|
P.A.
Sampatkumar The author lectures in the Department of Christian Studies of the University of Madras (Chepauk, Chennai 600005). In this exegetical study he asks why St Matthew mentions a prohibition of Jesus to the apostles to go to the 'gentiles' when the trend of his gospel is universalistic. He thinks that the text serves a pastoral and missionary purpose in a divided church. The command of Jesus to his disciples in Matthew 10:5-6 to concentrate their mission on the Jewish nation and not to evangelise the Gentile world is quite perplexing. Many scholars(1) have attempted to solve this puzzle. Since this saying reveals much of the attitude of Matthew, the early problems within the Church, and its thrust or zeal for expansion, it seems appropriate to undertake a new investigation particularly in today's context of religious nationalism. Was Jesus particularistic or universalistic in his attitude towards the non-Jews? Was he concerned about his Jewish identity? What was his position? How did he relate to the "other" people with whom he lived and worked in Galilee; a region predominantly occupied by non-Jews? In answering these questions, we shall first examine the text in its literary and historical contexts to determine the complex situation at the time when Matthew wrote his Gospel. Then we shall comment on its content and purpose. The Text Mt 10 : S-6 : "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". This prohibition the foreign missions, falls within "the missionary discourse" or "the missionary command" given to the disciples. This is the second of Matthew's five great discourses. The whole section can be divided in the following manner: vv.5-16, instructions for the mission; vv. 17-23, the lot of the disciples; w. 24-25, like the teacher, so the disciples; vv. 26-33, exhortation to preach fearlessly; vv. 34-36, division in households; vv. 37-39, condition for discipleship; vv. 40-41, receiving those whom Jesus sent. Instructions for the mission have parallel matters in Mark (6:7-13) and Luke (9:1-5; 10:1-11). They present a textbook case of synoptic parallelism. The whole discourse is a compilation of sayings, many of which are not appropriate to the context. However, a closer look at the synoptic chart would reveal some of the aspects peculiar to Matthew.(2) In Mark the mission charge is very brief, consisting of only four verses (6:8-11). In Luke (9:1-5) what accompanies the mission of the twelve is a parallel to the Markan mission charge, but sufficiently brief. Luke slightly but significantly modifies. the Markan phrasing and casts it into a smoother literary form. The mission of the seventy-two (10:112), which is peculiar to Luke, is perhaps meant to foreshadow the great non-Jewish mission by non-apostles or to open the possibility of creating an institution of Christian eldership. It is accompanied by different charges, much larger and composite than in Mark. In Matthew the mission discourse is much longer. While the two Lucan discourses together contain 18 verses, Matthew has 38 verses. In addition, one can note that most of the materials found in Matthew are found elsewhere in Luke, and vice versa. From these comparative observations one can immediately detect that Matthew's prohibition to go to the Gentiles and the Samaritans stands out independently. Neither Mark nor Luke report it. Obviously, no single text of the Synoptic Gospels gives us the exact original discourse. To simplify matters we can say that Luke cuts it into two, Mark corrects it and Matthew reconstructs it. The original discourse is lost. Since this is the case, what can we say about Jesus' prohibiting command which is found only in Matthew. Is it a saying of Jesus himself? A Saying of Jesus? This is a much-debated question. The question of historicity, of course, varies as to whether we speak about the whole discourse or its minute details, its context or its reality. We shall restrict ourselves to verses 5 and 6. The opinion on the authority of the saying is sharply divided. T. W. Manson (3) judges that these verses are authentic sayings of Jesus because the ministry of Jesus was infact a ministry to the Jews and the leaders of the Palestinian church felt that their prime duty was to preach to their own people. But scholars like J. Wellhausen, W.C.Allen, G.D. Kilpatrick and F. Hahn attribute these verses to a pre-Matthean source, (4) suggesting that they reflect the views of the early Jewish Christian community which opposed the non-Jewish mission. R. Bultmann (5) too suggests that it was a saying created by the Jewish Christian community to justify its position. Recently F. W. Beare (6) has come out with the suggestion that it was a saying created by Matthew himself in order to bring out the idea that Jesus' primary concern was for Israel. He thinks that Matthew, like Paul, sees the Gentile mission as a consequence of Israel's rejection of Jesus and his Gospel. We are impressed when we observe that the mission charge has in whole or in part been transmitted is Mark, Q, and the special Matthean and Lukan sources. We are also struck by the fact that Matthew, who stresses universalism at different stages of the Gospels (5:13;10:18; 21:43; 24:14; 28:16-20), retains this saying which is quite particularistic in nature. Therefore, David Hill, (7) against Bultmann and Beare, argues that it would be impossible to think that Matthew would have created sayings that contradicted his own convictions on the Gentile mission. The only possible reason for Matthew to preserve this "logion" is that it belonged to the tradition about Jesus that he received and passed on faithfully. If we take a closer look at the saying, we note that Jesus' instructions in verse 5 are introduced with the phrase "paraggeilas autois legon"; which means "commanding them saying" — typically Matthean style — followed by careful and balanced clauses and expressions: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles", balances with "Enter no town of the Samaritans" and "Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel"; picking up the main verb in the preceding clause and relating it with the following sentence in a parallelistic style is a Matthean way of construction; the use of "poreuomenot" (going on) is Matthean style — together with "poreuesthe" (go), it forms an antithesis to the opening pair of prohibitions. The command to heal the sick and raise the dead, and the command to cleanse the lepers and cast out the demons (for both lepers and demons were regarded as unclean), and the phrase "you received without pay" and "give without pay" form in like manner various couplets. The diction also shows the signs of Matthew's composition. Therefore we can conclude that the saying that forbids a non-Jewish mission is indeed a Matthean composition. Whether it is from Matthew's special source or his own creation is yet to be settled. In either case the problem is the same. If it is from the Matthean special sources, why there was it included in the discourse when a good number of non-Jewish people were already entering the Church? If it is a Matthean creation, why did he put it in the mouth of Jesus, when Jesus himself would give a positive universal command at a later stage? How can we combine the universalistic command with the particularistic command to go only to the house of Israel given during the discourse to the disciples? How did Matthew include this saying? Did Jesus indeed oppose the Gentile mission during his lifetime? Does this prohibition show the negative attitude of Jesus towards the Gentiles? (8) To arrive at a proper solution of the problems posed by these questions, we feel it is appropriate to investigate the attitude of Jesus towards the non-Jews as portrayed by Matthew himself. Was Jesus against the non-Jews? Was Jesus against the non-Jews? The attitude of Jesus towards the Jews must be analysed carefully.(9) Although there are many texts in Matthew which call for a careful analysis, (10) we shall however take only two texts (Mt 8:11-12 and 15:24, both of them in the context of a miracle narrative) for a closer examination, to trace the attitude of Jesus towards the Gentiles. We judge them important because of their contexts: a Roman soldier and a Canaanite woman, both of them non-Jews, receive from Jesus a favour of healing for their dependants. An analysis of these two narratives would help our purpose.
"I tell you many will come from east and west and sit at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 8:11). This is a saying of Jesus added at the end of a miracle story which narrates the healing of the servant of the Centurion, a Roman. In praising the faith of the Centurion. Jesus declares that many would come from east and west while the sons of the kingdom would be thrown into the outer darkness. The parallel account of the story of the healing of the servant of the Centurion in Luke (7:1-10) is a mixture of similarities and differences. Both the stories begin with a transitional verse from the end of the sermon to the story. However in Matthew the connection has been broken by the insertion of the story of the cleansing of a leper between 7:28 and 8:5. Both Centurion stories agree fairly closely in the content of the dialogue between Jesus and the Centurion, and both report the cure of the servant. But what concerns us is the conclusion of the story. The narrative in Matthew ends with a declaration that has no parallel in Luke. However we find this text of Mt in Lk 13:28-29 (placed after the passage parallel to Mt 7:21-22), in a context where there is no mention of a Gentile. Although none of the scholars deny the authenticity of this saying, its context is very much debated. Fitzmyer considers the narration of the miracle story in Mt as a better form of the original narrative in "Q" but thinks that Matthew has inserted this saying from a different context to conclude the story.(11) On the other hand, Marshall considers that Mt's linking of the saying with the story of the Centurion may well be original.(12) We can hold that the original context of the saying is lost. It is clear that Matthew, in placing this saying in the context of Jesus' praise for the Centurion, a Gentile, understands it to refer to the admission of the Gentiles into the Kingdom. The faith of the Centurion is interpreted as a "faith unto salvation". Both the antitheses within the saying and the context given by Matthew clearly point out that the many from the east and the west would mean the Gentiles. The central thought would be that the inheritance promised to Israel is now given to the Gentiles to be enjoyed.
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of lsrael" (Mt 15:24). This is a saying similar to the prohibition of the foreign mission (Mt 10:5-6). In the story of the healing the daughter of a Canaanite woman in Mt 15:21-28, Jesus protests that his own mission was to the lost sheep of Israel alone and it does not include the Gentiles. This miracle narrative has Markan parallels in 7:24-30. We shall note the essentials by looking at the synoptic chart: Mark 7:24-30 Matthew 15:21-28
The dialogue between Jesus and the woman in Mt follows the Markan schema, but omits the Markan saying, "Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs" (Mk 7:27). Instead Mt includes a saying, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (v. 24) addressed to his disciples who plead for her cause. Towards the conclusion of the miracle story, Mt departs from Mk and reformulates the story with an emphasis on faith and its instantaneous healing. Although there are number of distinctive differences between the narratives of Mk and Mt,(13) it is clear that the saying that Jesus was only sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", as reported in Mt, has no parallel in Mk. However, the allegory of children and dogs is kept up. Similarly, the saying of Jesus to the woman, "Let the children first be fed..." found in Mk is consciously omitted by Mt. In this case also the authenticity of the saying, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (v 24), is much debated. 14 Some scholars have seen in Mt 15:21-28 an earlier form of the story than that given in Mk 7:24-31. A closer look at the grammatical construction of the saying would reveal that the verse is a construction uncharacteristic of classical Greek and of Matthew elsewhere. But it is characteristic of the LXX and semitised Greek. We can note a similar type of construction in the following texts: Judg 19:29; 1 Kings 18:20; Jer 30:8; Acts 22:21; 26:17, etc. The OT figure of sheep and the phrase "the house of Israel" where the lack of a definite article with "house" reflects the construct state in Hebrew, reveal that the saying could be ancient. But it is difficult to identify its original context. The reason for the disciples to intervene on behalf of the woman and the reply of Jesus in a way rejecting their plea would have been the redactional work of Matthew to fit the saying in a proper context. It is clear, however, that the motive of this miracle story is not to highlight Jesus' mission to the lost sheep of Israel. It is to highlight the faith of the woman, who was not a Jew but a Canaanite, who has seen the manifestation of the gift of God in healing. Taking into consideration how Matthew handles the miracle stories in his Gospel, and particularly noting his stress at the conclusion of such narratives, we can conclude that the seemingly indifferent attitude of Jesus towards the woman is only a literary device of Matthew to highlight her faith. Therefore, we can sum up that this saying (v 24) betrays a positive attitude of Jesus towards the non-Jews rather than a negative one, as a superficial reading of the narrative might show.
It is evident from this short analysis that the attitude of Jesus towards the non-Jews as portrayed by Matthew is more positive than negative. There is no reason to consider that the Jesus of Matthew or Matthew himself opposed the Gentile mission. Further we can note that explicit and implicit references in the Gospel of Matthew support his commitment to a Gentile mission. Amy-Jill Levine has observed that Matthew's emphasis on the disciples' mission to "the lost sheep of Israel", such as tax collectors, prostitutes, sinners — mission to the marginalised Jews — "symbolises the welcome of his church to the marginal and excluded... and foreshadows the inclusion of Gentiles within the Christian community".(15) The two episodes that we have analysed in fact "anticipate the great commission at the end of the Gospel by which the ongoing mission to Israel is extended to Gentiles". (16) It is to be noted also that Matthew consistently stresses good deeds rather than status or ethnic identity as the criteria of righteousness. In 7:21-23, the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, the Matthean Jesus states that doing the will of the Father is the criteria for anyone to "enter the kingdom of heaven". In 12:46-50 the "family" of Jesus is not based on blood lines but includes "whoever does the will of my Father in heaven". As Senior observes, "Matthew's emphasis on reconciliation and forgiveness, as well as the similar exhortation to love one's enemy (a noted feature of this gospel), potentially open the horizon of the gospel beyond the community's ethnic and religious boundaries". (17) This is explicitly mentioned in the parable of the sheep and goats (25:31-46). People are justified because of good deeds of mercy. No distinction is made between Jews and Gentiles. As the marginalised Jews enter the kingdom ahead of the chief priests and Pharisees (22:45) because they believe and act, so do the Gentiles. If neither Jesus nor Matthew were against the non-Jewish mission, why then should Matthew include a saying attributed to Jesus prohibiting the Gentile and the Samaritan mission? Particularly when Jesus had already made a solemn declaration in the gospel about the entry of the Gentiles into the kingdom (8:11-12) before he pronounced the missionary discourse in ch. 10? Intention of Matthew in including the Prohibition Saying A number of scholars have proposed several probable solutions to this question of Matthew's intention. It has been suggested that both the particularistic and universalistic mission sayings express the favourite position of Israel in salvation history.(18) A similar notion is seen in Rom 9:4-5, which clearly sets forth the idea of a privilege for the chosen people.(19) The difficulty to accept this position is Matthew's reticence to accept such a view in similar situations. In Mark's gospel Jesus rejects the request of the Syro-Phoenician woman by telling her "let the children be fed first," which is a close parallel to the Pauline phrase "to the Jews first" (Rom 1:16; 9:2-5). Matthew replaces that saying by "I am sent only to the lost sheep of Israel", a saying close to Mt 10:5-6, which rules out the possibility of explaining the mission prohibition in terms of the need to preach first to Israel. In fact, Matthew's position here would favour the exclusive mission rather than the privileged position of Israel. What then is the purpose of this saying in the mission discourse? Some scholars see a parallelism between the two stages of Christology (an early earthly Jesus and the exalted Jesus) and the two stages of missiology (pre-Easter mission of Jesus and the twelve disciples to Israel, and the post-Easter mission of the eleven disciples to all nations). In both Mt 10:5-6 and 28:19 the scope of the missionary mandate is determined by Jesus' current christological status.(20) Such an explanation takes the sayings of Jesus out of their contexts. As S. Brown observes, "a form critical approach cannot be used to solve a redaction critical question."' If we read the mission discourse carefully, it is clear that the evangelist does not speak in terms of the pre-Easter mission. Jesus' prediction that the disciples would be dragged before the governors and kings for his sake (v. 18f) would find its fulfilment only after Easter. To suppose that the evangelist was motivated by his conviction that it was a dominical saying is not convincing. He did not hesitate to omit important sayings that are found in Mark. If the saying had become irrelevant to the current community he would have dropped it. It is incredible that he would have passed on a saying that had no relevance for any of his communities and which directly contradicts the climactic saying with which his Gospel ends. It has been suggested also that Matthew allowed the saying to stand "as apologetic proof of Jesus' messiaship". (22) This explanation may fit Mt 15:24. But again it can be asked, would not Mark's affirmation of Israel's priority of historical salvation (Mk 7:27a) have satisfied this apologetic need? If so, then apologetics was not Matthew's sole concern in replacing the saying in Mt 15:24, for he omitted the Markan saying. Once Jesus' death has been brought about by the instigation of the Jewish leaders with the approval of the "entire people" (Mt 27:25), any apologetic need to safeguard Israel's prerogatives would surely be superfluous. To find out the probable intention of the author to include this saying, S. Brown suggests that "Matthew, while firmly adhering to the universal mission, encountered a particularistic current in his community which he was unable to ignore, since it expressed the strongly Jewish consciousness of his own special tradition". (23) The seriousness with which the evangelist was obliged to view this line of thought, according to Brown, is reflected in the " judaising tendency of his own redactional changes". (24) Thus S. Brown concludes that Matthew was somehow forced to include this saying, most probably found in his special sources, mainly because he did not want to ignore the particularistic tendency prevalent in his community. The hypothesis of Brown seems probable, but still it does not answer all problems connected with this saying. In order to understand the purpose of Matthew we have to take into consideration the historical context of the period of the composition of the Gospel of Matthew, a period which faced many frictions among the different types of Christian communities. What types of frictions were there? Their exact nature is not known. But from the scattered evidences found in Acts and in the Pauline letters, one can discern that the frictions were mostly about keeping the law of circumcision and observance of Jewish purity laws and other customs (Acts 15:1.23-24; Gal 2:11-13). These have led many scholars to think that there were two groups of Christians, Jewish and Gentile, opposing each other. The strong proponents of this type of hypotheses were Baur and the scholars of the Tübingen School. For them Acts of the Apostles plays a middle role by balancing between these two groups. Later in 1931, W. Michaelis came out with the suggestion that there existed two types of Gentile Christians, namely circumcised and non-circumcised. (25) J.C. Martyrs has recently argued in his commentary on the Letter to the Galatians (26) that there was an active law observant mission to the Gentiles. These observations have led R. E. Brown to propose a fourfold types of Jewish and Gentile Christianity. They are the following: 1. Jewish Christians and their Gentile converts who held the full observance of the Mosaic law including circumcision to be necessary for the salvation brought by Jesus Christ. This movement, which originated in Jerusalem, had some success in Galatia and in Philipi and perhaps elsewhere. 2. Jewish Christians and their followers who did not insist on circumcision but on the observance of some purity laws. This movement, associated with Peter and James, also had its origin in Jerusalem. It became the dominant Christianity of Antioch and probably of Rome, Pontus, Cappadocia and sections of the province of Asia. 3. Jewish Christians and their followers who neither insisted on circumcision nor on the observance of the purity laws with regard to food, but only with regard to marriage (1 Cor 5:1). According to Acts 20:16, 21:26; 24:11, this type of Christianity did not entail a break with the cultic practices of Judaism, nor did it lead Jewish converts to abandon circumcision and the law. 4. Jewish Christians and their followers who saw no abiding significance in the cult of the Jerusalem Temple and in circumcision and in the observance of the purity laws. This type is found in the fourth Gospel and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. (27) These different types, as portrayed by RE. Brown, reveal the complex nature of the Christian communities of the Apostolic period. (28) Matthew might have faced all these types of Christians in his community. Many Gentile believers might have been previously proselytes of Judaism. Some of them might have been more zealous for the Jewish laws than born Jews. There were also Gentile Christians who did not care for the Jewish laws and customs. In fact, "at the end of the first century, as in earlier years, there was much tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians." (29) The need for unity among Christians becomes thus Matthew's paramount concern. He sets out to address this issue. He does it in a very subtle manner. He makes Peter, the man of the middle way, the foundation of the church. He elevates him and at the same time reproaches him. Matthew seems to have recognised the criticisms of Peter from Pauline quarters. "If in Matthew the absence of Paul is eloquent of an eagerness to avoid controversy, so too is the ambiguity of the Matthean presentation of Peter".(30) We also note Matthew's emphasis on forgiveness and reconciliation (cf. The Sermon on the Mount and chapter 18). While Luke advises forgiveness "seven times" (Lk 17:4), Matthew says "seventy times and seven" (Mt 18:21-22). In the context of tensions, disunity, 'hatred without cause', violence among his people, Matthew insists that it is the meek, those who love their enemies, who are blessed. He recognises the need for reconciliation and the necessity for procedures to implement it (Mt 18; see also 7:12; 9:13; 12:7; 22:36-40). Therefore we can say that Matthew, in the context of divisions and tensions that characterised his own community and early Christianity in general, calls the church leaders and all Christians to live in harmony, peace and unity. He has a vision for the Church of the future. As a pastoral mediator concerned about the wellbeing of the church and the universalistic nature of the message of Christ, Matthew brings together various tendencies and groups which created tensions. He then balances them with his theology of the nature of the church, without offending any one group, at the same time taking the readers to a fuller understanding of the whole situation. His aim was to construct a church in which Jewish and Gentile Christians would live together as one community.(31) These elements serve as background to understand Matthew's intention in including the saying in 10:5-6. To the people who consider that the Gentiles should first become Jews before becoming Christians, he tells them that it was true that Jesus came to save the House of Israel but all the same he has superseded the Jewish religion with his heavenly authority. This is reflected in the portrait of Jesus who praises both the Canaanite woman and the Centurion for their admirable faith: "Oh woman, great is your faith" (15:28); "Truly I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith" (8:10)…. This is also seen in his commission of the disciples for a worldwide mission in 28:16-20. To the people, who did not want any connection with the Jewish religion (may be the fourth type in Brown's classification), he tells them that Jesus was a Jew, and a good Jew, ,and was concerned about the Jewish people, their wellbeing, their salvation, and their traditions. This is echoed in 10:5-6 and 15:24.Thus we note the intention of Matthew to include this saying is pastoral and missionary. As a good pastor and teacher he understands the needs of his community, and at the same time is firm in his teaching. The Lesson of Matthew The study that we have undertaken shows Matthew as a good pastor and missionary. As Kierkegaard said, "Life is lived forward, but understood backward". Matthew, a pastor and a Christian scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven, is "like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and old" (Mt 13:52). He preserves the old in the midst of the new.
The Jewish attitude of the Old Testament and the Judaism of Jesus' time remained always particularistic. Our own mission history also shows signs of that attitude. Against this background, Matthew invites us to critique our own mission praxis and invent new paradigms for mission. Matthew negotiated his gospel's safe passage from its roots in Judaism to "all nations". Here, too, Matthew invites us to ponder. In our encounter with our neighbours, are we ready to negotiate the passage of Christianity from our religious tradition that is "prophetic" in nature to the religious tradition of our neighbours that is "mystic"? Felix Wilfred is right in pointing out that this task is the need of our times. (35) Within the context of early Christianity, Matthew successfully carried out the task of taking Jesus' message from its Jewish roots to one meant for all nations. In this regard too Matthew stands out as a model for us. Notes: 1. For example see F.W Beare, "The Mission of the Disciples and the Mission Charge: Mt 10 and Parallel", JBL 89 (1970) 1-13; M.D. Hooker, "Uncomfortable Words, Mt 10:5-6", Exp.Tim., 82 (1971) 361-5; S. Brown, "The Mission to Israel in Matthew's Central Section", ZNW 69 (1978) 73-90. 2. See for details P. Benoit and M.E. Boismard, Synopse des Quatre Evangiles, Vol. 2, Paris, 1972, p.163, 236. 3. T.W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, London, 1949, p.179. 4. J. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei, Berlin, 1904; W .C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, ICC, Edinburgh, 1912; G.D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel According to St Matthew, Oxford, 1946; F. Hahn, Mission in the New Testament, SBT 47, London, 1965, p.41-46.; so also M.E. Boismard who attributes this text to intermediary Text of Matthew, Synapse, vol. 2, p.163. 5. R Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Oxford, 1963, p.163. 6. F.W Beare, "The Mission of the Disciples", p.9-10; but the same author in a previous article, "Sayings of the Risen Jesus in the Synoptic tradition," in Christian History and Interpretation, ed. by W. R. Farmer, C.F.D. Moule and R.R. Neibuhr,1967, p.176 attributes the saying to "an ancient and highly respected source". 7. D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, NCBC, Grand Rapids: Eadmans, 1981, p.185. 8. Note the remark of L. Legrand: "In any hypothesis, the restrictions of Matthew 10:5-6 and 15:24 surely correspond to Jesus' own practice. Even if they are to be attributed to a Judaeo-Christianity, being the expression of a scant enthusiasm on the part of the Palestinian churches for the mission to the pagans, the limitation is only an extension of Jesus' own attitude. Not that Jesus rejected the pagans. He admired their faith and worked an occasional miracle on their behalf. But he did not do so on his own initiative. He submitted to the evidence of this faith when it was forced upon him; but he did not of his own accord propose the gospel abroad". Unity and Plurality: Mission in the Bible, Pune, 1992, p. 51-2. 9. For a recent study on this issue, see, D. Senior, "Between Two Worlds: Gentile and Jewish Christians in Matthew's Gospel", CBQ 61 (1999) 1-23. Also see D.C. Sim, "The Gospel of Matthew and the Gentiles", JSNT 57 (1995) 19-48. 10. The major texts are the following: 1:2-16 (genealogy which includes Gentile women); 2:1-12 (the magi); 11:20-24 (Jesus' favourable opinion of Tyre and Sidon); 12:38-41 (Nineveh to Jonah and the Queen of Sheba to Solomon); 21:43 (the tenants of the vineyard); 28:16-20 (mission command). For a detailed list see D. Senior, "Between Two Worlds", p. 14-16. In fact, he lists eighteen texts as evidence of Mt 's concern for the Gentiles. Of these twelve are found only in Matthew and fourteen have no parallel in Mark. He further notes references to the Gentiles "appear in virtually every major segment of the gospel story: in the opening title of the narrative, in the infancy narrative, ministry in Galilee, during the final teachings in the temple of Jerusalem, in the passion narrative, and in the concluding scene of the Gospel" (p. 16). 11. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, AB 28, New Yolk, 1981, p. 650. 12. I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke; (NIGTC) Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978, p. 564. 13. For a discussion see H.J. Feld, "Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories", in Interpretation in Matthew, London, 1963, p.197-200. 14. see for details S.Légasse, "L'episode de la Cananéenne d'après Mt 15,21-28", Bulletin de Litt. Eccl., 73 (1972) 21-40. 15. Amy-Jill Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Salvation History. Studies in Bible and Early Christianity, 14, Lewiston, 1988, p.62. Similar ideas are expressed by G. Soares-Prabhu in his article, "Following Jesus in Mission in the Gospel of Matthew", in J. Kavunkal and F. Harangkhuma (eds.), Bible and Mission in India Today, Bombay, 1993, p. 78. 16. Senior, "Between Two Worlds", p. 16. 17. Senior, "Between Two Worlds," p. 17. 18. See for example, L. Legrand: "Jesus has come to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel; non-Israelites are not excluded, but they have no priority. The outlook is a prolongation of the Old Testament perspective: Israel's central position, and the prioritisation of the formation of a people. We see how mistaken it would be to attempt to erect a contrast between a `Christian' attitude of outreach to the nations with a 'Jewish' attitude of leading those nations to Israel. In this scenario, Jesus would have made a poor Christian!" Unity and Plurality: Mission in the Bible, p. 52. Also, W .D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, Edinburgh: T & T. Claark, 1988, p. 692ff. 19. Cf. W. Trilling, Das wahre Israel, Muenchen: Koesel Verlag 1964, p.108; R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 176; E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, Keknt, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1956, p..252; M.J. Lagrange, L'Évangile selon Saint Matthieu, Paris: Gabalda, 1927, p. 308; R.A. Harrisville, "The Woman of Cannan", Interpretation, 20 (1966) 274-5. 20. This opinion is supported by Kasting, Die Anfánge der urchristlichen Mission, p. 113. 21. S. Brown, "The Two-fold Representation of the Mission in Matthew's Gospel", Studia Theologica 31 (1977) 23. 22. L. Goppelt, "The Existence of the Church in History according to Apostolic and Earlier catholic Thought", in Current Issues in the NT Interpretation, 1962, p. 193. 23. Brown "The Two-fold," p. 23. 24. Ibid., p. 25. 25. W.Michaelis, "Judaistissche Heidenchristen", ZNW 30 (1931), 83-89. 26. J.C. Martyn, Galatians, Commentary, Anchor Bible series. 27. R.E. Brown, "Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity", CBQ 45 (1983), 74-79. 28. For details on the complex nature of Christian communities see, R.E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind, New York/Ramsay: Paulist Press, 1984. 29. Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. 3, p. 702. 30. Ibid., p.702. 31. Cf. B. Viviano, "Matthew, Master of Ecumenical Healing", Currents in Theology and Mission, 10 (1983) 325-332. 32. L.T Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, Philadelphia, 1986, p.146, as cited by Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. 3, p. 704. 33. Senior, "Between Two Worlds", p.18. 34. Soares-Prabhu, "Following Jesus", p. 79. 35. Felix Wilfred, Asian Dreams and Christian Hope, Delhi: Indian Social Institute, 2000, p. 243.
Ref.: Vidyajyoti (Journal of Theological Reflection), Vol. 65, n. 4, April 2001.
|