Matthew

By Jeannine K. Brown and Kyle Roberts

In this latest addition to the Two Horizons New Testament Commentary series, biblical scholar Jeannine Brown and theologian Kyle Roberts together illuminate the Gospel of Matthew for pastors, scholars, and serious students of Scripture.

Including an original translation of the text along with section-by-section commentary, this volume features chapters on “thinking theologically with Matthew” about such themes as kingdom, Christology, the Holy Spirit, and discipleship. Brown and Roberts also offer constructive theological engagement with a number of contemporary viewpoints, including feminist, global, political, and ethical (post-Holocaust) perspectives. At once interdisciplinary and insightful, their commentary will appeal to a wide readership.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Sep 27, 2018
• ISBN: 9781467451277

Jeannine K. Brown

Jeannine K. Brown (PhD, Luther Seminary) is the David Price Professor of Biblical and Theological Foundations at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. She is the author of Scripture as Communication, The Gospels as Stories, two commentaries on Matthew, and a commentary on Philippians. She coauthored Relational Integration between Psychology and Christian Theology and Becoming Whole and Holy and is a coeditor of the revised Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Brown has also served as a translation consultant for the New International Version, Common English Bible, and New Century Version.

Book preview

THE TWO HORIZONS NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY

Joel B. Green, General Editor

Two features distinguish THE TWO HORIZONS NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY series: theological exegesis and theological reflection.

Exegesis since the Reformation era and especially in the past two hundred years emphasized careful attention to philology, grammar, syntax, and concerns of a historical nature. More recently, commentary has expanded to include social-scientific, political, or canonical questions and more.

Without slighting the significance of those sorts of questions, scholars in THE TWO HORIZONS NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY locate their primary interests on theological readings of texts, past and present. The result is a paragraph-by-paragraph engagement with the text that is deliberately theological in focus.

Theological reflection in THE TWO HORIZONS NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY takes many forms, including locating each New Testament book in relation to the whole of Scripture—asking what the biblical book contributes to biblical theology—and in conversation with constructive theology of today. How commentators engage in the work of theological reflection will differ from book to book, depending on their particular theological tradition and how they perceive the work of biblical theology and theological hermeneutics. This heterogeneity derives as well from the relative infancy of the project of theological interpretation of Scripture in modern times and from the challenge of grappling with a book’s message in Greco-Roman antiquity, in the canon of Scripture and history of interpretation, and for life in the admittedly diverse Western world at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

THE TWO HORIZONS NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY is written primarily for students, pastors, and other Christian leaders seeking to engage in theological interpretation of Scripture.

Matthew

Jeannine K. Brown & Kyle Roberts

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

4035 Park East Court SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546

www.eerdmans.com

© 2018 Jeannine K. Brown and Kyle Roberts

All rights reserved

Published 2018

27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 181 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ISBN 978-0-8028-2566-7

eISBN 978-1-4674-5127-7

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Brown, Jeannine K., 1961- author.

Title: Matthew / Jeannine K. Brown & Kyle Roberts.

Description: Grand Rapids : Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2018. | Series: The two horizons New Testament commentary | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2018018272 | ISBN 9780802825667 (pbk. : alk. paper)

Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Matthew—Commentaries.

Classification: LCC BS2575.53 .B7625 2018 | DDC 226.2/07—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018018272

Dedicated to Nancy Roberts and Timothy Brown,

With deepest love and appreciation

Contents

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

MATTHEW COMMENTARY

1.Introduction

2.Jesus’s Preparation for Ministry: Matthew 1:1–4:16

3.Jesus Teaches about the Kingdom: Matthew 4:17–7:29

4.Jesus Enacts the Kingdom: Matthew 8:1–11:1

5.Growing Opposition toward Jesus’s Ministry: Matthew 11:2–16:20

6.Jesus Teaches about His Coming Death: Matthew 16:21–20:28

7.Jesus Clashes with Jerusalem Leadership: Matthew 20:29–25:46

8.Jesus’s Passion and Resurrection: Matthew 26:1–28:20

THINKING THEOLOGICALLY WITH MATTHEW

9.Methods for Theological Engagement with Scripture

10.Thinking Theologically with Matthew: Kingdom

11.Thinking Theologically with Matthew: Christology

12.Thinking Theologically with Matthew: The Holy Spirit

13.Thinking Theologically with Matthew: Discipleship

14.The Meaning of the Messiah’s Deeds

CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGICAL ENGAGEMENT WITH MATTHEW

15.Contexts and Text in Conversation

16.Matthew’s Contribution to a New Testament Theology

17.Reading Matthew with Feminist Perspectives

18.Reading Matthew with Global Perspectives and Liberation Theologies

19.Reading Matthew Pastorally

20.Reading Matthew Politically

21.Reading Judaism Ethically in the Post-Holocaust Era

Bibliography

Index of Authors

Index of Subjects

Index of Biblical and Other Ancient References

Acknowledgments

This book is the result of over five years of creative, interdisciplinary work and deep reflection on Matthew’s Gospel. Every published work reflects not only the efforts of the authors but an unacknowledged number of people who gave emotional support or who directly or indirectly contributed ideas, suggestions, or feedback. We are thankful to so many people who have been a part of this conversation, including the students in our Matthew for Theology class during the spring of 2011.

I (Jeannine) am grateful to Joel Green for the invitation to write the Matthew volume in the Two Horizons commentary series. It has been a pleasure to be involved in a project that traverses new terrain in the intersection of the disciplines of biblical studies and theology. I am grateful as well to Kyle for joining me in the work, even as we did not know precisely what this would look like when we embarked on the project. His flexibility, curiosity, and grace have made the work both profitable and enjoyable.

As I translated Matthew for this project, I was assisted by former student and now friend, Adam Rao, whose interest and facility in Greek made him an ideal reader of an early version of my translation. His probing questions and insightful suggestions have made the translation of Matthew clearer and fresher. I am also thankful to my teaching assistants, Katie Davis, who prepared the bibliography, and John Darrow, who provided final-stage editing.

I (Kyle) am indebted to Jeannine for inviting me into this project in the first place. I was—and continue to be—honored by her trust in me as a scholar and colleague. I have learned a great deal working with her, both about the process of collaborative writing and about Matthew’s Gospel and biblical studies generally.

Many thanks to my former research assistant, Brianna Millett, who did quite a bit of spadework early in the process, sifting through piles of theological texts and commentaries and helping me lay out an initial foundation of research material.

I am grateful beyond words for consistent support and encouragement from my wife, Sara. The task of writing often makes demands not just on the author, but also on the author’s spouse and family. I am thankful for her love, understanding, and partnership through the highs, lows, and middles of the academic life.

Both of us are grateful to Wyndy Corbin Reuschling, for her thoughtful criticism and constructive suggestions on our feminist perspectives chapter (ch. 17), and to Victor I. Ezigbo, for his helpful feedback on our global perspectives chapter (ch. 18). Our work is better because of their suggestions, although we retain responsibility for any weaknesses that remain.

Finally, I (Kyle) dedicate my work in this volume to the memory of my mother, Nancy Roberts, who died in 2015 of complications from Alzheimer’s disease. My mom modeled a love for God, a reverence for the Bible, and an emphasis on Jesus as the center of our understanding of God. Her self-identity was as a disciple of Jesus, even to the very end.

I (Jeannine) dedicate this book to Timothy Brown, my husband and co-journeyer in life. He has always been my first and best advocate and source of encouragement. I am grateful for his kindness, authenticity, and joy. He, more than anyone else I know, lives out the admonition of Matthew’s Jesus to pursue solidarity with the least of these.

Abbreviations

MATTHEW COMMENTARY

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Matters of Perspective

Our Focus: A Theological and Interdisciplinary Reading

The assumption that Matthew’s Gospel is thoroughly theological permeates our commentary from beginning to end. Its author undertook a theological project as much as a literary and historical one. The contours of Matthew’s telling of the story of Jesus provide rich veins for reflection on Israel’s God and Messiah, as well as the identity of God’s people in light of the arrival of God’s chosen king and kingdom in Jesus. We are certainly concerned with the Gospel’s literary artistry, and we utilize narrative criticism to consider the shape of Matthew’s story of Jesus.¹ We also attend to historical facets of the Gospel in our understanding of the text as a cultural product.² This includes reading the Gospel in light of the layered and complex ways it is situated within first-century Judaism and the broader Greco-Roman landscape.³ Yet, we are particularly attentive to how these literary and historical frames are inextricably connected to Matthew’s theological project. We seek to discern Matthew’s narrative theology derived from his literary rhetoric informed by the sociohistorical realities of his world.

The Two Horizons series invites theological interpretation of the biblical text. This does not yet answer, however, what theological interpretation looks like and how it is done. The verdict is still out on these issues, and the renewed interest in theological interpretation, which itself is emerging as a discrete focus in biblical studies, is practiced in a variety of ways. Johnson helpfully points to three commitments that typically inform theological interpretation, namely, commitment to the interpretive lenses of (1) canon; (2) the Nicene tradition; and (3) Christian formation and practices.⁴ As interpreters from a baptistic and pietistic context, these three commitments shape our approach to theological interpretation, and two key values emerge from these commitments.

The first value that has informed our writing is a high view of biblical authority. We reserve for Scripture epistemological privilege over our own readings of it and the readings of the church across history. In our view, tradition, which is an inescapable and rich reality for all readers of the Bible, is to be continuously brought back into conversation with the text for reformation—for the reforming of ourselves and of our readings.

This commitment, along with our project of focused study on Matthew’s Gospel, means that we have straddled two undertakings in this theological commentary. First, we have tried to listen well to the text of Matthew as the primary source for our theological engagement, as, for example, when we take on the task of reading Matthew pastorally—not to develop a canonical pastoral theology but to explore a Matthean one. Second, when it has seemed helpful, we have engaged a canonical perspective to complement Matthew’s point of view. This comes across most prominently in the addressing of Old Testament intertexts in the first part of the book, Matthew Commentary, and in chapter 16, where we discuss Matthew’s place within and contributions to the rest of New Testament.

A second value that has shaped our project is the importance of acknowledging our own interpretive locations, and so our privilege. We write from a privileged position as white, Western scholars. We recognize that we bring our own theological horizons—our questions, interests, and commitments—into conversation with Matthew, and we acknowledge that these have been shaped by our privileged contexts. As such, our own locations are not incidental to the task we have undertaken. Instead, we believe that our social locations in all their breadth—ecclesial, socioeconomic, gender, and more—are involved in the reading process, and we have tried to account for and to highlight the relevance of these locations along the way.

A significant effect of acknowledging location and privilege is that we have sought to draw upon and emphasize voices that have been on the margins in the history of biblical interpretation. We have engaged interpreters from across the spectrum of church history, from both the center and the margins. We have not necessarily privileged the earliest centuries, and this might distinguish our approach from that of other theological interpreters who find the rule of faith to be a key locus for theological conversation. Yet, we have interacted with those earliest interpreters of Matthew and the New Testament, and these conversations show up especially in the second part, Thinking Theologically with Matthew (e.g., chapter 12 on early thinking about the Holy Spirit). Nevertheless, the weightier focus of our theological engagements has been with more recent voices that have not traditionally been at the center of theological conversation on the New Testament—women (ch. 17), people from the majority world (ch. 18), and Jewish scholars (ch. 21).

The form of the commentary begins with what we might call the commentary proper, followed by two sections more expressly devoted to theological themes or loci and constructive theological engagement with Matthew.

We offer an interdisciplinary engagement with Matthew’s Gospel, having written from our disciplinary locations as a theologian (Kyle) and a biblical scholar (Jeannine). Christian theology and biblical studies, although sharing a common canon, have grown up as quite different disciplines, with distinct assumptions, methodologies, goals, and resources. These differences have most often acted as barriers to interdisciplinary integration, despite collegial relationships across disciplines. Joel Green comments on this fact:

Only rarely does one find mutual respect giving way to the sort of interdisciplinarity where fresh epistemic trails are blazed, where the concerns of systematic theology actually shape the ways in which biblical studies is conducted, and vice versa. . . . More pervasive are those scholars who are trained according to accredited standards that guard the one discipline from what are typically regarded as the naïve or colonizing efforts of the other.⁵

We have found that the best way to overcome the suspicion and anxieties of such turf wars or naïve or colonizing efforts is to engage real conversations in which we listen closely to the discipline-specific insights each person has to offer.⁶ In these conversations, we have found it essential to be able to hold our own views and insights in a differentiated way, so that we neither capitulate too easily to the other nor hold rigidly to our own views. This kind of differentiation of self has been essential to our work together.⁷

Our Disciplines and Ourselves

Kyle’s Reflections

When Jeannine approached me with the invitation to collaborate with her on this commentary, I did not need any time to process. Jeannine was a good colleague and friend, and I respected her work and her knowledge of the New Testament. I also knew her as an integrative thinker and a scholar who actively pursued interdisciplinary collaboration, with the intention not only of improving her work but also of benefiting students, pastors, and the theological endeavor. I anticipated that joining her in this project would be a unique opportunity for learning and growing as a scholar. That prediction has proven true.

Upon accepting the invitation, several questions arose for me. What exactly would I contribute? If I am coming from the theological side of the two horizons, what kind of theology is in view? This commentary project, from beginning to end, provided an opportunity for reflecting on the task of theology and how theologians and biblical scholars intersect and partner to create something bigger than they could create by themselves.

Of the many varieties of theology, I see myself mainly as a constructive and public theologian. This means that I utilize some of the intuitions of systematic theology—with its propensity to look for a bigger picture and fit disparate pieces together in a coherent whole. The end goal for the constructive and public theologian, however, is not to construct a doctrinal system of thought, but rather to put theology to use and to make it live, or to show its applicability to present contexts.

I hope it will become clear, in the second and third sections of this commentary, that the Gospel of Matthew lends itself well to the task of constructive and public theology—in collaboration with biblical studies and biblical theology. So, rather than attempt to systematize a theology of Matthew or a systematic theology (e.g., of God, of Christ, of humanity) based on Matthew’s Gospel, I have in my approach to our collaborative work tried to follow the insights of Matthew where they naturally lead, into points or insights or glimmers of truth that intersect with contemporary, contextual life as Christian believers and disciples, or simply as those who are interested in learning and living from Matthew’s Gospel.

To be a constructive and public theologian is by necessity also to be a contextual theologian. All theology is contextual, of course—shaped, formed, and inspired by the distinctive, limited contexts of the theologian or community of theologians. Contextual theology, however, explicitly recognizes and acknowledges the factors of one’s own context (as well as the many lived contexts represented by texts, such as the Bible) and affirms not only the inevitability of contextual shaping on theology, but also the inherent goodness of that shaping. Contexts become the most dangerous when they are ignored.

Toward that end, in the third part we have included chapters organized around contextual perspectives, offering readings of Matthew from unique standpoints that also have differing, constructive aims: feminist, liberationist, global, pastoral, and political. Our hope is that these chapters will not only expose the reader to these differing perspectives but also broaden and deepen the reader’s understanding of Matthew and theological engagement with it.

Yet constructive theology should not neglect the historical dimension. So, I have also sought to pay attention to significant contributions to the interpretation and understanding of Matthew across the history of Christianity. Our commentary is not meant to provide a summary of the history of interpretation of Matthew; thus, we have had to make hard choices. We have had to be content with representative theologians and theologies at key places where those voices contribute to a better understanding of Matthew. Overall, we have ventured together to construct a biblical and theological guide through the Gospel of Matthew while bringing to the fore some key insights, themes, connections, and, yes, theologies, that emerge from Matthew’s text.

During our multiyear work on this commentary, we cotaught a seminary course called Matthew for Theology. One of the many insightful questions posed by the students took me a bit off guard: If I am preaching on a text from Matthew, and if there are so many things that could be said, so many interpretations of the text, and so many ways that text could be applied or thought about in the context of contemporary life, how do I know what I should preach? How should I go about choosing to focus that sermon?

That question has haunted me a bit (in a good way) throughout our work on the commentary. We assume (and hope) that preachers and teachers will pick up our commentary, already having this question in mind: What should I preach on this passage?

We do not presume to give simple, ready-made (one-size-fits-all) answers to that question, in part because the nature of Matthew’s Gospel doesn’t lend itself to either simplicity or reduction, but also because the contextual needs of each lived situation are different. But I hope that much of what the constructive side of theology brings to a Two Horizons commentary involves a sensitivity to that question: What can be gleaned from it? What is important to say (or preach, or teach, or simply learn) from it?

Jeannine’s Reflections

At least a few years before I began writing my first commentary on Matthew, I read the initial offerings in the Two Horizons New Testament Commentary series (those by Thompson and Fowl). From the very first engagement, I was hooked. I so appreciated the vision of New Testament (NT) scholars engaging NT books in deeply theological ways that I thought that I would like to write in this series someday. So I was thrilled when the editor, Joel Green, asked me to write the Matthew volume for the series. From my earliest thinking about the project, I was drawn to a collaborative approach as I engaged with other THNTC authors who were bringing coauthors into their projects in some way. So I asked Kyle to consider joining me in the project, especially as coauthor on the second and third parts of the book. Kyle was and is a trusted colleague and friend who comes to the table with keen thinking, true curiosity, and relational strength.

The smartest decision we made early on was to coteach the Matthew for Theology course that Kyle mentioned. This course became a place to practice our method of engagement in a way that involved real time conversations, both as we prepared each class session and as we taught the course by inviting students into interdisciplinary engagement. As has been my experience whenever I dive into interdisciplinary discussions, my awareness of my own disciplinary self was heightened in this process. I recall a student in the class saying that Jesus did this thing or said that thing in a conversation on Christology. In my reply, Not in Matthew he doesn’t, I was more aware than ever before that this was a conviction borne of my own guild of biblical studies—namely, the value of focusing exclusively on a discrete book or author—and might not be shared in the same way or with matching depth by Kyle as theologian. This moment in the class has been an interesting point of discussion for us in subsequent conversations and in our writing. For example, because Kyle has pressed me to expand our reading to scholars that are not addressing Matthew alone but the NT stories of Jesus more broadly, my own consideration of Matthew and these other texts has been enriched.⁸

Now, I will readily own that I believe it is a great strength of biblical studies to keep readers focused intently on a specific biblical book. There is great value in this particularity for attending to the genre, historical setting, and literary scope of Matthew’s Gospel, as well as for immersing oneself in the blessed messiness of the text.⁹ Yet, through my interaction with Kyle on this project, I have discovered that staying within the discrete boundaries of Matthew and Matthean studies has tended to discourage me from stretching toward the systematic, or as Kyle put it, to look for a bigger picture. One result is that I can easily miss some topics that I deem Matthew to be less interested in (e.g., the Holy Spirit; see our introduction to ch. 12) or with which I am less comfortable (e.g., healings and exorcisms; see ch. 19). Throughout our project and process, Kyle kept me honest by bringing overarching categories from theological reflection to Matthew’s doorstep. I must admit that his tolerance for ambiguity is greater than mine!¹⁰ I am also grateful that this project allowed me to think more deeply about Matthew’s contributions to the rest of the canon (see ch. 16).¹¹

Another methodological difference between theology and biblical studies that became apparent to me through collaboration emerges in the anchors for each discipline. My work in Matthew revolves around the text and its contexts, with the exegetical movement being one of a constant returning to the text as its anchor or mooring. Looking up and outward to see recurring motifs or to consider, for instance, a new piece of historical evidence or an Old Testament (OT) precursor text, is soon followed by a return to Matthew in its particulars. I tell my students that it is rather like moving nimbly and carefully between forest and trees. One student commented to me upon turning in an exegetical paper that the whole process was rather dizzying. I told her she must be doing something quite right. Kyle, as a theologian, has disciplinary anchors, but to some extent they cast out in different places. For example, I found his sustained attention to theologians, philosophers, and ethicists—both modern and ancient—profoundly helpful for our work. Such engagement (apart from the NT authors and their more recent interpreters) is not my domain and so not an area of facility for me.

These differences, I believe, allowed Kyle a greater level of comfort with suggesting ways for filling in some of the gaps inherent in Matthew’s narrative. The import of Jesus’s cry of dereliction from the cross (27:46) is one such place where Matthew leaves much to the imagination, but centuries of Christian reflection have suggested various deeply theological answers to what Matthew (or Jesus) means by that moment. Our differing approaches to these Matthean explanatory gaps provide one of the few places in our book where we offer readers our distinct voices (ch. 14); designations of I (Jeannine) and I (Kyle) are used very sparingly in our book (less than a dozen times) but do show up at the conclusion to that chapter.

Our Process

Both authors have collaborated fully on part 2, Thinking Theologically with Matthew, and part 3, Constructive Theological Engagement with Matthew. Jeannine translated Matthew’s Greek and wrote the paragraph-by-paragraph commentary.¹² The writing proceeded with the first two sections beginning concurrently. We wrote the third part after the second but while the first was still being completed. This process allowed for a mutually informing interaction between theological engagement with Matthew’s Gospel and the commentary proper. Thus, the first part, the commentary proper, though written by one of us (Jeannine), possesses the imprimatur of both of us.

The mutual influence among the three commentary sections means that our theological engagement should not be viewed as simply derivative of our textual work, as if there is a unidirectional movement from text to theology. As R. R. Reno suggests, theology should be understood as a dense act of exegetical ‘showing’ rather than exegesis that draws theological conclusions at a remove from the text.¹³ In our perspective, as in our work, the movement between text and theology is bi-directional;¹⁴ it is more like a conversation, moving back and forth in an organic fashion between Matthew’s text and our own theological assumptions, questions, reflections, and conclusions. In this volume we offer the fruits of our interdisciplinary work in conversation with Matthew’s Gospel.

Matters of Introduction¹⁵

Overview of the Gospel of Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew is written to followers of Jesus during the latter part of the first century CE to portray Jesus of Nazareth as God’s Messiah, who paradoxically ushers in the reign of God and restoration for Israel and the nations through his ministry and death as a servant. The evangelist narrates the authentication and vindication of Jesus’s identity and mission at his resurrection, when God grants him universal authority. Through his Gospel about Jesus, Matthew seeks to engender covenantal loyalty (trust and obedience) to Jesus as Messiah and Lord and adherence to his teachings. Jesus’s authority and ongoing presence with his people empower his followers for just and merciful ministry and toward the mission of discipling people from all nations into the life of Jesus.

Purposes of the Gospel of Matthew

Broadly speaking, we can outline Matthew’s purposes in three major categories: his Christology, his attentiveness to discipleship, and his theology proper.

Christology

Matthew is first and foremost a biography of Jesus, resembling in important ways a Greco-Roman biography or bios.¹⁶ Matthew consistently accents Christology—his story about Jesus. While we will flesh out significantly the evangelist’s Christology in chapter 11, we would suggest that Matthew’s key christological loci revolve around Jesus as Davidic Messiah, as Torah fulfilled and Wisdom embodied, as representative Israel, and as the embodiment of Yahweh. Matthew communicates Christology in a storied fashion, as he weaves together in textured ways various titles and multiple OT evocations, along with the narrative question of what Jesus does in the story (see ch. 11 for an expanded discussion).

Discipleship

Matthew tells the story of Jesus, in part, to shape a community of people loyal to Jesus. So discipleship is also central to Matthew (see ch. 13). Key to Matthew’s vision for discipleship is that it is lived out communally (as the church) and that it involves following Jesus—worshiping him and living in loyalty to him and to the kingdom of God. For Matthew, loyalty to Jesus always reveals itself in loyalty to others, through loving acts of justice, mercy, and faithfulness (23:23).

Theology Proper

A third major purpose of Matthew’s Gospel is to show how Jesus as Messiah comes to fulfill God’s purposes in this world. In this sense, we can talk about Matthew’s theology proper; that is, what Matthew communicates, both implicitly and explicitly, about the God of Israel. Since our theological reflections on this topic are not located in a single chapter of the book (instead, they weave in and out of various chapters), more attention will be given here to this facet of the First Gospel, and specifically, to the evangelist’s emphases on kingdom, on scriptural fulfillment, and on gentile mission.

1. KingdomWhile OT theology affirms the uniqueness of Israel’s God (e.g., Isa 45:18–25) and the rule of Yahweh over all (e.g., Exod 15:18; 1 Chron 16:31; Ps 9:7; 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1), the prophetic writings look ahead to a time when God’s covenantal reign will be reestablished over Israel and will extend to all nations. This eschatological vision may be expressed in various ways: as Israel’s restoration, as the return of Yahweh to Israel, as the ingathering of the nations to Zion. Aligned with these various facets is the notion of the establishment of the reign of Yahweh (God’s kingdom). In Isaiah, God’s anticipated return and reign is the good news being announced to Israel. Specifically, in Isaiah 52:7, the expression of the good news proclaimed (εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, euangelizesthai) is Your God reigns (βασιλεύσει σου ὁ θεός, basileusei sou ho theos in the LXX; see 40:9; also Isaiah 24:21–23; Mic 4:7–8; Zech 14:9).

When Matthew’s Jesus comes on the scene announcing that the kingdom of heaven is near (Matt 4:17), these Jewish promises are reflected and evoked.¹⁷ And when this same Jesus proclaims the gospel of the kingdom (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας [to euangelion tēs basileias]; 4:23; 9:35) in his Galilean ministry, the hope of Israel’s God returning to reign from Zion is awakened. Matthew goes on to portray Jesus as God’s Messiah who inaugurates God’s reign as in heaven so also on earth (6:10)—both in his preaching of good news and his enacting of merciful ministry to Israel. Yet the kingdom is both already and not yet for Matthew. We see this especially in the Parables Discourse, which emphasizes the hiddenness of God’s reign in the present and its sure but future consummation (13:1–53). This theme of kingdom is both christological and theological, as God’s reign in this world arrives in the person of Jesus in the plan of God. God’s mission is fulfilled in Jesus.

2. FulfillmentMatthew, of all the Gospels, is most explicit in his emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures. This is apparent from the very first chapters of his Gospel, as he begins using quite a number of fulfillment quotations (ten or more, depending on one’s counting system). These quotations begin with a formulaic introduction to the effect of so that what was spoken [of the Lord] through the prophet [name] would be fulfilled (Matt 1:22–23; 2:15; 2:17–18; 2:23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35; 21:4–5; 27:9; cf. also 2:5; 3:3; 13:14–15).¹⁸ Beyond these and other citations, Matthew also regularly alludes to and echoes OT texts, whether to highlight his fulfillment theme or to show significant connection and continuity between events, people, and themes in the Scriptures and Jesus’s ministry and missional death.¹⁹ Matthew has a particular burden to interpret Jesus’s passion as a fulfillment of the Scriptures broadly understood (26:54, 56). In Matthew, Jesus himself uses the language of fulfillment to describe his own work: Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them (5:17). We see this important christological truth worked out in Matthew’s portrait of Jesus as obedient to the Torah (e.g., 12:7–8), as consummate teacher of Torah (e.g., 5:21–48), and as wisdom embodied (e.g., 11:2–30).

In this thoroughgoing emphasis, we can hear Matthew’s theological conviction that Yahweh is now bringing to pass Israel’s salvation in fulfillment of promises made all the way back with Abraham (e.g., Gen 12:1–3) and repeated to successive Israelite generations—promises of return from exile, new exodus, restoration and wholeness, and, in the end, the inclusion of the nations into God’s reign and rule. Each of these restoration motifs resonates at various points within Matthew’s Gospel, indicating that his emphasis on fulfillment is most centrally about demonstrating God’s faithfulness in keeping God’s promises to Israel.²⁰ In Messiah Jesus, God’s faithfulness to the covenant with Israel and God’s mercy to the nations are on display.

3. Gentile Inclusion and MissionAs we discuss below, Matthew’s audience seems to be at the beginning stages of a mission to the gentiles. This is apparent from the theme of gentile inclusion, which is quite pronounced in this otherwise quite Jewish Gospel (e.g., positive gentile portrayals at 2:1; 8:5; 15:21 and explicit references to gentile mission at 24:14; 28:19). One of Matthew’s most important concerns is to champion the decision for the Gentile mission in his community.²¹ Matthew draws this motif from the OT Scriptures and particularly from their vision of Israel’s restoration leading into the time when all peoples would be drawn to Jerusalem to honor Israel’s God (e.g., Isa 2:2–5; 49:5–7, 22–23). Matthew understands this eschatological vision to be happening in the arrival of Jesus the Messiah. Jesus’s mission to Israel comes first (e.g., 10:5–6, 15:24) in the natural outworking of their temporal priority. Gentile inclusion follows closely on the heels of Jewish restoration, with Matthew’s gentile (and universal) mission being inaugurated after Jesus’s resurrection (28:18–20). The church, as the evangelist conceives it, is a mix of Jewish and gentile believers who live in light of the kingdom—a people who are producing its fruit (21:43). Gentile inclusion is first and foremost a theological category when it is conceived as the final stage of God’s redemptive plan achieved precisely through God’s faithfulness to the covenant with Israel—and through Jesus as Israel’s representative.

Authorship

There is no authorial attribution within the text of the First Gospel. The earliest additions of attribution suggest Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, as its author. The title, ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ (kata Maththaion, According to Matthew), was probably added no later than 100 CE, likely when it was brought together for circulation with Mark, Luke, and John.²² It makes sense that the titles (According to . . .) would have been added to each Gospel at that time to distinguish one from the others.

The other early attribution comes from Papias, a bishop in Asia Minor, writing sometime in the first third of the second century. His testimony connecting Matthew to the First Gospel is referenced in and partially cited by Eusebius two centuries later. Eusebius quotes Papias as saying (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16) that "Matthew collected (συνετάξατο, synetaxato) the oracles (τὰ λόγια, ta logia) in the Hebrew language [or Semitic style] (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, Hebraidi dialektoi), and each person translated [or interpreted] (ἡρμήνευσεν, hērmēneusen) them as they were able. There is little consensus among Matthean scholars as to the meaning of this statement and whether it provides an accurate representation of the composition of the First Gospel. Although oracles" could refer to the sayings of Jesus within Matthew or unique to Matthew,²³ the term more likely refers to the entire First Gospel, since in context Eusebius has just described the Gospel of Mark as an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles (τὰ λόγια, ta logia; Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15).

Although Papias describes the oracles collected by Matthew as being in the Hebrew language, there is sparse evidence that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.²⁴ It is possible that ἡρμήνευσεν (hērmēneusen) might be rendered interpreted rather than translated. If so, Papias might be reflecting Matthew’s Hebraic style (versus Hebrew language), although this is a minority view.²⁵ More likely, Papias (via Eusebius) is mistaken about the original language of Matthew, which appears on all accounts to be Greek, especially given the fairly clear use of Mark by the first evangelist.²⁶ Aramaic or Hebrew influences are rooted in the oral traditions of Jesus’s sayings translated into Greek early in their transmission history (cf. Acts 6:1).

A second question centers on how much weight to give the Papias tradition regarding Matthean authorship (since Eusebius himself questions Papias’s trustworthiness; Ecclesiastical History 3.39.11–13). Yet there is no compelling reason to think that Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, could not have penned the First Gospel. The assumption that an eyewitness of Jesus’s life would not have used non-eyewitness sources, such as Mark, fits modern sensibilities more than ancient ones. In that context, literary borrowing of this sort was unproblematic.²⁷ Additionally, Mark does contain eyewitness testimony—oral traditions transmitted by the early church (see Papias on Mark in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15; cf. Luke 1:1–4).

Internal evidence from the First Gospel suggests a Jewish rather than a gentile author. The author inscribing the text has knowledge of many facets of Judaism, including its Scriptures, oral traditions, and customs. That author also seems to be conversant with the Old Testament in Hebrew as well as Greek, with his renderings of a number of OT texts following the Hebrew with divergence from the Septuagint (e.g., Hos 11:1 at Matt 2:15; Isa 53:4 at Matt 8:17; and Isa 42:1 at Matt 3:17; 12:18–21; 17:5).²⁸ The themes and purposes emphasized by the author are very much at home within a Jewish milieu (and reflect more likely intramural rather than intermural debates; see comments on audience below). For example, the implied author of the First Gospel highlights in significant ways Jesus as faithful to the Torah and its consummate interpreter (e.g., 5:17–48; 12:1–12).

Whether the apostle Matthew (10:3) wrote the First Gospel, a helpful hermeneutical lens for its interpretation is the implied author construct. The implied author, a concept derived from narrative criticism, is the author or narrator that can be known through the reading of the narrative. Furthermore, the implied author is the one who tells the story using various narrative devices to communicate with and persuade the implied reader.²⁹ The implied author coheres for all practical purposes with the author discerned solely from the Gospel’s internal evidence (e.g., he is ethnically Jewish). In this commentary, most references to Matthew simply identify the implied author; and the use of Matthew is not intended to be an implicit argument for the identity of the empirical author.

Audience

Internal evidence suggests that the First Gospel was written for a Jewish audience that consisted of followers of Jesus as Messiah.³⁰ This evidence includes Matthew’s portrait of Jesus as consistently Torah-observant (e.g., 9:20; 12:7–8; see also ch. 21 below) and the omissions of Mark’s explanations about Jewish customs (e.g., Matt 15:2 // Mark 7:3–4; Matt 26:17 // Mark 14:12; Matt 27:62 // Mark 15:42). The nature of the relationship between Matthew’s audience and other parts of Judaism in the first century CE has been a matter of much debate and discussion. Earlier studies have argued that Matthew was engaged in an intermural debate, a view that located Matthew and his Jewish audience outside of Judaism or at least apart from the Jewish synagogue system.³¹ More recently, scholars have suggested that Matthew’s very Jewish audience is engaged in intramural conversation and deliberation with other branches of Judaism in the later first century CE. Rather than having left public Jewish society behind, Matthew portrays vigorous engagement between his community or communities and other Jewish groups.³²

If this reconstruction is correct, then Matthew’s audience can be located squarely within the world of first-century Judaism, while certainly in vigorous debate with other Judaisms of the time.³³ Locating Matthew’s audience within as opposed to outside Jewish boundaries suggests that we understand any parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism to be a post first-century phenomenon. It is increasingly common to push back this parting of the ways until after 135 CE (at the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt) or even to the time of Constantine.³⁴ As Saldarini asserts, even after most Christians were non-Jewish in background, Jews and Christians rubbed shoulders, fought with one another for acceptance and status, and sometimes cooperated.³⁵

Internal evidence also helps to reconstruct the communities of Matthew’s audience as poised at the initial stages of a gentile mission.³⁶ We hear this likelihood in the hints of gentile inclusion across the Gospel (e.g., 1:3, 5–6; 2:1; 4:15; 8:5–13; 15:21–28; 21:43) even with the more exclusively Jewish mission of Jesus and the disciples (10:5–6; 15:24).³⁷ And after the resurrection, Matthew’s Jesus gives his followers a clear commissioning to disciple all the nations (28:19; cf. 24:14).³⁸ Matthew’s decision to conclude his Gospel by widening this missional scope suggests that gentile inclusion and mission provide a significant message for his audience.

Regarding the specific social location of Matthew’s audience, it is probably wise to refer to Matthew’s communities rather than a single, quite specific community (whose reconstruction is often tied to and sketched from redaction-critical conclusions). A variety of kinds of evidence suggest that the early church met in homes as groups of twenty to forty people (in some cases more),³⁹ and that these house churches were interconnected, communicating with each other and sharing resources (e.g., Rom 16:1–2; 1 Cor 16:1–4; Col 4:16).⁴⁰ As we will see, an understanding of Matthew’s audience as house churches in likely multiple locations may help us to navigate instructions for these communities offered in, for example, Matthew 18. The church discipline passage comes into focus when smaller, familial-type groups are envisioned as the audience for these teachings of Jesus (cf. also Matt 23:8–10).

Date and Provenance

Several factors play into any proposed date for the First Gospel. These include literary dependence among the Synoptic Gospels and specifically Matthew’s place vis-à-vis Mark, the relationship between Matthew’s Gospel and Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE, and the presumed use of Matthew in Christian writings of the early second century. Regarding the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels, we concur with the two-source hypothesis that Matthew used Mark and so postdates that Gospel. While the dating of Mark varies widely, we consider it likely that Mark writes just prior to the temple’s destruction.⁴¹ This would mean that Matthew writes his Gospel sometime after 70 CE.⁴² Although the Gospel gives few clues for dating, it is possible that 22:7 looks back on the burning of Jerusalem (cf. Josephus, Jewish War 6.249–53).⁴³ To make a determination about a terminal date for the composition of the Gospel, we can consider use of Matthew in early-second-century writings such as the Didache (prior to 120 CE) and Ignatius (ca. 105–115 CE). This dependence suggests dating Matthew no later than about 90 CE, providing an approximate range from 70 to 90 CE.⁴⁴

Ascertaining the provenance of Matthew is difficult, since any pointers need to be derived from general observations about the Gospel’s language and reconstructed social context. One of the more common suggestions is Antioch in Syria, given its substantial Jewish population, Greek language, and early Christian presence (e.g., Acts 13:1–3).⁴⁵

Structure of Matthew

Matthew seems to consist of three major sections, signaled by a twofold formula occurring at 4:17 and 16:21: From that time on, Jesus began to . . . (Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς, apo tote ērxato ho Iēsous [+ infinitive]). While Matthew includes a fivefold formula that highlights his arrangement of Jesus’s teachings into five major discourses (see discussion at 7:28–29), the turning points at 4:17 and 16:21 are most significant for Matthew’s storyline. These two nodes are temporal in focus and so are narratival in character, clearly delineating what has gone before from what is to come in the plot.⁴⁶ At 4:17, we hear that Jesus begins preaching about the kingdom’s impending arrival, an announcement that frames his Galilean ministry stretching from 4:17 to 16:20. At 16:21, Jesus begins showing his disciples the necessity of his coming death in Jerusalem and subsequent resurrection, encapsulating the action of the rest of Matthew’s storyline.

The outline below draws on both formulas to suggest a structure for Matthew that attends closely to its narrative structure, while also recognizing the importance of the five major discourses for the evangelist’s purposes.⁴⁷ The abundance of repeated structural markers in the First Gospel means that any proposed outline is heuristic for understanding the narrative rather than definitive (e.g., the fivefold formula, the twofold formula, and other structural signals, such as the use of inclusio at 28:20 (cf. 1:23) and 9:35 (cf. 4:23).⁴⁸ Stanton is quite right to see in these markers assistance for early communal readings based in Matthew’s aural reception—markers that would provide multiple appropriate starting and stopping points for the reading of the Gospel in its ongoing ecclesial use.⁴⁹

1:1–4:16Jesus’s Identity and Preparation for Ministry

1:1–2:23Birth and Infancy

3:1–4:16Baptism and Temptation

4:17–16:20Jesus’s Announcement of the Kingdom to Israel and Resulting Responses

4:17–11:1Proclamation of the Kingdom in Word and Action

4:17–4:25Summary of Jesus’s Message and Ministry

5:1–7:29Jesus’s First Discourse: The Sermon on the Mount

8:1–9:38Jesus’s Enactment of the Kingdom

10:1–11:1Jesus’s Second Discourse: The Mission Discourse

11:2–16:20Rejection by Leaders and Jesus’s Withdrawal from Conflict to Ministry

11:2–12:50Rejection of Jesus as Messiah by Jewish Leaders

13:1–53Jesus’s Third Discourse: The Parables Discourse

13:54–16:20Continued Conflict and Emerging Identity

16:21–28:20Jesus to Jerusalem: Kingdom Enactment through Death and Resurrection

16:21–20:28Journey to the Cross and Teaching on Discipleship

16:21–17:27Jesus Predicts Cross and Defines Discipleship

18:1–35Jesus’s Fourth Discourse: The Community Discourse

19:1–20:28Nearing Jerusalem: Illustrations of Discipleship

20:29–25:46Final Proclamation, Confrontation, and Judgment in Jerusalem

20:29–22:46Jesus’s Royal Arrival and Controversies with Jerusalem Leaders

23:1–39Judgment on Jewish Leadership: Warning to Scribes and Pharisees

24:1–25:46Jesus’s Fifth Discourse: The Eschatological Discourse

26:1–28:20Jesus’s Execution by Rome and Resurrection and Vindication by God

26:1–56Prelude to the Cross: Betrayal and Desertion

26:57–27:26Jesus on Trial

27:27–66Jesus’s Crucifixion, Death, and Burial

28:1–20Resurrection as Vindication and Commissioning of the Disciples

1. Assumption of narrative coherence is a methodological value in narrative criticism at least as a heuristic lens, and we seek to highlight ways of reading Matthew that attend to and seek coherence of purpose. For a description of narrative criticism that is used and assumed in this commentary, see Brown, Narrative Criticism, DJG, 619–24. It includes attempting to read Matthew as the implied reader of the Gospel, that is, the ideal (or competent) reader who fulfills the (implied) author’s intentions at every turn. Our method also includes careful attention to the sociocultural and linguistic knowledge assumed for its audience (622).

2. Green, Luke, 19.

3. While we attend to relevant sociocultural issues across the commentary, we focus on Matthew’s Roman imperial context in ch. 20 and his Jewish context in ch. 21.

4. Johnson, Theological Interpretation, DJG, 963–66.

5. Green, 1 Peter, 189.

6. Brown, Dahl, and Corbin Reuschling, Becoming Whole and Holy, 11–14.

7. Cf. Sandage and Brown, Relational Integration, 169–71; also Sandage and Brown, Relational Integration, 52–53.

8. See, for example, the closing section of ch. 18.

9. Gaventa, Reading for the Subject, 3.

10. See Hollingsworth (Ambiguity, 467) for the inherent ambiguity that also attends the interdisciplinary endeavor: To cultivate a consciousness that . . . is . . . able to enter into authentic encounter with disciplinary others whose assumptions, methods, conclusions, and languages differ significantly from one’s own—scholars must build their capacity to tolerate (and even embrace) the ambiguity of interdisciplinary alterity. As we have seen, this ambiguity implies the potential for both deep self-loss and profound self-discovery.

11. I had begun to do some work on placing Matthew in its canonical context—not entirely willingly, I must confess—in the discrete section, Theological Insights, in my Teach the Text commentary on Matthew; e.g., 25, 61–62, 115, 127, 181, 259, 301, 313. These became some of my favorite parts of the writing in the end.

12. For Matthew and for most NT texts, I (Jeannine) have provided my own translations. The NIV has been used for OT references, unless otherwise indicated. For the LXX, I have used my own translations or have indicated my reliance on the NETS.

13. Reno, Biblical Theology, 392.

14. See our introductory comments in ch. 12.

15. For expansions on and related discussions of the following topics and themes in this introduction, see Brown, Matthew, 1–9; and Brown, Matthew, Gospel of, DJG, 570–84.

16. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?

17. In referring to Yahweh’s reign, Matthew’s preferred phrase is the kingdom of heaven, an expression unique to his Gospel (ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, hē basileia tōn ouranōn). It is used virtually as a synonym for kingdom of God, a point that is more clearly seen in the use of kingdom of God by Mark and Luke in parallel contexts to Matthew’s kingdom of heaven (e.g., Matt. 3:2 // Mark 1:15; Matt. 19:23 // Mark 10:23). In the few occurrences of kingdom of God in Matthew (e.g., 12:28; 19:24), it is possible that the evangelist intends a subtle distinction between this phrase and kingdom of heaven to heighten the kingdom’s heavenly origin (see Pennington, Heaven and Earth, 270–330).

18. These and other OT citations function on two levels—on Matthew’s story level and on the level of communication between the evangelist and his audience, what Beaton refers to as the bireferentiality of the quotations (Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 5). See, for example, commentary on Matt 12:18–21 in its use of Isa 42.

19. Matthew especially draws upon Isaiah and the Psalms to highlight his Christology.

20. As we will explore in the commentary (on Matt 1–2), the motifs of exile and restoration carry theological weight and can be used metaphorically to describe Israel’s experience of exile under foreign oppression, even for Jews who live in Judea (and Galilee) after return from exile.

21. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 50.

22. So Luz, Matthew 1–7, 59. Gathercole (Manuscript Title) argues for inclusion of εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion, Gospel) in the title based on evidence from P⁴.

23. With the latter argued by Hagner, Matthew, xlv–xlvi.

24. For a nuancing of this issue, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:12.

25. E.g., Gundry (Matthew, 619–20), who understands it to refer to a Hebrew way of presenting Jesus’s messiahship (620).

26. France, Matthew, 66.

27. Luz (Matthew 1–7, 59) raises this commonplace concern, which Gundry answers (Matthew, 621).

28. Gundry argues the likelihood that Matthew was rendering a Semitic base text in the Isa 42 allusions (Old Testament, 29–32).

29. Brown, Disciples in Narrative Perspective, 36.

30. For an example of a dissenting view, see Hare (Matthew, 2), who considers Matthew’s church to have moved from Jewish to gentile composition in large part by the time Matthew writes.

31. For example, Stanton, New People.

32. Runesson, Saving the Lost Sheep, 14: any interaction in public synagogues in the first century indicates involvement in Jewish society, not withdrawal from it.

33. Sim, Christian Judaism, 109. Some scholars have begun describing this period with the plural, Judaisms, to avoid reconstructing first-century Judaism in monolithic ways.

34. See Stark, Rise of Christianity, 68; Skarsaune, History of Jewish Believers.

35. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 194.

36. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 50.

37. What Hagner refers to as the particularism and universalism of Matthew’s Gospel; Matthew, lxv.

38. On 28:19 as directed to the nations (Jews and gentiles) and not only the gentiles, see Stanton, New People, 139–40.

39. Gehring. House Church and Mission, 290, also suggests that, while not the norm, some house churches may have accommodated up to 100 people.

40. Thompson, Communication between Churches; Bauckham, Gospels for All Christians; and Stanton, New People, 51.

41. Strauss, Mark, 39.

42. Accuracy in dating ancient documents is elusive, as can be illustrated by wide-ranging proposals for the dating of Matthew; e.g., from 58–59 CE (Blomberg, Matthew, 42) to 85–95 CE (Sim, Christian Judaism, 40).

43. Keener, Matthew, 518–19. Matthew 24:15–20 also seems to be a post-70 reflection on the siege of Jerusalem.

44. Luz, for example, puts the date of the Gospel not much later than 80 CE (Matthew 1–7, 58–59).

45. Garland, Reading Matthew, 3. Other suggested locations range from Jerusalem to the Galilean cities of Sepphoris or Tiberias (see Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 15–16).

46. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 40.

47. Occurring at 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; and 26:1, the fivefold formula highlights the alternation between narrative and discourse material and concludes each of the five major sections of Jesus’s teaching in Matt 5–7, 10, 13, 18, and 24–25.

48. See Brown, Matthew, DJG, 573.

49. Stanton, New People, 74–75.

CHAPTER 2

Jesus’s Preparation for Ministry

Matthew 1:1–4:16

Narrative Structure and Logic

The theological question Matthew implicitly addresses in his Gospel is, What is God doing now in relation to Israel and the nations at the advent of the Messiah? In Matthew 1:1–4:16, Matthew answers this question by introducing Jesus as Messiah, from the royal line of David, who both represents Israel’s identity and mission for the nations and embodies the very presence of Israel’s God. In line with God’s covenant promises, this Messiah will bring restoration from Israel’s exile, forgiveness of their sins, thereby making a way for the gentiles to receive the blessings of Israel.

In Matthew 1–2, the evangelist introduces the reader to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth through the story of his background, birth, and infancy. After an opening title that identifies Jesus as Messiah, son of David, son of Abraham (1:1), Matthew structures the initial narrative moments with a genealogy and stories of Jesus’s conception, birth, opposition by Herod, family flight to Egypt, and settling in Nazareth. Matthew connects the genealogy that begins with Abraham and concludes with Mary (1:2–17) to the narration of Jesus adopted by Joseph (1:18–25) by means of verbal and structural links and the issuing of a problem of ancestry (1:16; see below). Matthew also provides structure to his first two chapters through five OT quotations (1:22–23; 2:5–6, 15, 17–18, 23). Through these scriptural references, Matthew comments on the narrative elements of Jesus’s birth and early years to frame this story theologically from the perspective of Israel’s own story. Each turn of the narrative is interpreted by explicit reference to an OT text.

Matthew 3–4 jumps ahead decades from the narrated events of Jesus’s birth. These chapters focus on the ministry of John the Baptist, forerunner to Jesus (3:1–12); Jesus’s baptism by John (3:13–17); and Jesus’s temptation and vindication in the wilderness (4:1–11). The narration of Old Testament support for Jesus’s relocation to Capernaum (4:12–16) functions as a transition to Jesus’s ministry to Israel, which is introduced and explained in summary fashion at 4:17–25.

Although Jesus and John the Baptist are the prominent characters in Matthew 3–4, a theological reading will also highlight the role of the Holy Spirit in these early chapters. Already the Spirit has been the agent of Jesus’s conception at 1:18 (cf. 1:20). John speaks of the coming one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (3:11) and almost immediately the Spirit comes upon Jesus at his own baptism, while a voice from heaven affirms Jesus as son (3:17). The Spirit leads Jesus into the wilderness for temptation (4:1). In these three early narrative moments, the Spirit acts as God’s agent in the life of Jesus.

Matthew begins his Gospel with a significant use of Isaiah. The evangelist cites Isaiah 7 early on to introduce Jesus’s name as Immanuel (1:22–23), and, in Matthew 3–4, Isaiah provides a lens for understanding John’s relationship to Jesus (3:3, citing Isa 40:3), for identifying Jesus as God’s chosen servant (3:17, alluding to Isa 42:1), and for marking the geographic context for Jesus’s ministry (4:14–16, citing Isa 9:1–2).

1:1–17

¹ The account of the origin of Jesus the Messiah, son of David, son of Abraham.

² Abraham was the father of Isaac,

Isaac was the father of Jacob.

Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers,

³ Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah from their mother, Tamar,

Perez was the father of Hezron,

Hezron was the father of Ram,

⁴ Ram was the father of Amminadab,

Amminadab was the father of Nahshon,

Nahshon was the father of Salmon,

⁵ Salmon was the father of Boaz from his mother, Rahab,

Boaz was the father of Obed from his mother, Ruth,

Obed was the father of Jesse,

⁶ and Jesse was the father of David the king.

David was the father of Solomon from his mother, the wife of Uriah.

⁷ Solomon was the father of Rehoboam,

Rehoboam was the father of Abijah,

Abijah was the father of Asa,

⁸ Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat,

Jehoshaphat was the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram was the father of Uzziah,

⁹ Uzziah was the father of Jotham,

Jotham was the father of Ahaz,

Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah,

¹⁰ Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh was the father of Amon,

Amon was the father of Josiah,

¹¹ and Josiah was the father of Jeconiah and his brothers

at the time of the exile to Babylon.

¹² And after the exile to Babylon,

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel,

¹³ Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud,

Abihud was the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim was the father of Azor,

¹⁴ Azor was the father of Zadok,

Zadok was the father of Akim,

Akim was the father of Elihud,

¹⁵ Elihud was the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar was the father of Matthan,

Matthan was the father of Jacob,

¹⁶ Jacob was the father of Joseph, who was the husband of Mary. And Jesus, who is called the Messiah, was conceived by Mary.

¹⁷ So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen in number. From David to the exile to Babylon there are fourteen generations. And from the exile to Babylon to the Messiah there are fourteen generations.

The heading of Matthew’s Gospel identifies Jesus with three titles or names that are important both for the subsequent genealogy and for the Gospel as a whole. Jesus is the Messiah, Israel’s promised king (1:1, 16–17; cf. 16:16; 26:63). Jesus is Son