Translated from the Introduction to Prof, Robert Kübel’s Exegetisch-homiletischez Handbuch sum Evangelium des Matthäus.1
By H. B. Hutchins.
Taken from THE BIBLICAL WORLD - April 1893
2. The result of the data thus
collected as bearing upon the question of the fundamental
thought and purpose of this
gospel may be stated as follows: It
presents Jesus to us as the
Christ, who brings in the kingdom of
heaven. The wretched are drawn to him, and especially the
poor people of Israel, who are
as sheep without a shepherd. But
Israel, through the influence
of the Pharisees, the leaders of
the time, is prevented from coming to him. Hence, the throwing
open of the kingdom of heaven to the wretched involves
Jesus in bitterest conflict with
the Pharisees, a conflict which
he opens in the very beginning with the sermon on the mount,
and which, indeed, in the end,
costs him a felon’s death on the
cross. But out of this bitter labor of the Servant of God,
there come not only Christ’s own
victorious resurrection and
exaltation to the lordship of
the world (xxviii. i8), as he
himself will Anally demonstrate
in his Parousia, but also the New
Testament church and the salvation of the world. Matthew
shows, however, that this Jesus
really is the Christ, because in
his person, in his teaching and
work, in his end, everything has
been realized which, according
to the Old Testament, is to be
expected of the Christ. It is
realized in his person, because,
as is already indicated by his
descent, birth, etc., he is the
promised son of David, and he is
at every turn constantly more
clearly and decisively
recognized and acknowledged as “ Son of
God.” It is realized in his
teaching and work, because his work
is that of the Isaianic Servant
of God, the shepherd who cares for
the flock of God ; this is the act of the “righteous man”
(xxvii. 19, 24), who fulfills
all righteousness, who himself most
carefully obeys the will of God,
but —quite different from the
Pharisees—lays an easy yoke on
his disciples. His teaching, also,
is that of the true
“righteousness,” the teaching of the kingdom of
heaven, into which men enter through the forsaking of sin and
the denial of self and the
world, and as citizens of which they
bear the cross in following
Christ, receiving, however, in return,
the glorious “ reward in
heaven.” Lastly, it is realized in his
end, because in it the
fulfillment of the “ Scriptures ” comes out
with perfect clearness. In his
death the ransom is paid for the many.
In the New Testament blood of the passover a new covenant
is established ; the closed sanctuary is opened ; the righteous
dead of the Old Testament who
await redemption are waked to
life. Furthermore, a fulfillment
of the law and the prophets is
given, in which positive and
negative are conjoined. The higher
view demanded by the old itself
is re-established, the divine
kingdom of the Son of Man. According to his idea this is
an all-embracing kingdom (viii.
11),
and although for his earthly
task as teacher, Jesus limited
himself to the territory of Israel,
yet all who hunger and thirst
are invited to enter. Indeed, since
Israel despises this invitation,
the kingdom of God passes over
from Israel to the Gentiles, and
the departing Lord gives command
that all nations be made his disciples. And this passing over
of the kingdom to the Gentiles
becomes final with the judgment
upon Jerusalem, and it is precisely to the significance of
this critical epoch that Matthew
refers with special emphasis.
But with this epoch also, the
transition is made to the time
of the fulfillment, to the
Parousia,
I and the setting up of the
kingdom of glory. But the
kingdom of the spirit brought by
Christ is not universal in the
sense that there is not to be a great
distinction among its “called,”
only a few of whom, as “chosen,”
really belong to it as citizens
and heirs. The New Testament
church is a peculiar union of brethren, with strict discipline
over one another, and with the
word of pardon, which is a word of “
binding” as well as of “
loosing.” Tares and wheat
are commingled, but at last they
will be completely separated, and hence the
most important duty is
seriously to prepare oneself for
this final crisis. In short, the
purpose of this gospel is in the
critical period of the final
passing over of the kingdom of God
from the Jews to the Gentiles,
and in expectation of the
consummation of the kingdom, to
present Jesus as the Christ whom the
Jews have wrongfully rejected,
and who therefore justly gives them
over to judgment and turns to
the Gentiles with the offer of
salvation—the salvation which
he, as the promised Messiah and
Servant of God, has wrought out by his teaching, by his
labor on behalf of men, by his
suffering, by his resurrection, and
which he will perfect when he
comes again in the glory of his
kingdom—the salvation which is offered in his community to
all the wretched, but which, as it is ethical in its results,
must exhibit itself in the
practice of the “ righteousness ” which
belongs to it.
3. Is the definition of the
purpose which has been given to
be somewhat more specialized or
modified ? Or must we assume,
besides the chief purpose
described, still another
secondary purpose, suggested by what the gospel
perhaps intimates in reference
to a special circle of readers
to which it is addressed ? From
what has been said already, it is
evident that the author is a
Jewish Christian. He is not, however, a
Jewish Christian in the
technical sense of a narrow-minded,
particularistic, and
dogmatically conceived Judaism, but, partly in
the sense of being related to
Israel by virtue of descent, as
well as by his manner of thought and expression; partly
in the sense of having a preponderating interest in the
question of the relation of the
New Testament to the Old, and in the
recognition of Jesus as the Christ, etc. If the author was
an apostle, he surely belonged
to the "apostles of the
circumcision,” who labored
chiefly, at all events, for the circumcision.
But, granting that, is this
gospel intended chiefly or solely for
the circumcision ? Are the
readers also Jewish Christians ? And if
such is the case, must we assume
that he has particularly in mind
a special circle of Jewish
Christians (Palestinians, perhaps)
without, however, excluding the
rest of the circumcision. We can
answer the first question in the affirmative, if we do not
mean that the author intends to
write only for the Jews, with
express exclusion of the
Gentiles. The example of Paul on the one
side, and of Peter and John on
the other, shows that the
division of the field of labor
(Gal. ii. 6-10) was not in general
intended to be so sharply made.
And if this gospel lays especial
stress on the proof that Jesus
is the Christ, that was a subject quite
as interesting to the Gentile
Christians as to the Jewish
Christians. And, even in those
New Testament writings which have
Gentile Christians as their
chief or only readers, the greatest
importance is attached to the
question of the relation of the New
Testament to the Old. Moreover, if the author, as has been
shown, writes in the time of the
passing over of the kingdom of
God from the Jews to the Gentiles, and represents this event
as taking place through the righteousness of God and in
virtue of the express words of
Jesus, then along with this idea
he has in view eo ipso a Christianity in which the
circumcision more and more
ceases to be a special sphere shut off from the
rest. In such a Christianity the
congregations from among the
Jews, in so far as they do not wilfully exclude themselves by
becoming more and more sectarian, must gradually coalesce
with the congregations from
among the Gentiles. Therefore, Matthew
can by no means have intended to write for the Jewish
Christians in the sense of excluding the Gentile
Christians. He writes for the
entire Christian world. But since he is
himself a Jew, it is self-evident that he has in mind the
circle to which he himself
belongs, as the circle which will be the
nearest and the immediate
readers of the gospel. We cannot, it is
true, from any single direct
indication in the gospel itself,
learn to whom the author has
especially directed his writing. The
case is entirely different, not
only with Luke, but also, to a
certain extent, with John (xx.
31). But the view that he writes, in
the first instance, for Jewish
Christians, is sustained by
indirect proofs contained in the
entire method of the gospel as
hitherto presented. The
genealogy traced from Abraham, the
conflict with the Pharisees,
etc., were more important for Jewish
Christians than for Gentile
Christians. In the thought of the author
himself, however, this is
important for the Jewish Christian
readers, not in the sense of any
gratification of national pride, but in
the entirely reverse sense of
the contest with Judaism,
understanding his word in what,
for brevity, may be called the anti - Pauline
sense. The presentation of this
conflict is not, to be sure, his
special purpose in the
composition of this gospel; but the emphasis
on the positive side of the fulfllment of the law and the
prophets through Christ (v. 17
ff.) as well as the reference to its
negative side, particularly
again in the matter of the passing
over of the kingdom of God from
the Jews to the Gentiles,
becomes intelligible, if we
recognize that, together with his chief purpose,
he intends also to combat narrowly Jewish conceptions within
Christianity itself. The particular opponent whom Matthew
attacks is, to be sure,
Pharisaic Judaism itself as it placed itself
in opposition to Christianity
from without. But in so far as
Pharisaism in the form of
Judaism made itself felt on Christian
soil, this also is attacked by
such opposition. By this we do. not
mean that such polemic is the
peculiar purpose of this gospel.
It bears none of the marks of
a polemic tendency-writing
(tendenzschrift''), or, indeed,
of a ' tendemschrift' of any kind.
But the manner and the method
of the author’s treatment of the
work of Jesus, the manner of his selection from and his
formation of the discourses of
Jesus Christ, etc., show that he is a
man whose writing without any
effort or intention on his part
is necessarily though
incidentally influenced by this conflict.
But the immediate circle of
readers addressed by this gospel
—and this brings uS to the
second question—might be
conceived of still more definitely, and in
this way there be discovered another aim, secondary, indeed,
but not unimportant in its bearing on the character of the
gospel and the date of its
composition. Are the Jewish
Christians, of whom as readers
the author is in the first instance
thinking, to be looked for especially in Palestine ? So the
church fathers for the most part
assume. The fact that the author
“ does not explain Old Testament and Palestinian
allusions”—cf. e. g. Matt. xv. 2
with Mark vii. 3f, the failure to explain
the term, “holy city,” iv. 5,
xxvii. 53, etc.— does not necessitate
our answering this question in
the affirmative, for this was not
necessary for Jewish Christians,
and besides, there is an opposing
consideration in the
interpretation of Hebrew names and words (i.
23; xxvii. 33-46) which proves—as does also, perhaps, the
peculiar relation of this gospel
to the LXX. — that the Hellenists
are by no means to be thought
of as excluded from
consideration. For the contrary
position we can adduce Matt. xxiv. 15-20. To
be sure, Mark xv. 14-18 agrees with this almost word for
word, and, according to our conviction, we have here a truly
reported speech of Jesus. Hence, the purpose contained in
the passage must be regarded as the purpose of Jesus himself,
and the reason why this discourse is reported so accurately
(cf. on the contrary, Luke xxi.
2off.) must be regarded as
common to both the evangelists.
Indeed both, by the phrase " Let
him that readeth understand,”
call especial attention to the
matter. However, the report of
Matthew does differ, as has
already been said, from that of
Mark by its use of the
expression " in the holy place,”
and especially, “on the Sabbath”
(20); in addition Mark lacks
(14) “spoken of by Daniel the
prophet.” Matthew therefore
keeps more specially in view the
subject under discussion. Now,
in this passage the point is, that
the inhabitants of Judaea—the
expression is entirely general,
therefore it means not merely
the Palestinian Christians—when they
see the abomination of desolation shall flee forthwith. And
the injunction, “ Let him that
readeth understand,” to which we
supply as the object of “readeth,” not the words of
Daniel, but the words of Jesus,
has— not exclusively, but yet in a
measure—the sense: “Take heed to
what you have read ; if it comes
soon, then follow this summons,
etc.” If this view is correct,
the author is thinking
especially of the Palestinians, for only for
them, viz., “those in Judaea,”
had the emphasizing of this injunction
any meaning. Therefore, we shall
be obliged to answer our
question in the affirmative, in
that we distinguish three circles of
readers of whom the author is
thinking. The widest circle is
composed of Christians in
general; the more limited circle is that of
the Jewish Christians; the
narrowest is that of the Jewish Christians
in Palestine (in a certain sense
also, the Jews). It is
self-evident that these
concentric circles are not mutually exclusive, but
at special points the narrower
and the narrowest circles become
prominent as the ones who are
immediately addressed. And if we
consider what has just been said, together with the remarks
before made in regard to the special purpose as determined by
the conditions of the time, we
discover this also, as a special
secondary purpose, viz: To give to the Jews instruction and
warning for the time of judgment closely impending over
Jerusalem and Judaea.
|
|