because of the Jewish-Roman war. Be that as it may, it is theologically important that, for Matthew, Gentile Christians are not proselytes. The great commission in Matt 28:18â20 does not mention circumcision and, contrary to the claims of David Sim and a few others,21 does not imply it either.22 It is hard to deny that this would gradually change the social identity of the Matthean communities.
On this basis, the introductory remark on the new perspective on Matthew can be taken up. It is necessary to move beyond the new perspective with its focus on locating Matthew within Judaism for at least two reasons. First, the focus on the relation of Matthew and his communities to the Jewish parent body tended to neglect other aspects of Matthewâs and his communitiesâ social relations â to other branches or manifestations of the Christ-believing movement but also to their pagan social environment as well as wider political contexts. Second, the intention to clearly locate Matthew and his communities within Judaism, is rooted in the binary logic of the classical intra or extra muros-debate. This alternative, however, is to some extent a question of (ancient and contemporary) perspective: From one perspective the group is clearly located within Judaism, from another perspective there might be some doubts. Matthew himself certainly did not regard his theological agenda as a turning away from the faith of Israel but rather claimed that his communities are the legitimate custodians and trustees of Israelâs theological traditions. Moreover, socially, Judaism is apparently his primary life context. On the other hand, Jesusâ building of his ecclesia (16:18), which begins with the sending of the eleven to all nations (28:18â20), has a universal orientation from its beginning so that the ecclesia is â at least conceptually â not merely conceived as a community of salvation in Israel. To factor in the probable perspective of Matthewâs Pharisaic opponents at this point: It is rather unlikely or at least can be strongly doubted that the Pharisees viewed the Christ-believing Matthean communities as still being a form of Judaism, though one that was flawed in their eyes, if there were (a significant number of) uncircumcised Gentile Christians in it.23 The muri thus turn out to be âcognitive wandering dunesâ.24 This leads to a more fundamental objection: The binary thinking of the intra or extra muros-debate is problematic in itself, since it tends to reduce the complexity of the historical circumstances in which the Gospel of Matthew came to be. A multi-faceted approach is needed,25 which is suitable to adequately conceive the complex coexistence of facets of (deep) integration into, and interconnectedness with the Jewish parent body on the one hand, and strong indicators for organizational and institutional autonomy on the other, and which can integrate aspects of mutual influences and productive competition between the âchurchâ and the âsynagogueâ as an important part of the more comprehensive network of social relations of the Matthean communities that, as mentioned above, includes the connection to other Christ-believing groups (at other places).
The insufficiency of the simple alternative of locating Matthew either within or outside of Judaism implies a questioning of the suitability of the âParting of the Waysâ-metaphor for the reflection on the relation of early Christ-believing groups and Judaism as well,26 since the âParting of the Waysâ-approach also essentially operates within a binary logic; a Christ-believing group is either still walking on the same path with other Jews or their ways have parted. This binary logic is further burdened by the suggestion of monodirectionality: a once-shared path is bifurcated into two ways that diverge from that point on. The evidence, however, presents itself as much more complex than that, and there are different aspects pointing to different directions. Moreover, the âParting of the Waysâ-model tends to treat the relationship between the Matthean communities and the Jewish parent body solely in isolation from other aspects of the communitiesâ social relations. Due to these considerations, the title of my paper is âMatthewâs Ethics and the Complex Processes of Differentiation and Separationâ instead of âMatthewâs Ethics and the Parting of the Waysâ.
In the following two sections, I will turn to the ethical orientation that Matthew wants to impart to his audience. My thesis is that the way of life, which the evangelist expects from the members of the Christ-believing communities, mirrors the complexity of the social identity outlined above.
3. The Torah in Matthew and Matthewâs Openness to the Integration of Gentiles
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesusâ ethical instruction is explicitly related to the Torah. In the overall structure of Matthewâs Jesus story, the Sermon on the Mount is part of Matthewâs systematic presentation of Jesusâ ministry in 4:17â11:1, the first main section of the Gospel after the prologue. Thereby, Jesusâ ministry is emphatically presented as oriented towards Israel. According to 4:23, Jesus taught in the synagogues, proclaimed the good news of the kingdom and healed every disease and every sickness among the people,
This is underlined by the insight that Jesusâ instruction in no way undermines the authority of the Torah but confirms it. In current Matthean scholarship, it is the majority-view that the antitheses are not against the Torah â this option is ruled out already by the programmatic statements in 5:17â19. In 5:21â48, Jesusâ interpretation is rather presented against the background of an insufficient understanding of the Torah, which in Matthewâs polemic is ascribed to the scribes and Pharisees. According to the Matthean Jesus, they understand the commandments too literally, or reduce their true meaning by limiting their scope.29 The authority the Matthean Jesus claims for himself in Matt 5 is extraordinary, but nothing which could define a break with Judaism. Moreover, the interpretations of the Torah in Jesusâ antitheses have an individual character, but at the same time they are also deeply embedded in Early Jewish traditions of Torah-centered ethical admonition.30 The antitheses can thus be taken as a strong indicator in favor of the âMatthew within Judaismâ-position.
However, this is not the whole story. While Matthew confirms the validity of every stroke in the Torah in 5:18, he also sets priorities among the commandments. There are less important commandments, as 5:19 makes clear, and there are the weightier matters of the law,
Once again, one must stress that, at least to some extent, there are similar tendencies in some parts of variegated early Judaism. In Josephusâ summary of the law in the second book of Contra Apionem (190â218), there is a clear emphasis on social commandments. The same can be said about the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In Pseudo-Phocylides, the whole area of ritual laws is missing. Of course, this is necessary because of the pseudepigraphic fiction behind this writing. Nevertheless, this demonstrates that Diaspora Jews could express their ethical convictions with such a concentration on the social sphere, and it has to be emphasized that despite the pseudepigraphic fiction, there is a clear interaction with Torah sections in Pseudo-Phocylides, such as the Decalogue or Leviticus 19.32 Philo presents the Torah as the universal law for mankind in his so called expositio legis,33 and with reference to Abraham and Tamar, he emphatically demonstrates his openness for proselytes (Virt. 211â222). It would be a fruitful endeavor not just to show that Matthew adheres to the Torah, but to embed the specifics of Matthewâs Torah-understanding within the spectrum of early Judaism by detailed analysis of various approaches to the Torah in early Judaism.
Moving one step forward, however, we can point out an important implication of Matthewâs Torah hermeneutics. The central notion of hierarchy among the commandments, the emphasis on love, mercy and the second table of the Decalogue and the soteriological dimension of this emphasis are of core significance for the universal mission since it paves the way for the admission of Gentiles as Gentiles to the Christ-believing community. There is an interconnectedness between the Matthean Jesusâ interpretation of the Torah and the inclusion of Gentiles. When Jesus commissions his followers to make people of all nations into disciples by baptizing them and by teaching them to obey everything that he has commanded them (28:19â20), this obviously entails a reference back to Jesusâ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Disciples from the nations are thus obligated to keep the Torah, since Jesus has emphatically confirmed its validity in 5:17â19. At the same time, the unfolding of the fulfillment of the Torah in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere in the Gospel of Matthew is clearly concentrated on the radical interpretation of social commandments, whereas, as shown above, it is a negligible factor in terms of soteriology to more or less ignore ritual commandments. The great commission in Matt 28 thus implies that Israelâs Torah, as it is interpreted with ultimate authority in the Sermon on the Mount in front of the Jewish crowds, is also the Torah for the nations. In the Sermon on the Mount itself, this universal dimension is explicitly stated in the identification of Jesusâ followers as âthe salt of the earthâ (5:13) and âthe light of the worldâ (5:14). Of course, one can once again refer to Philoâs understanding of the Torah as a related approach, but despite his openness for proselytes, his explanation of the Torah is not connected to a programmatic missionary outreach to Gentiles.
To sum up: Matthewâs Torah-related ethics clearly points to the Jewish roots and â in connection with the still existent conflict with the Pharisees â to the context of the Matthean communities. It thus indicates that Matthew and his communities should be located within Judaism. But at the same time, we observe the nucleus for a development that took full shape in the prominent role of the Gospel of Matthew in the Early Church of the first centuries. Matthewâs Torah-related ethics could be adopted in the increasingly Gentile church because Matthew himself interpreted Israelâs Torah in a way that was suitable for the nations as well. Furthermore, this aspect is strongly supported by another core aspect of Matthewâs ethics, which in recent research was improprietously neglected, the imitation of Jesus.
4. The Imitation of Jesus
In Matthewâs ethics, Jesus is not only the teacher and interpreter of the Torah, but he also serves as an ethical exemplum for his disciples, which mirrors a core aspect of Greco-Roman ethics.34 To avoid misunderstandings, it must be emphasized that Torah-instruction and imitation of Jesus are not two areas that are clearly demarcated from one another. They belong closely together; there are flowing transitions and overlaps. An approach to Matthean ethics, however, that focuses exclusively on the interpretation of the law and the prophets does not adequately mirror the significance of the imitation of Jesus in the Matthean ethics.
If one asks how the topic of the Torah, prominently exposed in the Sermon on the Mount, is further developed in the ensuing narrative, one has to state that this topic remains present in explicit form only in two respects: in debates or controversies with outsiders, wherein, with the sole exception of the rich man in 19:16â22, Jesusâ discussion partners are always the Jewish authorities who are hostile to him (12:1â14; 15:1â20; 19:3â9; 22:34â40), and in the public35 discourse against the scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23, where the three middle woes in particular polemicize against the scribes and Pharisees. In the specific teachings of the disciples, there are implicit references to the Torah, for example the reference to Lev 19:17â18 in Matt 18:15,36 but nowhere do we find an explicit appeal to the Torah and a discussion about the proper understanding of a Torah commandment.
Moreover, if one surveys the narrative complex in Matt 16:21â20:34, which is structured by the three passion predictions (16:21; 17:22â23; 20:17â19), it is conspicuous that the instructions to the disciples move to the center (16:24â28; 18:1â35; 19:10â12; 19:23â20:16; 20:25â28). The meaning of this focus emerges from the narrative context. After the initial presentation of Jesusâ ministry in 4:17â11:1, the issue of response to Jesusâ works comes more strongly to the fore in 11:2â16:20. Thereby, Matthew distinguishes between the hostility of the authorities, the interest of the crowds, and the positive reaction of the disciples which culminates in Peterâs confession of Jesusâ messiahship and divine sonship (16:16, cf. 14:33). As a response to this, the Matthean Jesus looks ahead to the building of the church in 16:17â19. Then, in 16:21â20:34, Jesus, in anticipation of his impending passion, gives his disciples â who form the nucleus of the church that is to emerge after Easter â instructions, which are essential for the shaping of the ecclesial fellowship.
In terms of content, one can observe that those aspects gain importance, in which Jesusâ own way of life â such as his merciful turn to sinners,37 his humbleness and his attitude of serving others â is of paradigmatic relevance for the ethical orientation of his disciples. At the beginning of the main section in 16:21â20:34, Jesus admonishes his disciples to be ready to take up their cross (16:24â28). Near the end of this section, the paradigmatic significance of Jesusâ life orientation is concisely summarized in 20:28: Whoever wants to be great among the disciples is to be the servant of the others, âjust as the Son of Man has not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.â Instead of Markâs causative âforâ (
Viewed in its context, 20:28 takes up the ethos of humbleness, as it is brought forward in Matt 18, which is the second important ethical discourse in Matthewâs Gospel next to the Sermon on the Mount. It is important to emphasize this aspect. There is not only one central ethical speech in Matthew, but two. In Matt 18, the ethos of humbleness is programmatically introduced in the opening scene in verses 1â4: In his reaction to the disciplesâ question âwho is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?â (V. 1), Jesus presents a child to his disciples as a mark of orientation: âUnless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heavenâ (V. 3). In the following discourse, the ethos of humbleness is predominantly illustrated by the right attitude toward sinners â that is, the call for unlimited readiness to forgive.38 Analogous to the Sermon on the Mount within the paradigmatic presentation of Jesusâ ministry in Israel (4:23:
There is thus a second main pillar in Matthean ethics besides the important area of the interpretation of the Torah. In his contribution to the âMatthew within Judaismâ-volume mentioned above, Loren Stuckenbruck referred to the role of the Teacher of Righteousness in some Dead Sea Scrolls, namely in the Damascus Document and some pescharim, as a close relative to Jesusâ role in the Gospel of Matthew.40 There are indeed strong resemblances regarding the centrality of an authoritative figure of the past41 and the corresponding self-authorizing strategies in Matthew and the Dead Sea Scrolls. One can therefore argue that this comparison underlines Matthewâs embeddedness in the Early Jewish world. But there is also something else at stake in the Gospel of Matthew, which transcends the role of the Teacher of Righteousness, since walking in Jesusâ footsteps by taking up oneâs cross, being humble and encountering sinners with an unlimited readiness to forgive is an integral part and the ethical side of the salvific relation with Jesus as the Emmanuel. In addition to the interplay between the Matthean Jesusâ interpretation of the Torah and the inclusion of Gentiles, this mimetic dimension of the Christian way of life according to Matthew sheds light on the Janus-faced character of the Gospel of Matthew with regard to the processes of differentiation and, ultimately, separation of Judaism and emerging Christianity. Although in terms of history of religion, the Gospel of Matthew can and should be read thoroughly as an important Jewish document, its theological agenda simultaneously contains the nucleus for the development of Christianity as a religion separated from Judaism, including one of the most Jewish features of Matthean theology, its ethics. The way the Torah is interpreted is closely connected with the universal dimension of Matthewâs Gospel, with the inclusion of Gentiles into the community, and this is strongly underlined by the shift of the ethical focus to the imitation of Jesus in the second main part of Matthewâs Gospel. Matthewâs ethics is not only Torah-related ethics.
5. Conclusions
With its significant Torah-related dimension, Matthewâs ethics bear witness to the Jewish roots and context of the evangelist and his communities. But at the same time, there is a formative Christological dimension in Matthean ethics which sets it apart from all other forms of Early Jewish ethics and provides the basis for its reception in Gentile communities. This is all the more true given that the Christological dimension does not exhaust itself in the role of Jesus as the only and ultimate interpreter of the Torah who emphasizes the social commandments and interprets them in a radical way. For Matthew, Jesus is also the ultimate model to follow and imitate. Finally, Jesusâ own fulfillment of the Torah and the prophets includes both his teaching and his own Torah practice. When, for example, Jesus justifies his turning to sinners with a quotation from Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:13, he intimates that this is not contrary to the Torah, but part of his true fulfillment of the Torah, which serves as a guideline for his disciples. The consequence of this aspect is evident: At least to a large extent, the Torah practice demanded of the disciples can be regarded as part of the imitation of Jesus as well, which insofar emerges even as the overarching dimension of Matthean ethics.
Moreover, the Christological orientation of Matthean ethics is obviously connected with a social dimension. Matthean believers in Christ share the orientation toward the Christ event as a central aspect of their own identity with other groups in other places in the ancient Mediterranean, with whom they are in contact. This means that the significant others for Matthew are not only other local Jewish groups but also other Christ-believing communities in the oikoumene. Thus, the social location of the Matthean Christ-believers should not be considered exclusively in terms of their belonging to Judaism. Instead, a multi-perspective approach suggests itself. With very few exceptions,42 the aspect of the Matthean communitiesâ relations within the Christ-believing movement has been given short shrift in recent research with its strong focus on the relation to Judaism. But these two aspects ought to be connected with one another. Matthewâs ethics with its probable impact on the life of the members of the Christ-believing communities supports this claim. If this is correct, it is indeed necessary to move beyond the new perspective on âMatthew within Judaismâ and to connect it with a âMatthew within emergent Christianityâ-perspective.
Bibliography
Backhaus, K., Entgrenzte Himmelsherrschaft. Zur Entdeckung der paganen Welt im Matthäusevangelium, in: R. Kampling (ed.), âDies ist das Buch â¦â. Das Matthäusevangelium. Interpretation â Rezeption â Rezeptionsgeschichte (FS H. Frankemölle), Paderborn et al. 2004, 75â103.
Balabanski, V., Mission in Matthew against the Horizon of Matthew 24, in: NTS 54 (2008) 161â175.
Cousland, J. R. C., The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew (NT.S 102), Leiden/Boston/Köln 2002.
Culpepper, R. A., The Place of Matthew in Early Christianity, in: M. Seleznev et al. (eds.), The Gospel of Matthew in its Historical and Theological Context (WUNT 459), Tübingen 2021, 149â183.
Davis, J. F., Lex Talionis in Early Judaism and the Exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 5.38â42 (JSNTS 281), London/New York, NY 2005.
Deines, R., Not the Law but the Messiah. Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew â An Ongoing Debate, in: D. M. Gurtner/J. Nolland (eds.), Built upon the Rock. Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge 2008, 53â84.
Deines, R., Jesus and the Torah according to the Gospel of Matthew, in: M. Seleznev et al. (eds.), The Gospel of Matthew in its Historical and Theological Context (WUNT 459), Tübingen 2021, 295â327.
Foster, P., Community, Law and Mission in Matthewâs Gospel (WUNT 2, 177), Tübingen 2004.
Kampen, J., Matthew Within Sectarian Judaism (AYBRL), New Haven, CT/London 2019.
Konradt, M., Tora und Naturgesetz. Interpretatio graeca und universaler Geltungsanspruch der Mosetora bei Philo von Alexandrien, in: M. Konradt/ R. C. Schwinges (eds.), Juden in ihrer Umwelt. Akkulturation des Judentums in Antike und Mittelalter, Basel 2009, 87â112.
Konradt, M., Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew, translated by Kathleen Ess (BMSEC 2), Waco, TX 2014.
Konradt, M., âWhoever humbles himself like this child â¦â. The Ethical Instruction in Matthewâs Community Discourse (Matt 18) and its Narrative Setting, in: M. Konradt, Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 358), Tübingen 2016, 381â412.
Konradt, M., Das Gebot der Feindesliebe in Mt 5,43â48 und sein frühjüdischer Kontext, in: M. Oeming (ed.), Ahavah. Die Liebe Gottes im Alten Testament (ABIG 55), Leipzig 2018, 349â389.
Konradt, M., The Gospel according to Matthew. A Commentary, translated by Eugene Boring, Waco, TX 2020.
Konradt, M., The Role of the Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew. Israel and the Nations in the First Gospel, in: A. Runesson/D. M. Gurtner (eds.), Matthew within Judaism (SBLECL 27), Atlanta, GA 2020, 213â231.
Konradt, M., Following Jesus and Fulfilling the Law. Considerations on the Ethical Conception of the Gospel of Matthew, in: M. Seleznev/W. R. G. Loader/K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), The Gospel of Matthew in its Historical and Theological Context. Papers from the International Conference in Moscow, September 24 to 28, 2018 (WUNT 459), Tübingen 2021, 275â294.
Konradt, M., Matthew within or outside of Judaism? From the âParting of the Waysâ Model to a Multifaceted Approach, in: J. Schröter/B. A. Edsall/J. Verheyden (eds.), Jews and Christians â Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE? Reflections on the Gains and Losses of a Model (BZNW 253), Berlin/Boston 2021, 121â150.
Konradt, M., Ethik im Neuen Testament (GNT 4), Göttingen 2022.
Konradt, M., Matthew in Context. The Relationship of the Matthean Community to Judaism, in: M. Konradt, Christology, Torah, and Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew, translated by W. Coppins (BMSEC 10), Waco, TX 2022, 1â36.
Konradt, M., The Perfect Fulfillment of the Torah and the Conflict with the Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew, in: M. Konradt, Christology, Torah, and Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew, translated by W. Coppins (BMSEC 10), Waco, TX 2022, 75â100.
Konradt, M., The Reception and Interpretation of the Decalogue in the Gospel of Matthew, in: M. Konradt, Christology, Torah, and Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew, translated by W. Coppins (BMSEC 10), Waco, TX 2022, 101â130.
Konradt, M., âBlessed are the Mercifulâ (Matt 5.7). Compassion and Mercy as Ethical Attitude in the Gospel of Matthew, in: M. Konradt, Christology, Torah, and Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew, translated by W. Coppins (BMSEC 10), Waco, TX 2022, 131â158.
Konradt, M., âTake My Yoke upon You and Learn from Me!â (Matt 11.29). Matthew 11.28â30 and the Christological Dimension of Matthean Ethics, in: M. Konradt, Christology, Torah, and Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew, translated by W. Coppins (BMSEC 10), Waco, TX 2022, 159â185.
Konradt, M. Israelâs Scripture in Matthew, in: M. Henze/D. Lincicum (eds.), Israelâs Scriptures in Early Christian Writings. The Use of the Old Testament in the New, Grand Rapids, MI 2023, 209â235.
Kratz, R.G.: The Teacher of Righteousness and His Enemies, in: A. Feldman et al. (eds.), Is There a Text in This Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke (STDJ 119), Leiden/Boston 2017, 515â532.
Langlands, R., Exemplary Ethics in Ancient Rome, Cambridge et al. 2018.
Lieu, J., âThe Partings of the Waysâ. Theological Construct or Historical Reality?, in: JSNT 56 (1994) 101â119.
Lohfink, G., Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Mt 4,23â5,2 und 7,28f, in: K. Kertelge (ed.), Ethik im Neuen Testament (QD 102), Freiburg/Basel/Wien 1984, 145â167.
Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1. Teilbd.: Mt 1â7, EKK 1.1, Düsseldorf/Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn 52002.
Martens, J. W., One God, One Law. Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco- Roman Law (SPhAMA 2), Boston/Leiden 2003.
Niebuhr, K.-W., Gesetz und Paränese. Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der frühjüdischen Literatur (WUNT 2, 28), Tübingen 1987.
Niebuhr, K.-W., Die Tora im Alten Testament und im Frühjudentum, in: K.-W. Niebuhr, Tora und Weisheit. Studien zur frühjüdischen Literatur (WUNT 466), Tübingen 2021, 15â100.
Novakovic, L., Messiah, the Healer of the Sick. A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT 2, 170), Tübingen 2003.
Overman, J. A., Matthewâs Gospel and Formative Judaism. The Social World of the Matthean Community, Minneapolis, MN 1990.
Reed, A. Y./Becker, A. H., Introduction. Traditional Models and New Directions, in A.H. Becker/A.Y. Reed (eds.), The Ways that Never Parted. Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (TSAJ 95), Tübingen 2003, 1â33.
Reinhartz, A., A Fork in the Road or a Multi-Lane Highway? New Perspectives on the âParting of the Waysâ Between Judaism and Christianity, in: I. H. Henderson/G. S. Oegema, The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 2), Gütersloh 2006, 280â295.
Runesson, A., Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew. The Narrative World of the First Gospel, Minneapolis, MN 2016.
Runesson, A./Gurtner, D. M. (eds.), Matthew within Judaism. Israel and the Nations in the First Gospel (SBLECL 27), Atlanta 2020.
Saldarini, A. J., Matthewâs Christian-Jewish Community, CSHJ, Chicago, IL/London 1994.
Schreiber, S., Gesalbter und König. Titel und Konzeptionen der königlichen Gesalbtenerwartung in frühjüdischen und urchristlichen Schriften (BZNW 105), Berlin/New York, NY 2000.
Senior, D., The Lure of the Formula Quotations: Re-assessing Matthewâs Use of the Old Testament with the Passion Narrative as Test Case, in: C. M. Tuckett (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels (BETL 131), Leuven 1997, 89â115.
Senior, D., Between Two Worlds. Gentiles and Jewish Christians in Matthewâs Gospel, CBQ 61 (1999) 1â23.
Sim, D. C., The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism. The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (SNTW), Edinburgh 1998.
Slee, M., The Church in Antioch in the First Century CE. Communion and Conflict (JSNTS 244), London/New York, NY 2003.
Stanton, G., A Gospel for a New People, Edinburgh 1992.
Stuckenbruck, L., The Function of Teaching Authority in the Dead Sea Documents and Matthewâs Gospel, in: A. Runesson/D. M. Gurtner (eds.), Matthew within Judaism. Israel and the Nations in the First Gospel (SBLECL 27), Atlanta, GA 2020, 257â281.
Viljoen, F. P., Matthew, the Church and Anti-Semitism, in: D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (BETL 243), Leuven/Paris/Walpole 2011, 665â682.
Vortisch, J., Das unschuldige Blut im Matthäusevangelium. Zur geschichtstheologischen Deutung des Todes Jesu (WUNT 2, 578), Tübingen 2022.
Zerbe, G., Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts. Ethical Themes in Social Contexts (JSPE.S 13), Sheffield 1993.
Ziethe, C., Auf seinen Namen werden die Völker hoffen. Die matthäische Rezeption der Schriften Israels zur Begründung des universalen Heils (BZNW 233), Berlin/Boston 2018.
For an overview of the key issues in this debate and an attempt to identify the central interpretive problems that underlie the different positions, see Konradt, Context. â I thank John Van Maaren and Aaron Schmidt for proofreading the text.
Overman, Gospel; Saldarini, Community.
See, e.g., Sim, Gospel; Runesson, Wrath; Kampen, Matthew, and with nuances Konradt, Israel.
See, e.g., Foster, Community, 78â79, 253 and elsewhere; Deines, Jesus, 305â307.
In the following, I will take up, further develop, and connect some thoughts that I unfolded in previous publications. See esp. Konradt, Following; Konradt, Judaism; Konradt, Matthew; Konradt, Ethik, 260â322; Konradt, Context.
Cf. Senior, Lure, esp. 103â114.
For a concise overview, see Konradt, Scripture.
Cf. Konradt, Scripture, 222â225 and, focusing on the motif of innocent blood, Vortisch, Blut.
Cf. Ziethe, Namen, passim.
For a detailed analysis of Matthewâs emphasis on Jesusâ Davidic messiahship, see Konradt, Israel, 17â49.
On Early Jewish royal messianic expectations, see Schreiber, Gesalbter, esp. 145â389.
Cf. Novakovic, Messiah.
On the programmatic focus on Israel in Jesusâ earthly ministry, see Konradt, Israel, 49â74.
Cf. Saldarini, Community, 46â52; Konradt, Israel, 355â360.
On the role of the crowds, see Konradt, Crowds. Cf. also the detailed analysis of Cousland, Crowds.
See, e.g., Luz, Evangelium I, 96â97; Stanton, Gospel, 128â129; Viljoen, Matthew 675â676.
For a more detailed discussion of this point, see Konradt, Judaism, 129â132.
Cf. Senior, Worlds, 19â20.
It is telling that in this thematic context too, arguing with the Scriptures of Israel is of utmost importance in the Gospel of Matthew. Cf. Ziethe, Namen.
Cf. Senior, Worlds, 19; Slee, Church, 134; Foster, Community, 20; Balabanski, Mission, 170â171; Konradt, Israel, 365â366.
See Sim, Gospel, 251â254, furthermore, e.g., Slee, Church, 141â144; Runesson, Wrath, 31â36.
For the arguments which make the assumption that circumcision is presupposed in 28:19â20 highly improbable, see Konradt, Context, 19â31.
To underline this, one can point to the following observation with regard to the repeated motif of the Matthean Jesusâ withdrawal after conflicts with his Pharisaic opponents in 12:15 and 15:21. In both instances, a text follows that points to the universal dimension of salvation: the formula quotation from Isa 42:1â4LXX in 12:18â21 which twice refers to the nations (12:18, 21, on the relevance of this quotations for the Easter expansion of the salvific turning to all nations, see Ziethe, Namen, 265â288 and Konradt, Israel, 276â280) and the healing of the Canaanite womanâs daughter (on this, see Konradt, Matthew, 238â242). The option to interpret this as a withdrawal from Israel to the benefit of the other nations is â apart from its inconsistency with Matthewâs overall theological agenda â already made impossible by the fact that 12:15 speaks of the
Thus the apt description by Backhaus, Himmelsherrschaft, 79 (in German: âkognitive Wanderdünenâ).
Cf. on this Konradt, Judaism.
For an early critique, see Lieu, Partings. See further the discussion in Reinhartz, Fork, esp. 281â288 and Reed/Becker, Introduction, 16â24.
Cf. Lohfink, Bergpredigt, 155â157; Cousland, Crowds, 53â68; Konradt, Israel, 50â52 et al.
Cf. Lohfink, Bergpredigt, 157; Konradt, Ethik, 268â269.
For a detailed justification of this approach, see Konradt, Fulfillment. For an attempt to downplay the importance of the Torah, see Deines, Law.
For an illustration of this, see Konradt, Decalogue, 108â112, 116â119, 120â123 with regard to the first, the second and the fourth antithesis, Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 34â173 and Davis, Lex Talionis, 55â72 with regard to the fifth antithesis and Konradt, Feindesliebe, 351â363 with regard to the sixth antithesis.
Cf. the short overview in Konradt, Ethik, 36â39. On Early Jewish Torah instruction, see Niebuhr, Gesetz and Niebuhr, Tora.
On Josephusâ summary of the law and on PseudPhoc, cf. Niebuhr, Gesetz, 5â72.
Cf. Martens, God, esp. 83â130; Konradt, Tora.
Cf., e.g., Langlands, Ethics.
According to Matt 23:1, the addressees are not only the disciples, but also the crowds.
On this, see Konradt, Whoever, 396â399.
On this, see Konradt, Blessed, 139â146.
For a more detailed analysis of Matt 18 and its relevance for Matthean ethics, see Konradt, Whoever.
Due to space limits, I can only briefly point to the important section in 11:28â30, which, compositionally, shows itself to be the start of the shift of emphasis outlined above. For a detailed analysis of the passage and its relevance for Matthean ethics, see Konradt, Yoke.
Stuckenbruck, Function.
With regard to the Teacher of Righteousness, there is, however, a debate, whether this figure really refers to an individual historical person (cf. Kratz, Teacher).
See, e.g., Culpepper, Place.