New Testament Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

People and Community in the Gospel of Matthew

Kenzo Tagawa

New Testament Studies / Volume 16 / Issue 02 / January 1970, pp 149 - 162

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500015460, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500015460

How to cite this article:

Kenzo Tagawa (1970). People and Community in the Gospel of Matthew. New Testament
Studies, 16, pp 149-162 doi:10.1017/S0028688500015460

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 138.251.14.35 on 03 May 2015

 Mew Test. Stud. 16, pp. 149-62

KENZO TAGAWA

PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY IN THE

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 1
A number of recent works have attempted to deal with the theological
thought of the evangelist Matthew using the method of 'Redaktions-
geschichte'. But as yet Hans Conzelmann's Matthew has not appeared.2
Certainly the joint work of G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held, the
works of R. Hummel, G. Strecker, K. Stendahl, W. Trilling and others3
have contributed considerably to this field of study. But at the present time
there is no agreement among scholars on the fundamental problem of what
is the essential concern of Matthean theology. It is true that the Law of
Moses and accordingly the problem of the fulfilment of Old Testament
prophecies is one of the most important problems for Matthew, and that the
present state of the church and the expectation of the eschaton, especially of
the last judgement, are also elements indispensable for understanding the
thoughts of the evangelist. But the fundamental problem is how to discover
the basis of Matthew's theology, by means of which the interpreter can
understand these individual elements as organically combined. One can
abstract from these elements several ideas which seem important for the
thought of Matthew. However, it is not the individual ideas themselves
which are so important, but the milieu which determines their meaning. In
the case of works such as that of Luke which have a definite and positive
theological emphasis, the interpreter has only to delineate that theology. But
in the case of the Gospel of Matthew the problem is not so simple. In Luke
and Acts the intention of the author was to show the linear development of
the history of salvation. In other words, the intention of Luke's redaction of the
Gospel materials was to organize them according to his historico-theological
idea. The success of the study of the Lukan theology by H. Conzelmann
consists in the agreement of the question posed by the interpreter with
the ideological intention of the evangelist. But in the case of the Gospel
according to Matthew it is questionable whether the main purpose of the
Gospel redaction was to impart a certain theological idea to its readers.
Naturally, we find here also some theological ideas emphasized. It is well
1
Dedicated to Professor Tateo Kanda to celebrate his seventieth birthday.
2
Cf. Die Mitte der Zeit, Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (5. Aufl. 1964), Tubingen.
8
G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H . J . Held, (Jberlieferung und Auslegung im Matthdusevangelium
(Neukirchen, 1960); R. Hummel, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthaus-
evangelium (Miinchen, 1963); G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, Untersuchung zur Theologie des
Matthdus (Gottingen, 1962); K. Stendahl, The School of St Matthew (Upsala, 1954); W. Trilling,
Das wahre Israel, Studien zur Theologie des Mattha'usevangeliums (3. Aufl. 1964, Miinchen).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 15O KENZO TAGAWA
known, for example, that SiKcciocruvri is one of the fundamental concepts in
Matthew. One could enumerate others. But the question is, we repeat,
whether the main purpose of the evangelist was to present these theological
concepts. Did he not have another concern?
It is because of the fact that in Matthew there are contradictory ideas
expressed side by side with no attempt at harmony that we ask such a
hermeneutical question. Moreover, most of these contradictory ideas are
elements which the evangelist himself added to the traditional materials or
to which he gave special emphasis; thus they are to be considered as repre-
senting the personal thought of the evangelist. For example, concerning the
problem whether Christians must keep not only the Old Testament Torah
but the traditions of the rabbinical interpretation, he says on the one hand,
'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practise and observe
whatever they tell you' (xxiii. 2 f.). This is the opening verse of a long diatribe
against the scribes and the Pharisees which is put into the mouth of Jesus.
Apart from the question of the origin of this sentence, its present position, at
least, is due to the redactional work of the evangelist. It introduces the
subject-matter to be discussed in the whole of chapter xxiii. Consequently
Jesus' main theme in this chapter, according to Matthew, is that one must
keep the words of the scribes and the Pharisees, because what they say is
right, but that one must criticize their hypocrisy, since they themselves do not
practise what they preach. So the evangelist considers the scribal and
Pharisaic traditions of the interpretation of the Old Testament Torah as
substantially correct. But on the other hand, in xv. 3, he distinguishes clearly
between the Torah of the Old Testament and the traditions of the elders, and
rejects the latter. This contradicts explicitly xxiii. 2 f. In xv. 3 Matthew adopts
the sentence of the Markan source without changing it, so we cannot
consider it as his original thought. But he almost always omits sentences
which are not in accordance with his own opinion. In this case, on the
contrary, he not only adopts this sentence but rewrites the whole pericope
which includes it (xv. 1-20) in greater detail than his source. So here the
evangelist is of the same opinion as his source, rejecting 'the traditions of the
elders' as opposed to the commandments of God. What does it mean now
that the evangelist could hold these two contradictory positions at the same
time? Of course it is possible to interpret it as laying stress on one side or the
other. If stress is laid on xv. 3, the conclusion is that Matthew did not reject
the rabbinic traditions in principle, but that returning to the essential spirit
of the Torah, the will of God, he denied in reality the thought of the rabbinic
traditions.1 If stress is laid on xxiii. 2 f., the conclusion is that for Matthew
the scribal traditions had authority in principle and in most actual cases, but
1
G. Barth, in Bornkamm-Barth-Held, op. cit. pp. 80ff.When Barth says that mStirro in xxiii. 2 does
not include the rabbinic tradition, he does violence to the text. What would remain in 'all that the
scribes and the Pharisees tell you', if not the scribal traditions?

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY IN MATTHEW 151
1
that he criticized only some of their applications. Whichever interpretation
is right, the essential problem for the understanding of Matthew is how to
deal with this sort of contradiction. If we give up one side of the contra-
diction, considering it as a residuum of old tradition which has no concern
with the personal thought of the evangelist, we could get a coherent image
of the thought of the evangelist. But it is only an unreal image which results
from an erroneous method.2 What is necessary for the interpreter is to recognize
the fact that the evangelist Matthew is a writer who blithely makes such con-
tradictory utterances. That is to say, there existed for the evangelist Matthew
no question of principle whether the scribal traditions are in themselves
right or not. At least he did not consciously ask this question. Therefore it is not
appropriate to try to interpret the Gospel of Matthew with such a question of
principle. Matthew is not a theorist. This problem of the criticism of the scribal
traditions is rather to be solved from the practical point of view of how and in
what sense the evangelist would confront the Pharisaic Judaism of his time.
The same thing is true concerning the appreciation of the Torah of the
Old Testament itself. On one side the evangelist says one must keep it
faithfully down to the last jot and tittle (v. 17 f.). But in the antithesis which
follows immediately (v. 21 ff.), the Old Testament's commandments and the
words of Jesus are put in contrast. In this case also it is not right simply to
dismiss one of these positions as not being an expression of Matthew's
thought. In the same chapter five, Matthew stresses the necessity of keeping
all the laws of the Old Testament and yet he criticizes them from the point
of view of the more radical commandments ofJesus. The question of principle,
whether the whole Torah of the Old Testament is appropriate or not, is no
more a problem for the evangelist in this case than in the other.
We can find many other examples of this kind of contradiction. One of the
most important of them is the problem of the Gentiles and the Jews. On the
one hand Matthew rejects the Gentiles most decisively, yet on the other hand
he criticizes the Jews very severely and it seems often that according to his
opinion ultimate salvation will be given to the Gentiles. The purpose of this
study is to ask the question how and why the same evangelist could take
these contradictory positions. But before we analyse this problem, we need
to clarify a little more the question of methodology.
We began by questioning whether Matthew wrote his Gospel in order to
present a certain theological idea. We found that this is questionable,
because we find so many contradictory ideas in that Gospel. So what is
important from the methodological point of view is not to ask what theo-
logical ideas the evangelist would present to his readers, but to put a different
set of questions. Georg Strecker, for example, whose work is one of the most
distinguished studies of the Redaktionsgeschichte of Matthew, seems not to be
1
R. Hummel, op. cit. pp. 46ff.,among others.We think this interpretation is right in its major line.
8
The interpretation of G. Barth cited on p. 150 n. 1 is an example.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 152 KENZO TAGAWA

fully aware of this methodological problem. Concerning the purpose of the

evangelist, he says, ' The question to ask concerning the theological concepts
of Matthew is, what the relation is between what is historical and what is
eschatological in the redaction of the first Gospel. n For example, he looks at
the relation between ecclesiology as a historical element and the expectation
of the eschaton as an eschatological element, the relation between the life of
Jesus as a historical event and the eschatological Christ, etc., and he con-
cludes that the relation of the historical and the eschatological elements is
not to be dissolved into an 'either-or', but to be understood as a 'both-and'.
Of course the relation between the historical and the eschatological is one of
the main problems of New Testament theology. But it is questionable
whether Matthew consciously put to himself this question. Strecker's method
of analysing the gospel aims at placing the evangelist in the development of
the history of theological ideas. But he presupposes the main line of the
development of theological ideas as already well established. The question,
however, is whether the main concern of the evangelist was to define his own
theological concepts on the line of this historical development of theological
ideas. The existence of many contradictory ideas in the Gospel militates
against this point of view. Matthew is not a theologian in the strict sense of
the word. He is not a Luke. It is because of this methodological one-sidedness
that Strecker so often introduces uncritically into the exegesis of Matthew's
text the Lukan schema of the history of salvation.
So we must go beyond the question of theological ideas and inquire what is
the milieu of the thinking of the evangelist Matthew which perhaps helps ex-
plain the coexistence in the same work of theological ideas so often contradic-
tory to each other. We should inquire into the social milieu of the evangelist.
The proposal has been made by some scholars that the Gospel of Matthew is a
sort of catechetical teaching of his church,2 or that it is a homiletic re-
interpretation of the earlier Gospel traditions.3 These hypotheses seem valid.
But our purpose is not to inquire into the general hypothetical framework of
the Gospel, but to consider the concrete problem presented by the text4
along the lines of the above methodological reflections.

11

The author of the Gospel according to Matthew shows quite contradictory

attitudes concerning the problem of the Gentiles and the Jews. In regard to
the mission, it is written that the disciples sent by Jesus must go only to the
1
G. Strecker, op. cit. p. 47.
2
Cf. E. von Dobschiitz, 'Matthaus als Rabbi und Katechet', £.JV.W. xxvn (1928), 338-48;
G. Schille, 'Bemerkungen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, II, Das Evangelium des Matthaus
als Katechismus', N.T.S. iv (1958), 101-14.
3
Cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew (Oxford, 1946).
4
The study of the formula citations by K. Stendahl, op. cit. shows a deep insight in this direction.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY IN MATTHEW I53
'lost sheep of the house of Israel', and not 'into the way of the Gentiles'
(x. 5 f.), and Jesus declares that he is sent only to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel (xv. 24)-1 However, in xxviii. 18-20, the resurrected Christ com-
mands his disciples to go into all the world. Since this commandment forms
the final word of the Gospel, we must consider it as consciously stressed. This
is a well-known contradiction which students of the Gospel do not neglect.
But the contradictory attitude of the evangelist towards Jews and Gentiles
is not limited to the question of who is to be evangelized. The narrative of
viii. 5-13, for instance, is interpreted ordinarily to mean that the Gentiles
will be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven and the Israelites will be
rejected. However, in the narrative of xv. 21-8, it is presupposed that in
general the Jews will participate in the final salvation, the Gentiles being
admitted only as exceptions. In v. 47; vi. 7, 32 and xviii. 17, the Gentiles are
mentioned as those on the way to perdition, and in two of these texts they are
linked with the tax-collectors. Such expressions cannot be understood other-
wise than as uttered in the spirit of extremely strong Jewish prejudice. But on
the other hand there are texts which can be interpreted at least at first sight
as showing an anti-Jewish tendency.2 From these texts one might conclude
that Matthew is a Gentile Christian, but the insistence that not an iota, not
a jot, will pass from the Law (v. 17 f.) is only possible for a Jew, for whom
the authority of the Law was absolute. But the same evangelist insists that the
first place of the public activity ofJesus was 'Galilee of the Gentiles' (iv. 15).
In considering that the Galilee of that time was no longer a district of the
Gentiles, but of the Jews, we have no alternative but to conclude that the
evangelist consciously combines the activity ofJesus with the Gentile mission.
But in the genealogy of Jesus, Matthew declares from the very beginning of
the Gospel that Jesus was the son of David, the son of Abraham, that is, a
Jew of the Jews. Being the son of David, he must have been born in Bethlehem
(ii. 5 f.).
The brief enumeration of the texts in question given above shows clearly
enough that this problem is a crucial one for the entire Gospel, one which
must be dealt with in order to arrive at the basic position of the evangelist.
To begin with, the question of whether Matthew was a Jewish or Gentile
Christian depends upon one's judgement of these texts. And upon the answer
to this question one's interpretation of the essential problems of the Gospel,
such as its understanding of the Old Testament tradition, the Law, the
Church, etc., depends. The fact that there are so many texts concerning the
problem of the Jews and the Gentiles in itself witnesses to the fact that this is
1
ix. 35-8 should be understood in the same sense. The image of sheep without a shepherd is an
image applied in the Old Testament to the people of Israel (Num. xxvii. 17; I Kings xxii. 17;
II Chron. xviii. 16; Ezek. xxxiv. 5; Judith xi. 19; Jer. xxvii (1). 6), and the same expression is
applied in Matthew always to Israel (x. 6; xv. 24). So in this context it is Israel which is like sheep
without a shepherd.
8
At least, following G. Strecker, viii. 5-13; ix. 336-34; xi. 16-24; *"• 38-45; *>"'•10-13; xv. 21-8;
xxi. 12-16; xxi. 33-xxii. 14; xxiii. 37-9; xxvii. 24 f. show an anti-Jewish tendency.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 154 KENZO TAGAWA
one of the main concerns of Matthew. As we try to solve this problem, the
following two points must be taken into consideration.
(i) The texts mentioned above which reflect the problem of the Jews and
the Gentiles are usually passages where the redactional intention of the
evangelist is clear, v. 5 f. and xv. 24 are the most important of the texts
which show Judaistic or anti-Gentile tendencies. Both of these are the
additions made by Matthew to the Markan source. So there is no room for
doubt that Matthew wanted to lay stress on the motive ' only to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel'. Even if these logia had had their origin in the earlier
tradition, it is the evangelist Matthew who inserted them into the context of
the Markan source. The disdainful usage of the word £0VIK6S in v. 47; vi. 7
and xviii. 17 is peculiarly Matthean. It is possible that this usage was
motivated by the earlier tradition of Q_ found in vi. 32 ( = Lk. xii. 30) which
speaks of the desire of TT&VTOC TOC E0vr) as something inferior. However,
Matthew, by the redactional phrases of v. 47; vi. 7 and xviii. 17, lays more
stress on this motive than Q_does, at the same time that the other evangelists
avoid doing so. The word on the eternal validity of the Law (v. 17 f.) could
also be an old logion, but it is only Matthew who inserted it into his Gospel.
The opening words of the Gospel, 'Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of
Abraham', because of their position, cannot be understood otherwise than as
an intentional expression of his Christology. The legend that Jesus was born
at Bethlehem (ii. 5 f.) is certainly a tradition earlier than the redaction of the
Matthean Gospel. It is not specifically Matthean. But if he had had no
positive appreciation of this motive,1 he could have introduced it as an
erroneous opinion of some unfaithful people, as is actually the case in the
Johannine Gospel (cf. John vii. 41 f.).
On the other hand, most of the texts which show a universalist or anti-
Jewish tendency should be regarded as redactional work. It is clear that
xxviii. 18-20, being the final words of the Gospel, represents the opinion of
the evangelist. In the narrative of the centurion (viii. 5-13), the praise
accorded to the deep faith of this Gentile is the central point and therefore
must be considered as a part of the original story (cf. Lk. vii. 1-10), but
w . 11 f. which form the conclusion of the Matthean edition of this narrative
are clearly added by the evangelist. And it is just because of these two verses
that the interpreters speak often of the anti-Jewish character of this narrative.
The phrase 'Galilee of the Gentiles' (iv. 15) is found in one of Matthew's
characteristic Old Testament citations (Reflexionszitate), and this citation is
an addition to Mk. i. 14 f., so it must represent the thought of the evangelist.
Accordingly one cannot be satisfied with the conclusion that one attitude
is found in the earlier traditional materials while the other represents the
evangelist's own attitude. The assertion that the primitive Church and
1
As for Mark, either he did not know it, or he omitted it intentionally.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY IN MATTHEW 155
Matthew with their narrow nationalism distorted Jesus' original universalism
results generally from the one-sided apologetic of the interpreters. Certainly
it does not explain the thought of Matthew. Nor are other explanations, such
as attributing Matt. x. 5 f. to the Judaistic tradition of the primitive Jerusalem
church and xxviii. 18-20 to the later Hellenistic church to which Matthew
belonged,1 or that Jesus prohibited his disciples from the Gentile mission
(x. 5f.) during his lifetime, but that the Church ignored this and began
the world mission,2 any more satisfactory. All these explanations fail to
grasp where the problem is. The contradiction between Judaistic and
universalist tendencies remains as an inherent peculiarity of the thought of
Matthew.3
(2) When the Jewish-Gentile problem is raised, we tend to think in terms
of the Gentile mission mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline
Epistles. So almost all interpreters see this problem reflected also in Matthew,
and they analyse the text in order to determine whether it is written from the
standpoint of the Gentile mission or from the more narrowly Jewish stand-
point. In so doing, they apply rather mechanically to the text of the Matthean
Gospel the simplified schema of the development of the mission in the
primitive Church as presented by the author of the Acts: first the Jewish
mission and then the Gentile mission. But this is too schematic and it is very
improbable that the problem of the Gentile mission was solved so simply as is
described in the Acts. The situation was surely much more complicated and
varied according to the particular region involved. Moreover, it is important
to recognize here that the problem is broader than that of missionary
activity; as is clear from the texts discussed above, it is the more compre-
hensive question of national consciousness.

in
Before proposing our own, we shall examine the proposed solutions of other
scholars, arranging them into some types.
(1) The Gospel of Matthew as purely Jewish Christian. This type pays
no attention to the Jewish-Gentile problem we are dealing with, but takes
into consideration only the Judaistic elements.4 This is out of the question.
1
R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, p. 156 n. 1.
2
J. Jeremias, Jesu Verheifiung fiir die Volker (Stuttgart, 1956).
3
This type of oversimplification results in eisegesis of the texts. For example, J. Jeremias starts
from the presupposition that Matthew supports the mission to the Gentiles, so he finds allusions to
the Gentile mission even in texts where it is not mentioned, e.g. v. 13f. where there is no mention
of the Gentiles, not to speak of the Gentile mission! xxii. 9 f.; xxv. 40, 'one of the least of these'
means, according to Jeremias, 'die unter den Heiden predigenden Jiinger'!
4
There are many studies of Matthew from this one-sided viewpoint. Here we mention as an
example E. K. Winter, 'Das Evangelium der jerusalemischen Mutterkirche', Judaica, ix (1953),
1-33. Beginning with the observation, right in itself, that there are many elements of a Jewish scribal
character in Matthew, he immediately concludes that the Gospel of Matthew is a product of the
'mother-church of Jerusalem' and is written in the purely Jewish Christian spirit.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 156 KENZO TAGAWA
(2) The 'heilsgeschichtlich' interpretation. This is one of the most pre-
dominant interpretations today and one can regard it as a reaction to the
first type, which was predominant one generation ago. According to this
second type of interpretation, Matthew does not place the Jews and the
Gentiles on the same level of the history of salvation, but he distinguishes
different stages of the history of God's activity. The time of Jesus' earthly life
and the time of the Church belong to different stages of this history, and the
subjects of evangelism are different at different stages. The period of Jesus'
lifetime is in one sense a prolongation of the period of Israel, so during this
time the mission is limited to Israel (x. 5 f.; xv. 24). But the Church led by
the resurrected Christ must carry out a mission to the whole world (xxviii.
18-20). Thus the two tendencies in Matthew are not really contradictory.
All particularistic Jewish tendency is eliminated. Matthew writes from the
standpoint of the Gentile church.1
But as was noted above, this type of explanation is a reaction to the first
type and oversimplifies in the other direction. This explanation would be
possible only if we accept the presupposition that the evangelist was writing
from the standpoint of the Gentile church,2 but this is most improbable.3
1
G. Strecker, op. cit. pp. 99-118; W. Trilling, op. cit. pp. 99-105; R. Hummel, op. cit. pp. 141 f.;
G. Bornkamm, ' Der Auferstandene und der Irdische, Mt. 28: 16—00', £eit und Geschichte, Dankesgabc
an Rudolf Bultmann (Tubingen, 1964), pp. 171-92 (esp. pp. 181 f.).
2
Bornkamm describes very well in this article the fact that the evangelist Matthew, being a
Hellenistic Jewish Christian, opposed Pharisaic Judaism on the one hand, though standing within
the Jewish tradition, but on the other hand, though adopting the Christology of the Hellenistic
church, criticized that Christology from the standpoint of the Jewish tradition. In spite of this correct
understanding, Bornkamm tries to solve the problem of the contradiction between ch. x and ch. xxviii
by introducing period-differentiation of the history of salvation [heilsgeschichtliche Periodisierung). But
it seems to me quite improbable that a man who was very proud of standing in the Jewish tradition
should have been convinced that the present post-resurrection period was the time of the Gentile
church. The Apostle Paul was also racially a Jew, but he was the very apostle who had abandoned
Judaism because of Christ, so that he was able to become the apostle to the Gentiles (cf. Phil. iii. 1 ff.).
Matthew is different from Paul just at this point.
3
The recent attempts made by G. Strecker, W. Trilling and P. Nepper-Christensen to prove that
Matthew was a Gentile Christian are not convincing. P. Nepper-Christensen, Das Matthaus-
evangelium, einjudenchristliches Evangelium?, Ada Theologica Danica, 1 (Aarhus, 1958), raises five points:
(1) the traditions of the church fathers are not sure enough to prove the Jewish character of
Matthew; (2) the first Gospel is originally written in Greek and not a translation from a Semitic
language; (3) the schema prophecy-fulfilment is a motif formed before Matthew and does not reflect
Matthew's redaction; (4) there is no typology in Matthew; (5) the texts which show Jewish ten-
dencies are taken from older traditions. Of these five points, the first, second, and fourth prove
nothing about the nationality of Matthew. The third and fifth points are questionable. Upon these
two points, G. Strecker, op. cit. pp. 15-35, is exegetically more detailed. But his arguments are very
forced, and reveal his methodological faults. For example, the word on divorce (Matt. v. 32 f. and
xix. 3-9): all commentators agree that the phrase 'except on the ground of unchastity' (v. 32;
xix. 9) is an addition of Jewish character added to the sources of Q, (v. 32) and Mark (xix. 9).
Strecker argues against this agreement that this addition belongs also to a tradition earlier than the
First Gospel. According to him, if Matthew had wanted to reinterpret this word of Jesus from his own
viewpoint, it would have been necessary for him to give a more detailed account; the fact that only
a few words are added shows that the re-interpretation was not made on his own initiative, but was
given by the tradition. But in so arguing Strecker exposes his own misconception of the character
of the redactional activity of the evangelists. The synoptic writers never develop their interpretation
of the earlier traditions by detailed reasoning, but they reveal their opinion by delicate additions
to and omissions from the traditions. In this sense they are editors and not authors. Moreover,

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY IN MATTHEW I57
Moreover, this interpretation presupposes a Lukan view of the history of
salvation as the framework also of Matthew's theology. But this view, which
sees the time of Jesus and the time of the Church as different stages of the
history of salvation, is peculiar to the Lukan theology,1 and it is impossible
to regard it as applying to New Testament thought in general. Certainly it
cannot be applied to Matthew. He presupposes the homogeneity of the time
of Jesus and that of the Church, and he never considers Jesus' word as
applicable only to his lifetime.2
(3) ' Christianism' as a third way over against Judaism and paganism.
The third type of interpretation is that Matthew criticizes both the Jews and
the Gentiles and seeks for a third way. He distinguishes the Christian com-
munity from the Jewish national community and on the other hand maintains
it as a third reality over against paganism.3 This interpretation has true in-
sight into the dilemma we are dealing with. But the dilemma remains,
because there is no possibility of a third way. In other words this is not, or at
least not only, a question of religious beliefs, but of national consciousness.
when Strecker says, ' wahrscheinlicher ist daher, daB der Redaktor schon in einer Tradition lebte,
die die Ehegesetzgebung in dieser (rabbinischen) Form praktizierte, und daB er sie hier als Ein-
fiigung in seine Vorlagen schriftlich niederlegte. Der jiidische EinfluB ist danach ein fester Bestand-
teil der vormatthaischen mundlichen t)berlieferung' (p. 17), he falls into self-contradiction. If
Matthew 'lived in such a Jewish tradition', if he himself adopted such a tradition—a correct
assumption—it is anything but a proof of the non-Jewish character of the evangelist Matthew; it
proves, on the contrary, that the evangelist shared in the thinking of the social group which preserved
the tradition. So Strecker not only misunderstands this fact, but he develops his arguments on
methodologically faulty procedures. In all the other cases also, e.g. the citations of the Old Testa-
ment, the pericope of xv. 1-20, the pericopae of the sabbath problem (xii. 1-8, 9-14), etc. he
attributes the elements of Jewish character to the earlier tradition. This one-sided and arbitrary
elimination of materials unfavourable to his thesis is the fatal defect of his detailed study. The
discussion given by W. Trilling on this point is not far from that of Strecker. So we find no reason to
reject the traditional view that Matthew was a Jewish Christian.
1
H. Conzelmann's study of the Lukan theology clarifies this very fact. R. Hummel, op. cit.
pp. 141 f. would find the same schema of the different periods of the history of salvation in the
expression peculiar to Matthew dm' dpTi (xxiii. 39; xxvi. 64). According to him, when Matthew says
' from now on', it means,' Die Erhohung Jesu beendet seine speziell auf Israel gerichtete messianische
Wirksamkeit, charakterisiert sie als eine Epoche der Niedrigkeit und macht den Weg frei fur die
Heidenmission'. Surely 'from now on' in xxvi. 64 designates a differentiation of the Christological
situation. 'Till now'Jesus has been in the humble state of the incarnation, but 'from now on' he
will be the glorified Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power. But one must note that this text
concerns only the Christological situation, not the heilsgeschichtlich period-differentiation. The state
of Jesus is different in his lifetime on earth and after his resurrection, but the discipleship is always
the same from the Matthean point of view; the fKKAtiuia existed for him from the lifetime of Jesus and
its essence has not been changed since then. Moreover, the fact that 4TT'fip-nin Matthew does not
mean necessarily different epochs of the history of salvation is also proved from the usage of An-6 T6TE.
This is also a peculiarly Matthean expression and is the narrative expression which corresponds to
the im'fip-nof Jesus' own words. It is used three times, once to mark the beginning of the public
activity of Jesus (iv. 17), then to mark the first revelation of intention of suffering (xvi. 21), and
finally with reference to the decision of Judas Iscariot to seek an opportunity to betray Jesus
(xxvi. 16). So the expression 'from that time' corresponding to 'from now on' of xxvi. 64 means in
Matthew that something new is beginning, but it does not mean necessarily the differentiation of the
periods of the history of salvation, the time of Jesus and that of the Church.
a
Cf. F. Hahn, Das Verstandnis der Mission im Neuen Testament (Neukirchen, 1963). All the long
speeches of Jesus in Matthew are recorded as directly oriented to the Church of Matthew's time.
3
What R. Hummel says of the relation of the Church and Israel, op. cit. pp. 157ff.,is close to
this type of interpretation.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 158 KENZO TAGAWA
And as far as national consciousness is concerned, there can be no third way
other than Jewish or Gentile. One can espouse as an ideal the universalism
which transcends national consciousness. But the evangelist Matthew does
not think in such terms. He would rather be positively a Jew and in this
sense he rejects what is pagan (cf. the disdainful use of the word E0VIKOS).
Matthew tries to transcend his existence of being Jewish while remaining
positively a Jew.
(4) The interpretation of G. D. Kilpatrick. This is a further development
of the previous type.1 According to him, the evangelist Matthew after all
cannot be regarded other than as a Jewish Christian. Matthew speaks of the
Gentile mission from the viewpoint of the Jewish Christians, but it is only a
peripheral activity, the Israelite traditions being the centre.2 On the other
hand, the criticism made by Matthew against the Jews is not really aimed at
the Jewish people as a whole but mainly at the Pharisaic sect. This comes
close to my own view but still is not completely satisfactory. Many exegetical
problems still remain. According to Kilpatrick, many of Matthew's criticisms
of the Jews are really directed to the religious leaders, especially the Pharisees.
But this is exegetically unjustifiable. Matthew's criticisms are directed to
a much wider milieu.

IV
This problem should be thought of not in terms of theological ideas in the
narrow sense of the word, but in terms of the evangelist's ecclesiastical
standpoint. Not that we are interested in his ecclesiology, but we wish to
determine the nature of the community in which he actually was living, the
Church as his social basis. The consciousness of his life in this Church com-
munity is the fundamental basis of the thought of Matthew.3 He understood
himself as being in the Church community and wrote his Gospel for this
community. This situation explains well why Matthew laid stress on the Law
and ethical teachings. It is these elements which prescribe the standards for
life in the community.4 And it is this community consciousness which is a
1
G. D. Kilpatrick, op. cit. pp. 101 ff.
2
In so far as it concerns the problem of the mission to the Gentiles, F. Hahn is of the same
opinion, cf. op. cit. pp. 108ff.'Was Matthaus in seiner.. .Weise damit zum Ausdruck bringen will,
ist die Prioritat und bleibende Verpflichtung der Mission an Israel... die aber nur recht betrieben
wird, wenn im Wirken unter alien Volkern zugleich der universale Auftrag wahrgenommen ist'
(p. i n ) . This interpretation is to some degree right. But it does not take into consideration the
exclusive meaning of the utterance 'only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel'. 'Only to Israel' is
not the same thing as the priority of Israel. The contradiction remains a contradiction.
3
The recent commentary of P. Bonnard, L'£vangile selon Saint Matthieu (Neuchatel, 1963), tries
to analyse the Gospel of Matthew from this point of view, but it is to be regretted that this point of
view is not sufficiently applied to the exegesis of each text.
4
It is S. Yagi to whom I owe the important suggestion that the basic key to the problem of the
Gospel of Matthew is its community consciousness; cf. especially his recent article, 'Sin and its
Negation in Matthew and Luke' (written in Japanese), in: Seisho ni okeru Hitei no Mondai (The
Problem of Negation in the Bible), symposium published by the Japanese Institute of Biblical
Studies (Tokyo, 1967), pp. 90-106.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY IN MATTHEW 159
continuation of the consciousness of the national community of Israel. Israel,
understood as a community existing before God, and the Church, the com-
munity founded upon the Lord Jesus, are identified half unconsciously in the
thought of Matthew. This fact has been well noted by W. Trilling.1 Matthew
does not use any such expression as ' the new Israel' by which to distinguish
the Church as something different from the old Israel, though not losing
continuity with it. For him, the Church itself is the true Israel. Nevertheless,
while having a keen insight into this fact, Trilling does not press on to its full
conclusion and instead introduces the view of the periodical stages of the
history of salvation. This is because he does not grasp the meaning of the
Church as a milieu in which the evangelist develops his thought, but only
considers it as a theological idea. In reality Matthew has a very strong
consciousness of being a member of a community, but he makes no effort to
give a historico-theological explanation of the relation of the Church to
Israel. He is clearly aware of the fact that the people Israel and the Christian
Church are not directly equal, but on the other hand, he confuses them
because both are the milieu in which he finds his own existence. From this
confusion arises the dilemma of the Jewish-Gentile problem.
On the basis of this observation we can now understand both the anti-
Jewish and anti-Gentile statements. First, for him the Church is the true
Israel. This is recognized in the usage of the word Acros in i. 21. Aoc6s is here
'the people ofJesus whom he will save from their sins'. This sentence is a free
citation of Ps. cxxx. 8 (LXX), and Matthew writes 'his [Jesus'] people'
where the psalmist says 'Israel'. The people of the Lord which is to be saved
is traditionally Israel, but it is for Matthew at the same time the Christian
community, the people of Jesus Christ. As long as the Church is the true
Israel, it is a sin to be a Gentile; therefore Gentiles are to be treated like tax-
collectors (v. 46 f.; xviii. 17; cf. vi. 6, 32). Consequently the mission of Jesus
and his disciples is to the people who are to form the true Israel. The limita-
tion of the mission exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (x. 5 f.;
xv. 24)2 is also to be understood in this sense. This is why Christian mission-
aries, not only in the lifetime of Jesus but also in the time of the Church,
must not go to the Gentiles. These utterances are made from the standpoint
of the identification of Israel with the Christian community. They are, so to
speak, utterances which arise naturally from national consciousness. But on
the other hand, the Church is not for Matthew merely the Jewish race. It is
the chosen people out of Israel who constitute the Church community. It is
not without reason that only Matthew among the Synoptics uses the word
^KKAricrfcc (xvi. 18; xviii. 17). This fact shows that Matthew grasped the Church
1
W. Trilling, op. dl. pp. 95 f.
a
x. 23 belongs to another context. This sentence treats, at least in the intention of Matthew, of
the relation of the persecution to the eschaton, so the problem of the evangelistic mission is not
directly mentioned here, nor the problem of national consciousness. Cf. E. Bammel, ' Matthaus
10: 23', Studia Theologica, xv (1962), 79-92.
II NTSXVI

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 l6o KENZO TAGAWA
as something opposed to the synagogue.1 From this viewpoint he criticizes
the Jews. Most of his criticisms are directed quite naturally to the Pharisees
and the scribes. But it is not only the Pharisees that he criticizes. To be a Jew
by birth is not sufficient qualification to be counted among the chosen people
of God (iii. gf.). 2
But the anti-Jewish polemics do not have the meaning that because the
Jews rejected Jesus their time was finished and salvation would now be given
to the Gentiles. This kind of theoretical theology would be impossible for
Matthew with his high national consciousness. The texts which are usually
understood in this heilsgeschichtlich sense of period-differentiation ought not to
be so interpreted. For example, note in viii. 11 f. the conclusion added by
Matthew to the narrative of the healing of the centurion's servant (cf. Lk.
vii. I-IO) ;3 in these verses, 'those who will come from east and west and sit
at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven' and
' the sons of the kingdom (uioi Tfjs |3occnAEias) who will be thrown into the
outer darkness' are put in contrast. If the latter designate the Jews,4 the
former should logically be the Gentiles, and the point of these verses should
be that those who will participate in the eschatological salvation are not
Jews, but Gentiles.5 But in its other occurrences in Matthew the expression
uioi Tfjs pctaiAsias does not mean the Jewish people as a whole, but those who
belong to the Christian Church (xiii. 38; cf. xxv. 34). Therefore it ought to
have the same meaning here. Consequently viii. 11 f. expresses almost the
same idea as the parable of the tares and its allegorical explanation (xiii. 24-
30, 37-43). Matthew gives his readers the strict warning that just to be a
member of the Church at the present time (that is, to be sons of the kingdom)
does not guarantee final salvation.6 The question here is ' the mixed state of
the Church' and not the problem of the Jews and the Gentiles. Among those
who still remain Gentiles, not belonging now to the true Israel, will be found
the real Christians who have more profound faith than you who call your-
selves Christians, so be careful! Certainly it is asserted here that the Gentiles
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but this does not mean that the Jewish
people as a whole will be rejected. Only those who have no true faith will be
1
Cf. G. Bornkamm, op. cit. p. 183. The fact that Matthew alone of the synoptic evangelists uses
the word £KKAT|CT1C( is not an objection to our thesis. This fact shows, of course, that the community
consciousness of Matthew was very strong, but not that Matthew reflected upon the essence of the
community.
2
According to G. Bornkamm, op. cit. p. 189, the descent from Abraham, emphasized along with
the Davidic descent, in the genealogy of Matt. i. 1-17 is also an expression of the same assertion.
' Die natiirliche Abrahamskindschaft charakterisiert nicht mehr eo ipso das Gottesvolk und garantiert
ihm Anteil an Segen und VerheiBung. Mit um so starkerem Nachdruck heiBt es jetzt betont und
exklusiv im Blick auf Ghristus: ER ist Davids und Abrahams Sohn.'
3
Cf.E. Haenchen, 'Faith and Miracle', Studia Evangelica, 1 (7*.u.[A LXXIH), 1959, Berlin, pp.495-8.
4
A. H. M'Neile, The Gospel according to St Matthew (London, 1915), ad loc, and P. Bonnard,
op. cit. ad loc.
6
G. Strecker, op. cit. pp. 99-101; M'Neile, ad loc; Bonnard, ad loc.
0
Cf. C. F. Smith, 'The Mixed State of the Church in Matthew's Gospel', J.B.L. LXXXII (1963),
149-68.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY IN MATTHEW l6l

rejected. And having been welcomed into the kingdom of heaven, the
Gentiles are no longer Gentiles. They will be members of the people of
Israel, as they sit at table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Gentiles are,
so to speak, potential Israelites. TJ|us interpreted, we find that in these
verses also Matthew understands the Gentiles from the standpoint of his
national consciousness.
The same thing can be said about the parable of the wicked husbandmen
(xxi. 33-46). Verse 43 is an interpretation added by Matthew to the Markan
material (Mk. xii. 1-12). Matthew concludes the parable by saying, 'The
kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation (s0vos)
producing the fruits of it.' If the word EQVOS meant here the Gentiles, 'you'
in the first half of the sentence should mean the Jews and consequently the
meaning of this verse should be that the kingdom of God will be taken away
from the Jews and given to the Gentiles.1 But neither of these identifications
is right. "EOvos is here in the singular form, so it does not mean the Gentile
people as distinguished from the Jews.2 ' You' in this context indicates the
leaders of the Jewish people, the scribes and the Pharisees (cf. v. 45). Ac-
cordingly, the evangelist Matthew interprets this parable as a criticism against
Pharisaic Judaism and he declares that the kingdom of God will be given to
'a nation that yields the proper fruits'. It is clear that Matthew is thinking of
the Church which is now in the process of formation. The fact that the
Christian community is here called £0vos corresponds to the usage of Aoc6s in
i. 21 where the Church is understood as the true Israel.3 The evangelist here
criticizes Pharisaic Judaism from the standpoint of the Christian Church. So
this text has nothing to do with the Gentile-Jew antithesis.4
On the basis of the above consideration we can understand also in what
sense Matthew is in favour of the Gentile mission. In so far as he identifies the
Church with the national community, he says not to go beyond Israel, but on
the other hand, in so far as the Church is recognized as a chosen community
of faith distinguished from the Jewish nation, the commandment to go and to
make disciples of all the nations (xxviii. 19) is quite comprehensible.5 These
utterances, though logically in contradiction, can be made because for
Matthew the two communities, though different in nature, are overlapping.
In any case, as we have seen concerning viii. 5-13, when Matthew thinks of
1
G. Strecker, op. cit. p. 170.
a
W. Trilling, op. cit. p. 6 1 ; Bonnard, ad loc; E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthaus (2. Aufl.
Gottingen, 1958), ad loc.
3
F. Hahn, op. cit. p. 108.
4
G. Strecker designates many other texts as of anti-Jewish tendency, op. cit. pp. 99 ff. But within
these texts, ix. 33 f.; xiii. 10-13 and xix. 28 contain no anti-Jewish criticisms at all. xi. 16-24;
xxi. 12-16; xxii. 1—14 and xxiii. 37-9 are certainly criticisms against the Jews, but these criticisms
are not made in contrast with the Gentiles. Matthew criticizes the Jews rather from the standpoint
of the Church elected from the Jewish people. In xv. 21-8 it is a matter of the Gentiles as in viii. 5-13,
but just as in the latter text the faith of the Gentile is here recognized as an exception.
6
In addition, x. 18 and xxiv. 14 can be considered to reflect in one sense or other the conscious-
ness of the Gentile mission.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 162 KENZO TAGAWA
the Gentile mission, his idea is clearly that the Gentiles become members of
the community of 'Israel' by becoming Christians. They will also be con-
stituents of'a nation that yields the proper fruits' (xxi. 43). Accordingly we
can understand the meaning of the f&rerb uoc9r|TEUEiv (make disciples) in
xxviii. 19 also in this light.1 They will be members of this holy people and
become disciples (iaa0r|Teuea6ai, cf. xiii. 52) living under the Law. To state
the conclusion, the Gentile mission in the true meaning of this expression is
not thought of in the Gospel according to Matthew. The Gentile mission in
Matthew is the mission in order to introduce the Gentiles into the Israel-
Christian community. For Matthew there can be no Gentile church.
It is the identification of Israel and the Christian community discussed
above, Matthew's undifferentiated community consciousness, which gives us
an important key for understanding the thought of the evangelist.2
1
Cf. the excellent analysis of this word by G. Bornkamm, op. cit. pp. 182 f. and p. 187.
8
This paper was written in May 1967.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 May 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35