The Son of God as the Torah Incarnate in Matthew

Return to Index
     1. Sonship typology in Matthew 1-4
        2. "New"
        3. "Moses"
        4. Matthew's concern for the interpretation of the Torah
        5. Jesus
    Notes (these are linked to the text)

[This paper was published in Studia Evangelica IV, ed. by F. l. Cross (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1968), pp. 37-46.]

        I have not come to praise the Matthaean "New Moses" but to bury him.  Early in his recent book, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount1 , W. D. Davies tries to see if Matthew presents Jesus as a "New Moses" promulgating a New Messianic Torah2.  Davies' verdict is one of "not proven", but he allows such phrases as "New Moses", "New Torah" and "New Covenant" to stalk like ghosts through all the rest of his book.  Let attempt to lay those ghosts to rest.  
        We assume that Matthew is the second edition of Mark, meant to be Mark's explication, emendation, expansion and replacement3.
        Matthew appears to argue as follows.  In his unique filial relationship to God, Jesus embodies Israel's calling in the Covenant to be the Son of God; as such Jesus fulfils his sonship by perfect loving obedience to the Father4.  By total submission to him and dependence upon him, Jesus fulfils, embodies, and manifests the righteous will of the Father.  Since the Father's covenanted will is the Torah, so Jesus is the Torah incarnate, the enfleshing of both the demand and the promise of the Covenant, for he is "God with us" (1.23).

1. Sonship typology in Matthew 1-4

        First let us look at the typology behind Jesus' divine sonship in Matt. 1-4.
    With Davies we may tentatively take 1.1 as the title to the Gospel.  Davies then takes 1.2-17, the genealogy, as corresponding to Gen. 1 and 1.18-25, the birth of Jesus, as corresponding to Gen. 2.4 ff.5, but in view of παλιγγενεσία 6 in 19.28, we should probably speak of a renewed, not a new creation motif.
     But the genealogy begins with Abraham, not Adam,6b and the birth narrative, while proclaiming that Jesus is God's sovereign action, "God with us", also establishes him as the messianic Son of David7, inextricably placed within the Covenant8.
        It is only after this that at 2.5 Jesus is first called God's Son in the words of Hosea 11.1: 'Out of Egypt I called my son9."  Jesus' sonship is Israel's sonship10
        In 3.13, unlike Mark 1.9, Jesus comes in conscious obedience to the divine will to be baptized as part of "fulfilling all righteousness" (3.15),and then the temptation narrative (4.1-11) show him undergoing sinlessly the trials of God's people, Israel, to whom are addressed all the quotation used in this narrative11, for Jesus is Israel as God's Son.  Most likely Matthew has no thought of Jesus as Son  of God apart from the sonship which is Israel's calling, and in the Passion Narrative, when the three temptations are spelled out anew12, Jesus is the one Jew who does not sin, for he is the righteous remnant, the true Israel13.
        From the start, then, Matthew's typology is not that of a new Moses but rather that of Israel as the Son of God [2004: and as called to be the true Adam (see note 6b)].  Now let us turn our attention to "new" and to "Moses".

2. "New"

        Of words for "new" we have νέος, which is new with regard to time14, as  are young men, and καινός, which is new with regard to quality or character, as Matthew's phrase, τὸ καινὸν μνημεῖον (27.60), the new tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, means a tomb never used before15.  Matthew has νέος only the two times from the Markan passage concerning οἶνος νέος, immature wine, which is not to be put into old skins but into ἀσκοὶ καινοί, fresh wineskins (9.17; Mark 2.22).  Since this passage is found in the question about fasting, asked of Jesus concerning his disciples, it suggests that οἶνος νέος refers to new non-Jewish Christians, and thus ἀσκοὶ καινοί would refer to new and different forms of discipline as opposed to the disciplines of the Pharisees or the followers of the Baptist.  We need see no reference here to new Torah or new Covenant.  Καινός occurs a third time in 13.52 where the Christian scribe is likened to one bringing out of his treasure things new and old.  But the one treasure contains them both, so once more there is no thought of new Torah or new Covenant.  The last occurrence of καινός is taken from Mark at the last supper.  In 26.29 (a modification of Mark 14.25) Jesus says he will not drink of the fruit of the vine "until that day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father".  Καινός would suggest that Jesus' blood poured out, as Matthew says, "for the forgiveness of sins" (26.28) will renew in quality the wine of the one Covenant, since the talk in Matthew and Mark has just been of "my blood of the Covenant" as opposed to "the new Covenant in my blood" of 1 Corinthians and [the longer text of] Luke16.  Matthew significantly deletes Mark 1.27 where Jesus' teaching is acclaimed as διδαχὴ καινή, for that would be to speak of a New Torah.

3. "Moses"

        Now for Moses.  Mark 7.10 reads, "For Moses said, 'Honour thy father and thy mother ...', changed by Matthew to "For God said ..." (15.4).  Mark 12.26 has, "Have you not read in the Book of Moses in the passage about the bush how God said to him ...", replaced in Matthew by "Have you not read what was said to you by God ..."17  Matthew reproduces Mark 1.44: "Offer the gift that Moses ordered ...", which in view of other Matthaean shifts suggests that this ceremonial rule belongs to Moses himself and not to God's Torah.  At the Transfiguration it is not "Elijah with Moses" who appear as in Mark, but rather "Moses and Elijah" (17.3; Mark 9.4).  In view of Matthew's stress on the Torah, the order "Moses and Elijah"18 may stand for the Law and the Prophets, a phrase Matthew uses four times for the whole Torah (5.17; 7.12; 11.13 [Q]; 22.40).  In Mark 10.3, 5, when confronting the Pharisees on marriage and divorce, Jesus says, "What did Moses command you?" and replies to their answer, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment".  But in Matthew it is the Pharisees who say, "Why did Moses command one to give a bill of divorce?" (19.7), and Jesus replies "Moses permitted you ..." (19.8).  For in Matthew, apart from this one use by the Pharisees, ἐντολή19, "commandment", and ἐντέλλεσθαι 20 "to command", always have God or Jesus as source or subject.  In Mark 12.19 the Sadducees sat, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us ...", kept by Matthew as, "Teacher, Moses said ..." (22.24).  In Matthew, only Pharisees and Sadducees speak of Moses as giver of the moral law; Jesus speaks of God.  In the one passage not based on Mark, using "Moses' seat"21, a rabbinic idiom, Jesus says in 23.2, "Upon Moses' seat sit the scribes and the Pharisees", that is, they are responsible and accountable for the interpretation of the Law, and thus more culpable than others for refusing to follow Jesus22.  
[2007: On the flight into Egypt as not relating Jesus to Moses, who fled from Egypt for safety, cf. 2.13-18. The Flight to Egypt  is based on Passover Haggadah's re-write [i.e., change of vowels] of Deut 26.5-9 ('A wandering Aramaean was my father ...'] so that it reads 'A Syrian tried to kill our father ...', and then explains that Laban tried to kill all of us off in the loins of our father Jacob, so that he fled to Egypt for safety; 2.15 = Hos 11.1: 'Out of Egypt I called my Son', so that Jesus flees to Egypt and comes up out of Egypt as Jacob/Israel, the righteous remnant of one of Israel in its calling in the Covenant.]

4. Matthew's concern for the interpretation of the Torah

        Now for some observations on Matthew's concern for the Torah.  The Gospel opens with Βίβλος γενέσεως, echoing Gen. 5.1 in the LXX23, which begins, "This is the book of the generation of men".  This phrase may reflect for Matthew the torah's concern for all men since this is why Ben Azzai (ca. 130 CE) chose Gen. 5.1 as the greatest principle in the Torah, as noted in Gen. R. 24.7 and Sifra 89b.  In both passages his choice in paired with that of Akiba, who cites Lev. 19.18 on loving one's neighbour as oneself as the greatest principle, as Jesus himself does in Matthew and Mark in connection with the command to love God (22.39; Mark 12.31)24.  These are the greatest commandments in Mark (thus making others lesser ones), but in Matthew they are the two on which depend (κρέμαται) all the law and the prophets (22.40).  Thereby Matthew maintains the whole Torah and proclaims that Jesus has come to interpret it in depth25.  Only in Matthew does Jesus cite Lev. 19.18 twice more26.
        Jesus' actions are characterized by the verb πληροῦν, while τελεῖν describes his teaching.  Jesus' teaching completes the Torah by showing the radical depth of God's demand to become τέλειος as he is τέλειος (5.48).  Τέλειος  is used in Matthew's narrative only in the five statements27 which end the teaching discourses28, where what Jesus has completed is stated to be "these words" (7.28), "giving orders" (11.1), "these parables" (13.53), "these words" (19.1), and finally and significantly "all these words" (26.1).
        Setting aside 5.17, apart from the phrase "when the net was filled" (13.48), Matthew elsewhere always uses πληροῦν to mean to embody by action29.  Thus Jesus completes or perfects the Torah by his teaching and fulfils it by his actions.  Therefore in 5.17 Jesus' words regarding the law and the prophets, "I have not come to destroy but to fulfil" refer not to Jesus'teaching30 but to his deeds as the enfleshing of the Torah31.  This idea fits Barth's view32 that 5.17 is Matthew's interpretation of 5.18, where we have the Jewish statement, "Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law", and Matthew's addition of, "until all is accomplished".
        We also see here Matthew distinguishing between God's enduring Torah and its transient written form.  Thus for ἀθετεῖτε in Mark 7.9 Matthew has παραβαίνετε (15.3), making it clear that when the Pharisees and scribes void (ἠκυρώσατε, 15.6, cf. Mark 7.13) the word of God by their tradition, God's command remains in force and is transgressed, it does not fall into desuetude.  Here in 5.18 until heaven and earth pass away" in the popular mind means "never"33, and the iota and dot refer to the Torah-as-written, but "until all is accomplished" leads us to 11.13: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John", and further on to Jesus' words in 24.35: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."  Jesus' words endure beyond the Torah-as-written and suffice in themselves, for in 28.18-20 he says, "All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples ... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you".
        Bultmann34 takes 5.20 concerning the righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees as an editorial heading for the antitheses (5.21-48).  But the γάρ in v. 20 links it to v. 19, and the οὖν  in v. 19 links it to v. 18, with the stress probably on v. 18c: ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.  Then the reference to τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων in the phrase "one of the leat of thse commandments" in v. 19 would be to Jesus' teaching, especially in the antitheses and more generally in the whole Gospel.  This fits what we have just said above regarding 24.35 and 28.18-20, for Jesus' teaching is the whole Torah, not a new Torah, but the Torah which is to be written in the heart35, in man's will; itself36, as it is in Jesus'.
        Jesus charges the Pharisees with neglecting the weightier matters of the Law: κρίσις, ἔλεος and πίστις (23.23; cf. Micah 6.8).  And he is the one who brings justice to victory (cf. 12.18-21)37, is called upon for mercy38, and manifests it39, and who alone shows faith and faithfulness40, that is, total trusting obedience.

5. Jesus

        Although 11.25-30, the so-called Johannine logion, stands close in thought to the wisdom literature41, the terms and thought of v. 27 are the much older ones of  O. T. sonship, for the son is the acknowledged as such by the father, and through obedience, dependence and submission the son is conformed to the character of his father and shows him forth.  The son has nothing of his own: he receives all from his father (see v. 27).  Jesus' demand in v. 29(which is the Father'sdemand in him) is, "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me".  Sirach speaks of the yoke of Wisdom (Σιρ 51.26)42 the rabbinic literature speaks of the Yoke of Torah, of the commands of the Kingdom of Heaven, of the Holy One43, but no one speaks of the "yoke of Moses".  Therefore "my yoke" does not relate Jesus to Moses.
        Jesus is the one teacher of the disciples as he explicitly states in 23.8, 1044, and Matthew multiplies references to his followers as μαθηταί, "disciples" or "learners", but no disciple other than Judas Iscariot ever addresses him as διδάσκαλε or rabbi, for to the disciples he is "Κύριε", "Lord".  He himself is the one to be followed and not just his teaching45.  He is overwhelmingly the goal of the verbs προσέρχεσθαι, ἀκολουθεῖν, προσκυνεῖν, and προσφεέρειν, the one to be come to, followed, worshipped, and to whom to bring the sick for mercy.
        He is "God with us" (1.23)46 "until the end of the age" (28.20)47.  In the Pseudepigrapha "the mountain", τὸ ὄρος, has become once more the place of God's revelation as it had been earlier48, and τὸ ὄρος plays a central part in Matthew's revealing of Jesus.  In the Temptation Narrative (4.1-11) the first temptation is at ground level among the stones (v. 3: "these stones"), when Jesus disclaims any power of his own as Son of God, the second is removed to a higher elevation, namely, the temple (v. 5), when Jesus refuses to force God  to show his power, and the third temptation, when Jesus reveals the depth of his filial submission to God's will, takes place on a very high mountain (v. 8).  Three times Jesus comes to the disciples (14.25; 17.7; 28.18), and all three times he comes to them with succour either on a mountain or from a mountain: from a mountain (cp. 14.23b, 25 to Mark 6.47) to walk on the sea to aid Peter and those in the boat (14.27 ff.), on a mountain at the Transfiguration (17.7) and at the end of the Gospel (28.16-20).  Before the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus, God with us, beholds the crowds, οἱ ὄχλοι, those who will be called to be the Church, both Jew and Gentile49.  He goes up the mountain and sits down, and it is the disciples who come like Moses to him on the mountain and are taught by him.  And at the end of the Gospel the disciples go to the mountain, behold and worship Jesus, and are sent forth by him to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that he has commanded them50.  The Moses typology is there, but it is the disciples and not Jesus who are designated by it.
       Jesus, as the totally obedient Son of God, is the Now of God's righteousness (Ep. Diog. 9.1 f.).  Thus there is no Torah and Gospel in Matthew51, there is no New Law, there is no Torah plus a New Law, but there is rather the Good News that in Jesus the Torah, the demand of God's righteousness, is now totally and efficaciously present and that in him there is rest, for his yoke is easy and his burden is light (11.30). 

    1 Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1964.  (Back to text)
    2 Ibid., pp. 25-108.  Davies admits that the evidence for a first-century Jewish expectation of a New Torah is ambiguous at best (p. 184).  For even more strongly negative conclusions see E. Bammel, "Νόμος Χριστοῦ", Studia Evangelica III, ed. by F. L. Cross (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964), pp. 121-123, and G. Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law", Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew by G./ Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held (London; SCM Press, 1963), pp. 154-157.  (Back)
    3 Neatly expressed by Davies as "the second edition of Mark which we call Matthew" (op.cit., p. 191).  (Back)
    4 For an adequate presentation of biblical sonship see J. Bieneck, Sohn Gottes als Christusbezeichnung  der Synoptiker (Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1951).  Much information on its basis in Hebrew family life can be derived from R. H. Kennett, Ancient Hebrew Social Life and Custom as Indicated in Law Narrative and Metaphor (The Schweich Lectures, 1931; London: The British Academy, 1933), pp. 12-15.  (Back)
    5 Op.cit., pp. 66 ff. (Back)
Which concerns renewal and restoration, not something new (see H. Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, 4th English Edition with Supplement (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), pp. 669 f.; see also F. Büchsel, art. γίνομαι, T.W.N.T., I, pp. 685-688.  (Back)
[2004: But Adam is involved, since  the Βίβλος γενέσεως of Matt. 5.1is Gen 5.1 (LXX): 'The book of the generations of Adam', with Matthew setting forth Jesus as the true Adam.  See Wisdom, Power and Well-being.]  (Back)
See J. M. Gibbs, "Purpose and Pattern in Matthew's Use of the Title 'Son of David'", N.T.S., X (July, 1964), pp. 447 f.  (Back)
Jesus can be come to in faith only as the Jewish Messiah.  See 15.21-28 (the Canaanite woman) as set forth in Gibbs, op. cit., pp. 458 f. (Back)
A form agreeing with the M.T. (and Aquila) against the LXX.  See K. Stendahl, The School of St Matthew (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1954), p. 101.  (Back)
The present writer is convinced that "Son of God" standing in isolation in Mark 1.1 (not to mention Mark's apparent Adam-typology at the temptation) was too easily construable in terms of the Hellenistic θεῖος ἀνήρ, or at least deduced to be, and that this accounts at least in part for Matthew's holding back the title until the ground has been prepared for it [2004: assuming that Matthew read "Son of God" in Mark 1.1, of course].  We would argue that a similar approach is to be detected in the Matthaean handling of the miracle narratives, e.g., in the deletion of δύναμις in the healing of the haemorrhaging woman (9.20-22; cp. Mark 5.25-34 and the even greater contrast to Luke 8.43-48).
    If the Moses-legend is present in Matt 2.13-20 (cf. Barth, op.cit., p. 157), it may be inverted, since Jesus moves to Egypt for safety and from Egypt tp deliver. [2004: In Jewish tradition in the Passover Haggadah the Hebrew was re-pointed to read: "A Syrian [i..e., Laban] tried to kill our father [Jacob=Israel] and he went down and sojourned in Egypt".  This was followed by the comment that Laban tried to kill all of us in the loins of our father Jacob.  Thus this story is part of an Israel-typology, with nothing to do with Moses.]  (Back)
Davies, op.cit.,p. 47.  (Back)
4..3 f. in 27.40; 4.5-7 in 27.43; 4.8-10 in 27.50, where Jesus' voluntary submission to death is emphasized even more that in Mark 15.37by changing the two verbs.  (Back)
That all others transgress God's will in the Passion Narrative is brought out by G. Barth, op.cit., pp. 143-146.  (Back)
R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, new edition revised (London and Cambrudge: Macmillan, 1865), pp. 209-214; J. Behm, art. καινός, T.W.N.T., III, p. 450. (Back)
15 Luke 23.53 adds the same note, but spells it out in stead of using καινός.  (Back)
  1626.28; Mark 14.24; Luke 22.10; 1 Cor. 11.25. (Back)
Davies (op.cit., p. 105) strangely takes this as hiving Moses greater emphasis by emphasizing the Book of Moses as God's present word.  But in fact it is God's Torah which is emphasized, and Moses simply disappears.  (Back)
  18 But in Peter's subsequent suggestion about making three booths the order is Jesus - Moses - Elijah in all three Synoptics (Matt. 17.4, pars.). (Back)
5.19; 15.3; 19.17; 22.38, 40. (Back)
4.6; 17.9; 28.20.  (Back)
H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, I (Munich: Beck, 1922), p. 909.  (Back)
See Gibbs, op.cit., pp. 462 f.  (Back)
See for example A. H. McNeile, The Gospel according to St Matthew (London: Macmillan & Co., 1915), l. c., and Davies, op. cit., p. 67.  Davies points out that the similar phrase in the LXX at Gen 2.4a is an assimilation to Gen. 5.1 not found in Aquila and Symmachus, which increases the likelihood that Gen. 5.1 is the passage referred to by Matt. 1.1.  (Back)
24 The coupling is not found in Luke (10.27).  (Back)
Davies clearly shows that whereas the Dead Sea sect called for quantitatively more obedience to the Torah, Jesus called for qualitatively deeper obedience (op. cit., p. 212).  See Barth, op. cit., especially pp. 121 ff.  (Back)
26 In 5.43 Lev. 19.18 is added to Q materials about loving one's enemey and in 19.19 it is added to the Markan list of the commandments which Jesus gives to the rich young man.  G. Barth ( op. cit., pp. 75-85) demonstrates well the working out in Matthew of the demand of love in the interpretation of the Law.  (Back)
Their five-foldness, especially in the light of the "all" in 26.1, is too careful a construction to be other than a Pentateuchal allusion, even if nothing more.  (Back)
In speech the verb τελεῖν occurs at 10.23 (Jesus' words to the disciples concerning their going through all the cities of Israel) and 17.24 (the temple-tax collectors' question). (Back)
Πληροῦν is used of the fulfilling of τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου (1.22, calling Jesus "Immanuel"; 2.15, "Out of Egypt have I called my son"), τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου (2.17, 23; 4.14; 8.17; 12.17; 13.35; 21.4; 27.9), αἱ γραφαί (26.54) and αἱ γραφαί τῶν προφητῶν (26.56).  In 23.32 in one of the imperatives addressed to the Pharisees (the other two are 9.13 and 23.26), after saying that they are full (μεστοί) of hypocrisy and ἀνομία  (v. 28), Jesus says, "Fill up the measure of your fathers".  They fulfil ἀνομία not by their teachings but by their actions (cf. 23.2 f.).  When Jesus says to John, "For thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness" (3.15), h is referring to their actions.  (Back)
As, for example, asserted anew by Barth (op.cit., p. 69) and G. Bornkamm ("End-Expectation and Church in Matthew", Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, p. 50, n. 4).  (Back)
Cf. H. Ljungman, Das Gesetz erfüllen (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1954).  Further support for this view lies in Matthew's use of ἀνομία for that which is contrary to God's will made known in Jesus.  See Barth, op.cit., pp. 62 f., and Gibbs, op.cit., pp. 462-464.  (Back)
Op.cit., p. 67. (Back)
33 Ibid., p. 65. (Back)
R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), p. 150. (Back)
Pss. 37.31; 40.8; Isa. 51.7; Jer. 31.33; cf. Ps. 119.11; Deut. 6.6.  The law is to be written in the heart of the disciples as Matthew shows in his form of the first and great commandment (22.37).  He uses ἐν, καρδία, and διάνοια for his version of Deut. 6.5.  No other Greek version uses ἐν.  Καρδία and διάνοια both translate בבל.  No other version has only three tones to it without one of them being ἰσχύς or δύναμις
, strength or power (cf. Stendahl, op.cit., pp. 72-76).  But the disciple is to be meek and lowly in heart like Jesus, whose yoke he is to take on and from whom he is to learn, and so he has no strength of his own.  Significantly, καρδία is never used in Matthew in a morally neutral sense, although it can be so construed in Mark 2.6, 8.  (Back)
Hence the sin of adultery "in his heart" (5.28).  See Gal. 2.20; 5.18. (Back)
See particularly on this, Barth, op.cit., pp. 125-128, 137-153, also Davies, op.cit., pp. 133 f. (Back)
ἔλεος occurs three times in Matthew, all on Jesus' lips and addressed to the Pharisees in castigation over their blindness to the Torah (23.23 plus two citings of Hos. 6.6. at 9.13 and 12.7).  Elsewhere in the Gospels it is only fopund in Luke, five times in the Septuagintal Greek of the Infancy Narrative (Luke 1.50, 54, 58, 72, 78) and once on the lips of a lawyer (Luke 10.37).  ἐλεεῖν occurs in Matthew nine times (to Three in Mark and four in Luke).  Only Jesus is besought for mercy: ἐλέησον is addressed to him five times in Matthew, four of them linked with Son of David (9.27; 15.22; 20.30, 31; the fifth is 17.15; cf. Gibbs, op.cit., p. 449). (Back)
Matthew retains the Markan occurrences of σπλαγχνίζεσθαι and adds  the verb to emphasize quietly Jesus' healings at acts of compassion (added at 9.36; 20.34).  In Matthew's parable of the unmerciful servant σπλαγχνίζεσθαι at 18.27 is linked with ἐλεεῖν as its equivalent in 18.3, and with forgiveness of one's brother in 18.35.  Only in Matthew does Jesus quote Hosea 6.6 (9.13; 12.7), both times addressed to the Pharisees who are blind to Jesus because they are blind to the true nature of the Torah.  On Hos. 6.6 in Matthew, see Barth, op.cit., p. 83.  The ultimate expression of Jesus' manifesting God's mercy is that his innocent blood is voluntarily poured out for the forgiveness of sins (26.26).  (Back)
  40 Barth shows that πίστις for Matthew is volitional trust and faithfulness, with intellectual content transferred to συνιέναι (op.cit., pp. 103-117).  Jesus alone is faithful to the end, the disciples are ὀλιγόπιστοι and the multitudes are ἄπιστοι (ibid., pp. 116, n. 3, and 143-146). (Back)
  41 For a thorough study of this aspect see A. Feuillet, "Jésus et la sagesse divine d'après les Évangiles Synoptiques", Revue Biblique LXII (1955), pp. 161-196.  (Back)
  42 Note that in Matthew (unlike, for example, Luke 2.40, 52), there is no expression about Wisdom as an entity apart from Jesus.  Compare the following Matthaean passages with their parallels: 12..42, addressed in Matthew to scribes and Pharisees; 13.54; 11.19; and above all 23.34 with its "prophets, wise men, and scribes", to proclaim, interpret, and teach God's will, the Torah.  (Back)
  43 Strack-Billerbeck, I, pp. 608-610; K. Rengstorf, art.  ζυγός, T.W.N.T., II, p. 902.  (Back)
  44 Cf. also 11.29; 26.18.  R. H. Lightfoot has noted that not only does Matthew emphasize more than the other gospels that Jesus sits to teach but also apparently no one remains seated in his presence during the ministry, especially when he is teaching (History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935], p. 40.).  (Back)
  45 See Davies, op.cit., pp. 95-97.  Κύριος as addressed to Jesus in Matthew involves both recognition of Jesus' divine majesty and confession of discipleship (see the two essays by G. Bornkamm in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew", pp. 41-43, and "The Stilling of the Storm", p. 55).  (Back)
  46 The nature-signs in the Passion Narrative (27,45 from Mark 15.33, with Matthew's additions at 27.51-54) are signs of God's presence (Jer. 4.23-26; Nahum 1.3-8; Ps. 114.7).  (Back)
See also 18.20 where we probably have the double note of Jesus s God's presence and Torah (cf. Pirqe Aboth 3.2), but see Barth, op.cit., p. 135, and Bornkamm, "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew", p. 35, n. 2.  (Back)
  48 W. Foerster, art. ὄρος, T.W.N.T., V, pp. 480 f.  (Back)
  49 Matthew has a special yet somewhat ambivalent concept of the ὄχλοι, but the aspect of "those who will be called to be the Church" is apparently present at all times, as J. C. Fenton and the present writer have worked it out in correspondence.  See also Fenton's The Gospel of St Matthew (London: Penguin Books, 1963), p. 197, Gibbs, op.cit., pp. 450 F., and Lightfoot, op.cit., p. 39, n. 1.  (Back)
  50  28.16-20, a Matthaean construction based on Mark 3.13. (Back)
This is an error persisted in by F. C. Grant, if only by loose language, when he says that Matt. 16.19 shows that "the Christian apostles are the authoritative expounders of both Torah and gospel" ("Biblical Theology and the Synoptic Problem", Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, ed. by W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder [London: SCM Press, 1962], p. 84).   (Back)


Bammel, E.,  "Νόμος Χριστοῦ", Studia Evangelica III, ed. by F. L. Cross (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964)
Barth, G., "Matthew's Understanding of the Law", Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew by G.
         Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held (London; SCM Press, 1963)
Behm, J., art. καινός, T.W.N.T., III
Bieneck, J., Sohn Gottes als Christusbezeichnung  der Synoptiker (Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1951)
Bornkamm, G., "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew", Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew
"The Stilling of the Storm", Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew
Büchsel, F., art. γίνομαι, T.W.N.T., I
Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963),
Cremer, H.,  Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, 4th English Edition with Supplement
        (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895)
Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1964)
Fenton, J. C., The Gospel of St Matthew (London: Penguin Books, 1963)
Feuillet, A., "Jésus et la sagesse divine d'après les Évangiles Synoptiques", Revue Biblique LXII (1955),
        pp. 161-196.
Foerster, W., art. ὄρος , T.W.N.T., V
Gibbs J. M., "Purpose and Pattern in Matthew's Use of the Title 'Son of David'", N.T.S., X (July, 1964)
Grant, F. C.,
"Biblical Theology and the Synoptic Problem", Current Issues in New Testament
, ed. by W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder [London: SCM Press, 1962].
Kennett, R. H., Ancient Hebrew Social Life and Custom as Indicated in Law Narrative and Metaphor (The Schweich Lectures, 1931; London: The British Academy, 1933)
Lightfoot, R. H., History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935)
Ljungman, H., Das Gesetz erfüllen (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1954).
McNeile, A. H.,The Gospel according to St Matthew (London: Macmillan & Co., 1915)
Rengstorf, K., art.  ζυγός, T.W.N.T., II
Stendahl, K., The School of St Matthew (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1954)
Strack, H. L., and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, I (Munich:
         Beck, 1922)
Trench, R. C., Synonyms of the New Testament, new edition revised (London and Cambrudge:
        Macmillan, 1865)