|
Matthew’s Christology is one that emphasises to a Jewish audience the
Jewishness of Jesus. It will be the purpose of this paper to argue that the
raison d’etre of Matthew’s Christology is to portray Jesus as entirely
compatible if not with the Judaism of his day then with ancient Judaic
tradition, namely the Old Testament. Whilst there are numerous titles given to
Jesus that are exclusive/predominant within the Matthean account, such as that
of Son of God, it is the writer’s assertion that these merely complement
Matthew’s central theses; this being the portrayal of Jesus as Messiah and so,
as such, will not be investigated except where they promote this conclusion.
This fulfilment of Judaic tradition will be investigated in three separate
yet interrelated areas: Jesus as the fulfilment of Hebraic messianic
expectation, Jesus’ role as a Jewish teacher and Jesus as inaugurator of God’s
Kingdom. Matthew is a Semitic gospel written as an encouragement to Jewish
Christians and as an apologetic to unbelieving Jews. From the outset Matthew
identifies Jesus as one of royal Davidic lineage and Abrahamic descent. Matthew
immediately identifies with Judaic tradition portraying Jesus with the Immanuel
figure of Isaiah 7:14 (1:23).
This motif of the Jewishness of the gospel is especially prevalent in its
depiction of Jesus’ role as the fulfilment of the Old Testament’s messianic hope
(2:4, 26:63) as well as running throughout the text on varying levels. Perhaps
one of the most interesting theories offered in detailing this continuation
between testaments is Leske’s proposal that Jesus’ role and ministry is
antecedent to the Isaianic literature, and, in particular, the Servant nation of
Israel. Whilst a comprehensive critique of Leske’s argument is outside the scope
of this study, it would seem fair to concur that Matthew does indeed identify
Jesus with the Servant (cf. 3:17; Isaiah 42:1).
Consequently, we see in Matthew’s depiction of Jesus a fundamental tenet of
Israel’s theological history personified. Jesus is, as the Messianic Servant,
shown to be the fulfilment of further Isaianic prophecy, that of the suffering
Servant. Throughout Matthew’s gospel there are six direct allusions to Isaiah 53
indicating a definite link and identification by Matthew with this Israelite and
Messianic hope. Further, Farmer suggests that direct allusions notwithstanding
in 20:20-28 and especially 26:26-30 Isaiah 53's redemptive hope is supposed to
be fulfilled through Jesus’ description of the outcome of his crucifixion.
Isaianic prophecy aside it is also clear that Matthew above the other three
evangelists presents Jesus as the fulfilment of the law, a new Moses. The
structure of the book into five sections is intended to help the Jewish readers
identify Jesus as an antecedent of Moses.
Jesus is according to some scholars a type of Moses bringing about a new
exodus and a new Israel. More explicitly however, Matthew portrays Jesus as the
only man to have fulfilled the law in its entirety as well as the messianic
fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy through the many formula quotations (3:15;
5:17-48;12:17-21; 13:35; 21:5, 16, 42; 22:44; 23:39; 26:31; 27:9, 35, 46).
Judaism as a religion placed great stress on the role of the rabbi or teacher,
the concept of a teacher having students/disciples is ancient, Elijah and Elisha
being cited as examples(1 Kings 19:19-21). In the Judaism of Matthew’s time such
relationships were symptomatic of the religious climate with the array of
schools of disciples that existed. It is not surprising then that Matthew in
addressing recent adherents to this religion should portray Jesus as a teacher
with his own band of disciples albeit a distinctive one. Whilst it must be noted
with France that in comparison with Mark Matthew uses the term rabbi
infrequently this should not be taken to mean
Jesus as teacher is an inappropriate title to Matthew. Clearly, Jesus is
revealed as Messiah far more explicitly than in the other synoptics but, Jesus
nonetheless describes himself as a rabbi (3:15; 5:17-48; 11:27; 13:10-17; 23:8)
and others recognized his similarity to other teachers and thus addressed him as
such (8:19; 9:11; 12:38; 17:24; 19:16; 22:16, 24, 36). As teacher Jesus is
portrayed as the revealer of God’s will and Israel’s true teacher and as such
one of the central motifs of Matthew is Israel’s rejection of His teaching (cf.
11:1-12:50). In line with many Old Testament prophets Jesus’ teaching is
rejected. (5:10-12; 24:14). Further, the parabolic teaching of Jesus which is
emphasised in Matthew is typical to rabbinic teaching of the day as well as the
subjects used in these parables. This familiarity in teaching is especially
predominant in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew depicts Jesus as antecedent to
Moses especially in regard to its emphasis on ethical teaching. Further, the
location on the mountain is very reminiscent of Moses’ unveiling of the law upon
Sinai as well as Jesus’ active comparison of his teaching with that of Mosaic
law (5:21, 31, 33, 38, 43) in contrast to the Lucan account (Luke 6:27-35).
|
