Matthew, Disciple and Scribe

by Patrick Schreiner

  The parallels between Moses’s birth and Jesus’s birth are unmistakable and not coincidental. Both are born as helpless children in a doomed home and under a foreign power. Both kings (Pharaoh is labeled as “king” in Exod. 1:15, 17, 18) seek to kill male Hebrew children who threaten to upset the balance of power in the nation.11 Both stories show the persecution and preservation of God’s people. Both Moses’s and Jesus’s family are told by God to return to the land, and both stories display how God sovereignly preserves his chosen one in the most unlikely of circumstances. Matthew portrays Herod the Great as an evil and paranoid ruler, much like Pharaoh.

  God preserves his redeemers in the midst of the persecution because he has greater plans for them. They both travel through water to enter into the land where they will do their ministry. Both stories also conclude with the Lord telling them to return to their land. In Exod. 4:19 the Lord says to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt, for all the men who were seeking your life are dead [τεθνήκασιν γὰρ πάντες οἱ ζητοῦντές σου τὴν ψυχήν].” In Matt. 2:20 the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream and says, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead [τεθνήκασιν γὰρ οἱ ζητοῦντες τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ παιδίου].” The language here is the same. As Moses is commanded to return, so also Jesus’s family, after fleeing to Egypt, is told to return. Matthew’s description of Jesus’s birth is wrapped in the robes of Moses’s birth.

  Implications for Our Reading

  Moses’s birth narrative informs Matthew’s narrative, and Matthew’s birth narrative informs Exod. 1–2. Matthew exemplifies how to read both forward and backward, prospectively and retrospectively. Both stories are theological portraits of the war between the kings of the earth and the king of heaven. The battle between Moses and Pharaoh is a battle of kingship. When Exod. 1–2 is read in the silhouette of Matt. 1–2, then the kingly nature of both Pharaoh and Moses comes to the forefront.

  Although Moses is not explicitly called a king (and in one sense the king of heaven is warring with the king of the earth), there are indications in Moses’s early life that he is to be read in the line of his forefathers. His forefathers Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah are all presented as kings. As the narrative continues, we read of Moses taking Zipporah as his wife, whom he meets at the well (Exod. 2:17). This is similar to how Jacob meets Rachel (Gen. 29:2–14) and how Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, is found (24:10–28). As Sailhamer notes, these repeated patterns should cause us to link these texts and tie Moses to his kingly forefathers.12 Thus, when the early life of Moses is read in light of Matt. 2, the battle of the kings comes to full force.13

  While one king seeks destruction, the preserved king redeems his people (Matt. 1:21). The vocation of the king is the salvation of his people. Pharaoh’s murder of Hebrew children is meant not merely to provide fodder for storybook Bibles but to show the difference between a redeemer who comes to serve and a redeemer who comes to be served. Pharaoh is a typological picture of all those who war against the offspring of the woman. Jesus’s birth is presented in the form of Moses’s infancy story to enable readers to see him as their new redeemer, their new Moses, who will bring them on the new exodus. As Moses is born under a foreign king and with little hope of redemption, so too Jesus is born under a foreign king and has little hope for a prosperous life. But Moses ends up leading the people out of Egypt in the most unexpected way, and Jesus will also lead the people out of slavery.14

  If readers fail to see the Moses insinuations, they might read this story at a mere historical level: Jesus is born, and then he must leave his land to be spared. But when the Moses traditions come to life, then the readers’ viewpoint expands. This is not simply about Jesus being rescued but about the rescuer. The redeemer-king is spared so that he may lead God’s people out of slavery. The Mosaic imagery is employed in service of a larger purpose; that purpose is freedom. God places a sanctuary around both of these figures because he cares for his people and has promised to rescue them. Their miniature safeguarding stories seal a larger coming redemption. God has sworn to liberate his people, and he plans to do this through a leader. The Mosaic imagery and the new exodus coincide.

  Once the Mosaic imagery is lit, the burning bush of Moses shines brightly. Matthew’s method here casts the narrative structure as an echo rather than using explicit fulfillment quotations. Thus, in Jesus’s birth Matthew is simultaneously obvious and deft with his comparisons. He echoes multiple stories at once.15 The story of Jesus’s birth takes up a mere twenty-three verses but is in fulfillment of four prophets, and also of the Moses narrative (and probably more). Matthew does not limit Jesus’s story to only one OT referent or prophecy: he weaves them all together into a beautiful whole. This is because he perceives the entire OT as one unified story that can be stitched together. The cornerstone on which this unity is built is the messiah. If it is not a unified story about Jesus, then his method would be madness. As it stands, it is art.

  The Prophet Who Fulfills the Torah

  In the infancy narrative, Matthew depicts Jesus as the redeemer-king, whose life is spared like Moses so that he can lead them on the new exodus. While Matthew presents Jesus like Moses in many respects, this does not mean the typical image of Jesus as the prophet-teacher like Moses takes a back seat. Matthew insists that Jesus be viewed as the teacher-prophet like Moses. For Matthew, in fact, the descriptions of Jesus as redeemer and prophet don’t have to be at odds. They interpret each other, and to artificially separate them does damage to our understanding of how they interlace. The redeemer can only redeem because he instructs people in how they are to live. The teacher-prophet teaches so that he can redeem them. The goal or purpose of bringing the people out of Egypt is so that they can live in wisdom and worship under the ruling hand of Yahweh: to do this they need the law (Ezra 7:25–26). At the beginning of Proverbs, Lady Wisdom stands in the streets speaking both as a prophet and teacher (Prov. 1:20–33).16 Law, exodus, and wisdom are therefore allied. Moses stands as the mediator of the Torah, delivering and applying the law to the people. Jesus, in the same way, teaches the Torah so that the people will no longer live under slavery to sin, flesh, and death.

  If there is any Gospel that emphasizes the prophetic or teaching function of Jesus, it is Matthew. Matthew shortens the busy activity of Mark’s Jesus to fill about half of his Gospel. Another quarter of his Gospel, on the teaching of Jesus, he shares with Luke. The remaining quarter of the material is distinct to Matthew and focuses on the teaching of Jesus. Matthew divides his Gospel into narrative and discourse sections, each of the five having a distinct theme.

  Matthew’s Discourses

  Chapters Theme

  5–7 Blessings, entering the kingdom

  10 Mission Discourse

  13 Parables of the kingdom

  18 Community discourse

  23–25 Woes, coming kingdom

  The point here is clear: Moses is dubbed the teacher of Israel; similarly, Matthew gathers Jesus’s teaching into a large block, paralleling him with the teacher of Israel. While much could be said about Jesus as the teacher like Moses, I will concentrate on (1) the Sermon on the Mount’s introduction, (2) the key paragraph in Matt. 5:17–20, (3) the true intention of the law in Matt. 5:21–48, and finally (4) Matt. 11:28–30, where Jesus tells his hearers to take his yoke. These verses succinctly explain Jesus’s relationship to the Torah as the new prophet like Moses.

  While it is easy to become distracted amid the details of Jesus’s relationship to the law, readers must remember to connect it with the new exodus. Confirming this connection is the plot that comes before the Sermon, which gives the same sequence as Exodus.

  Exodus Slaughter of infants Return of hero Passage through water Temptation Mountain of lawgiving

  Matthew Slaughter of infants Return of hero Passage through water Temptation Mountain of lawgiving

  The upshot o
f this is that the Mosaic parallels should be considered together, not in isolation from each other. By virtue of their order and relatedness, the presentation develops a figural sequence that should inform how one reads the Sermon. Not only do the allusions and citations echo the Tanak, but the plot of Jesus recapitulates the plot of Moses.

  Setting Up the Sermon

  Matthew does two interesting things to set up the Sermon on the Mount to portray Jesus as the new Moses. First, just prior to the Sermon, in Matt. 4:12–17, there is an important transition from John the Baptist to Jesus. Jesus hears that John the Baptist has been thrown into prison. The significance of John’s imprisonment can hardly be overestimated. Matthew 3 portrays John as an OT prophet, yet John himself prophesies that one greater than he is about to come (3:11–12). Matthew immediately identifies Jesus, through the account of his baptism, as the one who is greater than John (3:13–17). Readers should thus be attuned to the sequence of Matt. 4 into Matt. 5: John, the OT prophet, is arrested and his ministry ends; only at that point does Jesus begin his own ministry. Something important has ended, and something even more important has begun.17 John is the last of the OT prophets (11:13–14), and when he passes from the scene, an eschatologically new era commences. Now the Prophet has come, and he is about to give his first teaching.

  The second part of the introduction to the Sermon deserving attention is the first verse of chapter 5. Matthew, in merely one verse, gives three hints that Jesus is the new Moses. To set up the Sermon, he makes sure the reader is thinking about Sinai and the prophet Moses. First, the words “he went up on the mountain” (ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος) are a verbatim quotation of Exod. 19:3 (ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος), which describes Moses as ascending Mount Sinai to receive the law. As others have noted, this particular phrase occurs only three times in the Greek OT. Each of the three times it is in reference to Moses’s ascent of Sinai (Exod. 19:3; 24:18; 34:4).

  Second, Matthew describes Sinai as “the” mountain (τὸ ὄρος). Matthew usually does not use a definite article when referring to a mountain unless a mountain is mentioned in the preceding context (Matt. 8:1; 17:9). This would be called the anaphoric use of the article. But in 5:1 no immediately preceding mountain is mentioned. This indicates it is a par excellence use of the article (identifying someone or something in a class of their own). Matthew invites a comparison with the most prominent mount in the OT.

  Finally, Matthew describes Jesus as sitting down to teach. This recalls Moses’s stance when he receives God’s law on Mount Sinai. Although the verb in the Hebrew is debated, references in the Talmud show that Jewish interpreters regarded Deut. 9:9 as meaning that Moses sat down on the mountain. All three of these details place the Sermon under the lens of Sinai. Unfortunately, many note these opening Mosaic parallels and then stop, but the parallels continue throughout the Sermon. Matthew’s point seems to be to connect the law of the Torah with the law of the new covenant. Jesus delivers the new-covenant teaching as the new Moses.

  Fulfilling the Law

  I agree with many who argue that the central verses of the Sermon come in 5:17–20. In the previous chapter, we examined these verses under the rubric of royalty; here we will peruse them with a prophetic lens. These verses certainly provide rich reflection on how Matthew intermingles the new and the old and how the new eschatological prophet stands at the center of the turn of the ages. If these are the central verses, then the Sermon is all about how the prophet interacts with the Torah. In other words, the Sermon presents Jesus as the new Moses. However, that does not make the interpretation any easier. The compactness of 5:17–20 is at once its power and its difficulty:18

  Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

  The central point is that Jesus has come to fulfill the law.19 The tension between the new and the old is illustrated and encapsulated in this word “fulfill.” France, for instance, calls fulfillment “the essential key to all Matthew’s theology.”20 Jesus as a teacher of wisdom affirms the message of Ecclesiastes: “All has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments” (12:13). As Davies and Allison say, this paragraph anticipates two misunderstandings: (1) that Jesus came to set aside the law, and (2) that Jesus simply came to say that the law continues in the same way. Jesus did not come to abrogate the law nor to simply affirm it; he came to fulfill it. One can view this as a spectrum of misunderstandings, with the middle as the message:

  The Law and the Prophets are not set aside but completed. Another way to put this is that the Law and the Prophets have found their telos (end, goal, purpose) in Jesus. As Banks says, “It is not so much Jesus’ stance towards the Law that he [Matthew] is concerned to depict: it is how the Law stands with regard to him, as the one who brings it to fulfillment and to whom all attention must now be directed.”21 The major point here is that in the Sermon Jesus affirms the validity of the law through the word “fulfillment” as the new prophet brings his people on the new exodus. Clarity concerning 5:17–20 comes from examining 5:21–48, where Jesus explains in more detail the implications of his fulfilling the law.

  The True Intention of the Law

  The Sermon continues by fleshing out Jesus’s statement in Matt. 5:17–20 with more specific comments on the law. As the teacher, Jesus gives not merely proverbial esoteric statements but examples illustrating and clarifying what he means. Yet many interpreters have still been confused by what follows in 5:21–48. Ridderbos regards these antitheses as more detailed expositions of the law.22 Meier holds that Jesus clearly abrogates the commandments of the OT in some instances.23 Strecker says that the antitheses largely replace the demands of the OT by way of new regulations.24 W. Davies claims, “We cannot speak of the Law being annulled in the antitheses, but only of its being intensified in its demand, or reinterpreted in a higher key.”25 Allison even asserts, “It does not surprise when 5:21–48 goes beyond the letter of the law to demand more.”26

  These views initially seem right, considering that six times Jesus says, “You have heard it was said. . . . But I say to you.”27 Even the innocent title of “antithesis” tilts toward understanding Jesus as going beyond the law. Glancing at what was said before and seeing what Jesus said seem to point to an intensification of the law.

  Moses forbids murder (Matt. 5:21), but Jesus forbids anger (5:22).

  Moses condemns the adulterous act (5:27), but Jesus condemns the adulterous thought (5:28).

  Moses permits divorce (5:31), but Jesus restricts this permission (5:32).

  Moses gives rules for taking oaths (5:33), but Jesus rules that oaths should not be taken at all (5:34).

  Moses declares the precept “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (5:38), but Jesus denies the precept’s application to personal disputes (5:39).

  Moses requires love of neighbor (5:43), but Jesus also requires love of the enemy (5:44).

  While the proposal that Jesus extends or intensifies the law is attractive, if this section (5:21–48) is read in light of its preamble (5:17–20), then the indication is that these statements are not overturning the Torah but fulfilling it––or showing the law’s true intention.

  The clue lies in the preamble. Jesus does not add laws, or even deepen them, but recovers what God has always required in the law from of old. However, this does not mean nothing new is to be found. There is a sense of newness, but newness understood rightly. Jesus is now the prophet who is the arbiter of the truth of God (e.g., 7:24, 29) because no other prophet could say “But I say to
you” in response to Torah without eyebrows being raised. Jesus rebuts a wrong interpretation of the Torah and supplies the reader with wisdom.28 A newness exists, but it also has continuity with the past. Each statement that Jesus delivers in this section can be appreciated in this way.

  When Jesus compares murder to anger in 5:21–26, he shows that the intention of the law is not merely to prevent murder but also to prohibit selfish anger and serve as a stimulus for reconciliation. “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” (Matt. 5:21–22). The intent of this law, even in the Torah, is not merely to prevent murder but also to warn the people against anger, insults, and disunity. It is to be a stimulus for love, so Jesus points them back to the law and says, “This is what it always meant, but I as the messiah needed to show you how.” Verse 23 confirms this interpretation, for it makes little sense for Jesus to go beyond the law and then immediately follow it up by an example where one is observing the law. “If you are offering your gift at the altar . . .” Like any law presented to humans, there is a tendency for us to twist it to fit our likings until the purpose of the law is entirely lost. Jesus stands up as the new Moses and does not intensify the law but returns to the original intention of the law.