In context, all these parables are about the religious leaders’ response to Jesus. Jesus has come to the house of Israel, but they have not listened to his summons. They have said they would work, but they never go out into the field. They are planning on destroying the son so that they have the master’s inheritance. All of these actions result in the invitation to others. The kingdom of God is taken away from them and given to those who produce fruit. The requirement of the new people of God is producing fruit, not ethnicity. In some sense, these parables form an inclusio with John the Baptist’s chastisement of Israel’s leaders in Matt. 3.
The next few chapters confirm the rejection of Israel’s leaders as they are denounced as hypocrites (Matt. 23) and the destruction of the temple is predicted (chap. 24). But Jesus clarifies that his desire is Israel’s repentance. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (23:37–39). Jesus longs to gather them and protect them, but they have rejected him as king. Therefore, Israel’s house is left desolate. The faithful and wise servants are those who give food at the proper time (24:45). They are the ones ready for the coming of the messiah, have their oil prepared for the bridegroom (25:1–13), invest what is given to them (25:14–30), and produce fruit in keeping with repentance by taking care of “the least of these” (25:40). Matthew’s point repeatedly is that the people of God are those who follow the king of the kingdom. Jews and gentiles are a part of Abraham’s family.
Conclusion
Matthew is the discipled scribe who has learned wisdom from his teacher. One of the things he understands is that Jesus redefines the family of God under the aegis of Abraham. Matthew’s first words identify Jesus as the son of Abraham. This theme develops as the messiah performs his ministry and accomplishes his mission. Jesus’s Abrahamic descent directs readers toward familial themes and the constitution of the new people of God. Abraham was promised that he would have a large family and that this family would be a blessing to all nations. In the OT, it was through a particular family that universal blessings would come. The discipled scribe continues this story, which requires an ending. Through the particular, blessing will come to the universal.
Jesus comes from a Jewish heritage. He is born in Israel. His mission is to Israel. He longs to welcome Israel. But the family of Abraham is also expansive. The family tree includes gentiles. The first worshipers of the “king of the Jews” are magi. John the Baptist and Jesus both define their followers not by ethnicity but as those who do the will of the father. Jesus feeds both Jews and gentiles and speaks of the great faith of a centurion and a Canaanite woman. At the end of the Gospel, another centurion confesses that Jesus is “the Son of God,” and finally Jesus sends his disciples into all nations. Neither Jewish particularism nor gentile inclusion can be denied.
The question is How do these relate? I have argued that there is an order, a priority, an Israel-first mission for both Jesus and his disciples; but this does not exclude the gentiles. In fact, the mission to Israel leads to condemnation on Israel, the bread crumbs fall under the table, and the gentiles are there to eat them. In a twist of events, the lack of response from Israel leads to the blessing of Abraham being extended to all nations. At the same time, the welcoming of the gentiles leads to Israel’s jealousy and rejection of Jesus. Yet this does not mean that all of Israel is excluded; some believe and some doubt (28:17). Israel is therefore not rejected wholesale but excluded insofar as they turn from their messiah.
A back and forth occurs in the First Gospel that sometimes bewilders readers. Part of the reason for this is because this development in history was untidy. It was chaotic, not in terms of the plan of the messiah but in terms of the people’s understanding. Matthew as the scribe reflects on the reconstitution of the people of God and displays the messiness of the original situation, but his overall point is clear: Jesus is the son of Abraham, and he fulfills the familial promises to Abraham by establishing the new family of God as defined by faith and repentance.
1. Leroy Huizenga (“Matt 1:1: ‘Son of Abraham’”) argues that “son of Abraham” as a title covers the scope of the entire Gospel.
2. Abraham’s connection to wisdom can be found in the fact that he is declared to be righteous when he believes God’s promise (Gen. 15:6). Though I don’t have time to develop it here, righteousness and wisdom are correlated in the Scriptures (1 Cor. 1:30). Proverbs 1 brings together wisdom, instruction, and righteousness: “to know wisdom and instruction . . . in righteousness and justice. . . . Let the wise hear and increase in learning” (Prov. 1:2, 3, 5). Proverbs 2 speaks in a similar way: “For the Lord gives wisdom. . . . Then you will understand righteousness” (Prov. 2:6, 9). See also Deut. 16:19; Ps. 37:30; Prov. 9:9; 10:31; Eccles. 7:16; 9:1; 10:2; Jer. 23:5. Wisdom 10:5 also speaks of wisdom recognizing the righteous man (referring to Abraham) and preserving him as blameless before God.
3. Kingdom and exodus themes are also associated with Abraham, but the familial metaphors rise to the surface. What is a kingdom or an exodus without a people? Abraham fills out our picture of “who” composes the people of God in this kingdom and who is a part of this exodus. I use the word “familial” to summarize the terms offspring, seed, etc. Readers should not import modern notions of “family” into this terminology.
4. The relationship between Israel and the church has been a contentious issue in the study of the NT. I will limit my discussion to Matthew here, although certainly other texts in the NT canon need to be taken into consideration.
5. One of my main interlocutors for this chapter will be Matthias Konradt (Israel, Church, and the Gentiles), who has written a significant book on the relationship of Israel, gentiles, and the church in the First Gospel that some are hailing as a new perspective on Matthew. See Donald Senior’s comments in RBL (April 23, 2013) about the German edition (2007). Konradt proposes that the seemingly contradictory texts of 10:6 and 28:18–20 actually point to a sequence of the two commissions integral to how Matthew unfolds his Christology. The Christology of Jesus as the son of David (to the Jews) and the Son of God (to the gentiles) is key to understanding the narrative.
6. I take the cleansing of the temple to imply the destruction of the temple. This is made clear by Jesus’s action being paired with his fig tree condemnation. One has to wonder if Paul was reflecting on the Jesus traditions as he wrote Rom. 9–11. Paul says that the inclusion of the gentiles is based not on Israel’s restoration but on Israel’s rejection of Jesus. The inclusion of gentiles is made possible by Israel’s “stumbling,” “defeat,” and “rejection.” This stumbling creates “riches for the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:12) and reconciliation for the whole world (9:15). Paul states that this hardening is temporary, and it will lead to an even further inclusion of Israel, but the pattern is still set. The stumbling of Israel leads to riches for the gentiles, which leads to greater inclusion of Israel: Stumbling of Israel → Riches for gentiles → Greater inclusion of Israel.
7. There is much to commend in Konradt’s work, and a good portion of it will align with my work here. However, Konradt’s work takes a method different from mine, and therefore our conclusions differ slightly. Konradt seems to take 10:5–6 and 28:18b–20 as equal texts. Rather than reading the whole Gospel in light of the mission at the end, Konradt seeks to read it through 10:5–6. I will argue that Matthew wrote with the Great Commission always in his mind, since it had already happened. To put this more succinctly, the question is not how 28:18b–20 fits into the mission of 10:5–6, but how 10:5–6 fits into the mission of 28:18b–20.
8. It is still Abraham’s family, but his family is redefined and expanded.
9. Note that Abraham is specifically called father.
10. The Galatia
ns text does not undermine my point about the “offspring” but supports it, because Jesus becomes the seed who creates the new family.
11. See chap. 7, on Israel, for a short defense of this structure.
12. Altering the introduction or conclusion slightly (by either expanding it or reducing it) does not have much effect on the argument I make here.
13. For a study on the annotations in Matthew’s genealogy, see Hood, Messiah.
14. Hooker, Beginnings, 23.
15. In some canon lists, Chronicles is placed after Kings and sometimes at the head of the Wisdom literature. See Gallagher and Meade, Biblical Canon Lists.
16. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, 112.
17. France (Gospel of Matthew, 37) admits that their sexual past might link the women together, but he acknowledges that this suggestion is weakened by the fact that embarrassment over their sexual activities is primarily a modern phenomenon. In Jewish tradition, Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth are heroes. It is also David who is castigated for adultery, not Bathsheba.
18. Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 267–68.
19. It also traces the steadfast hand and covenant love of God in preserving his people.
20. Huizenga, New Isaac.
21. Admittedly, the biblical text is formally silent on Isaac’s willingness. However, the text also does not present Isaac as unwilling, and Jewish tradition supports his willingness.
22. Kirk, Man Attested by God, 190.
23. Erickson, “Joseph and the Birth of Isaac.” This point will be developed in the chapter on Israel.
24. Alternatively, one could argue that Jesus needs to save Israel from their sins so that the gospel can then go to the nations.
25. Leithart (Jesus as Israel, 70) says, “The magi are much more like Israel herself. . . . [They] are not merely Gentile God-fearers, but the beginning of a new Israel, which is going to consist of Jews and Gentiles.”
26. Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 268.
27. While Konradt proposes a clean break in the Great Commission and provides a nice narrative development, the constitution of the new people of God in the First Gospel is more untidy and progressive than Konradt suggests. This is most likely because Matthew writes a historical account and attempts to communicate the messiness of the development that Matthew has experienced in Jesus’s ministry and was still experiencing in the early church. The new people of God is not an easy thing to understand or even live into, as the rest of the NT evidences. Konradt is right that an overall rejection of Israel does not occur, but there is a prophetic condemnation. The temple is cleansed (21:12–13), their leaders are castigated (23:23), and their fig tree is left barren (21:18–19). The king of the Jews has arrived, and Jerusalem does not recognize him, so they crucify him, thereby installing him as the universal Lord of all creation.
28. France (Gospel of Matthew, 1107) also makes much of the location markers. Davies and Allison (Matthew, 3:679) point to the Mosaic imagery, since Moses ended his earthly ministry on a mountain.
29. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain. According to Donaldson, in Jewish history mountains revolve around four themes. There are covenant mountains, cosmic mountains, mountains of revelation, and eschatological mountains.
30. Donaldson argues that the mountain scene here is a christological reinterpretation of Zion eschatology. The exalted Jesus is now the gathering point for the people of God, not Mount Zion. Jesus is now the presence of God to the people of God, as confirmed by the words “I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
31. Carson (“Matthew” [2010], 663) says the association with Galilee not only has nuances with Jesus’s humble background and the theme of the gentile mission but also ensures that the risen Christ’s ministry is continuous with Jesus’s previous ministry. Yet there is also a shift here that should be noted. Turner says that Galilee is fitting because the disciples are Galileans and would have returned home after the Passover in Jerusalem. Yet Turner (Matthew, 688) also notes that because Galilee has previously been associated with gentiles, it is fitting that the mandate occurs here.
32. Matthew’s modifying the count of disciples to eleven does not occur elsewhere in this Gospel; only recently has Judas fallen away, so we would not expect it to occur much.
33. Alternatively, one could argue that Jesus is the twelfth disciple and completes Israel, but I find this less likely since it would be odd for him to be labeled as a disciple of himself. Rather, he stands at the head of Israel.
34. The language also echoes Dan. 7:14.
35. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 202–3.
36. Much of the material that follows comes from Pennington, Heaven and Earth. Gerhard Schneider (“Studien zum Matthäusevangelium,” 287–89) has also done work on this theme.
37. Pennington, Heaven and Earth, 297. Pennington (“Heaven, Earth, and a New Genesis,” 29) categorizes heaven references into three primary uses: (1) the portions of the visible creation distinguished from earth; (2) combined with γῆ as a merism to refer to the whole world; and (3) the invisible, transcendent place(s) above, where God dwells along with his angels and the righteous dead. When heaven modifies kingdom, the third use is likely in view.
38. See my book on this theme (Body of Jesus) for an expanded view of this statement.
39. “Go” (πορευθέντες) is most likely giving the attendant circumstance, while “baptizing” and “teaching” tell the means by which the disciple-making is to happen.
40. Growing Jesus’s family is precisely what Matthew is doing by writing the Gospel.
41. Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 316.
42. France (Gospel of Matthew, 1114) agrees, saying that nothing in the text indicates that it means gentiles as opposed to Jews.
43. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 184.
44. Huizenga (“Obedience unto Death”) asserts that the arrest sequence in the garden of Gethsemane has Aqedah themes and thus presents Jesus as the new Isaac who willingly faces sacrifice and thereby continues and expands Abraham’s family. Rosenberg (“Jesus, Isaac, and the ‘Suffering Servant,’”) ties Isaac to the suffering servant from Isaiah.
45. Yigal Levin (“Jesus, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’”) argues that Jesus is the Son of God and adopted into the royal line of Israel following Roman traditions.
46. Wisdom 9:17 identifies the holy spirit with wisdom.
47. Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles, 324.
48. Throughout Matthew it is mainly the devil and demons who declare that Jesus is the Son of God (4:3, 6; 8:29). Yet there are also two texts in which the disciples or Peter recognize Jesus as the Son of God. After Jesus walks on water and calms the storm, they declare that Jesus is the Son of God (14:33). At Caesarea Philippi, Peter also declares that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16). Finally, the high priest asks Jesus if he is “the Christ, the Son of God” (26:63).
49. Andries van Aarde (“Jesus’ Mission”) argues for two levels in Matthew’s narrative. Level 1 is pre-Easter narration, and level 2 is post-Easter narration.
50. Michael Knowles (“Serpents, Scribes, and Pharisees”) argues that it is possible there is a wordplay between “serpent,” “scribe,” and “Pharisees.”
51. Galilee of the Gentiles is a pejorative way to describe those who live in northern Israel. Those in Jerusalem must have thought that Galileans had been coopted into a Gentile way of life.
52. Willitts, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King.
53. Levine examines the command to go nowhere among the gentiles along a temporal and social axis. Levine (Social and Ethnic Dimensions) concludes on the social axis that the Matthean community transcends the traditional ethnic and religious distinctions between Jews and gentiles.
54. The answer will come not only in this section but also in the following ones.
55. The narrative with Jesus and the Canaanite woman in chap. 15 is more enlightening because it is not a com
missioning text but a text where Jesus is in the midst of his mission and explains why he is acting in such a way.
56. Whatever one does with the new-family-of-God theme in Matthew, one must provide an explanation for this.
57. In Matt. 8:11 Jesus has already spoken of the table of Abraham.
58. If we expand our view theologically, we could even say that the bread is Jesus’s own body, as John speaks of the bread in John 6.
59. This observation may be confirmed by the context of the commission in Matt. 10. The metaphor of the harvest (9:35–38) immediately precedes that commission. Harvest is a frequent metaphor for judgment in the OT; judgment can be punishment but can also relate to the gathering of the righteous (Isa. 27:12).
60. Alternatively, one could take the crumbs falling to the ground in a more innocent way. There is nothing wrong with Israel eating the bread, but it is natural that some crumbs will fall from the table.
Matthew, Disciple and Scribe Page 30
