The Structure of Matthew

2. The Structure of Matthew.
Over the last twenty years Matthean scholars have engaged in an important discussion centered on the structure of Matthew’s Gospel (see Bauer, 21–55). A summary of this discussion will permit the reader to gain a glimpse of the First Gospel in its entirety. Four major models for understanding the structure of Matthew have been proposed. Following an overview of these models, a synthetic proposal will be present ed.
    2.1. Geographical-Biographical. The oldest, and perhaps simplest, is the geographical-biographical model. This proposal organizes Matthew according to a suggested outline of the life of Jesus as he moves through his Galilean and Jerusalem ministries. In his commentary on Matthew (1912) W. C. Allen proposed the following:
    1. The Birth and Infancy of the Messiah (1:1–2:23)
    2. Preparation for Ministry (3:1–4:11)
    3. Public Ministry in Galilee (4:12–15:20)
    4. Ministry in the Neighborhood of Galilee (15:21–18:35)
    5. Journey to Jerusalem (19:1–20:34)
    6. Last Days of the Messiah’s Life (21:1–28:20)
    Several features dominate this perspective on Matthew: (1) The view is harmonious with nineteenth- and early twentieth-century views of the life of Jesus; (2) the life of Jesus so predominates that a feature from Luke (the so-called travel narrative) finds its way into Matthew, though Matthew gives no serious attention to the travel at all (e.g., Mt 19:1–20:34); (3) the progress of Gospel studies in the last two centuries has drawn more and more attention to the various presentations of the Evangelists, and this aspect of Matthew has been completely neglected. Consequently, although many of the older commentaries used this essential outline (e.g., Zahn, Plummer, McNeile, Lagrange, Schlatter), few would follow it today. Rather, it is recognized that this approach reflects a preoccupation of the nineteenth-century Gospel studies: how to compose a life of Jesus (see HISTORICAL JESUS).
    2.2. Fivefold Discourse. Matthean scholarship changed when B. W. Bacon proposed his fivefold topical model (1918 and 1930). Bacon presented an entirely new outline, one based on Matthew’s clear alternation between narrative and discourse. Departing from the life-of-Jesus approach, he took a literary perspective. Moreover, Bacon argued, Matthew’s use of five major discourses reveals a christological tendency: Jesus is a new Moses who gives a new Law for the church. Bacon’s proposal follows:
    Preamble (1:1–2:23)
    1. Book 1: Concerning Discipleship (3:1–7:29)
    2. Book 2: Concerning Apostleship (8:1–11:1)
    3. Book 3: Concerning Hiding Revelation (11:2–13:53)
    4. Book 4: Concerning Church Administration (13:54–19:1a)
    5. Book 5: Concerning the Judgment (19:1b–26:2)
    Epilog (26:3–28:20)
    Apart from relegating the passion (see PASSION NARRATIVE) and resurrection narratives (26:2–28:20) only to an epilog, Bacon made a great advance for Matthean studies by paying attention to Matthew’s own structuring devices. Accordingly, we are indebted to Bacon when we call attention to Matthew’s major structural marker for the discourses (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1 : “And when Jesus had finished these things...”). We must also credit Bacon with transforming the obvious alternation between narrative and dis course in Matthew from a banal observation to a significant key to Matthew’s structural plan. However, Bacon’s suggestion of a Pentateuchal pattern behind Matthew’s five discourses was not accepted and further modifications were made to his view (see esp. Farrer, Barr, Bauer).
    2.3. Chiastic/Concentric. Anticipating the trend of literary analysis, C. H. Lohr proposed that Matthew’s Gospel was arranged chiastically (or concentrically). That is, each earlier section of the Gospel is related to a later section, which are in turn arranged in reverse order from the center (“F” below):
    1. Narrative: Birth and Beginnings (1-4) A
    2. Sermon: Blessings, Entering the Kingdom (5-7) B
    3. Narrative: Authority and Invitation (8-9) C
    4. Sermon: Mission (10) D
    5. Narrative: Rejection by this Generation (11-12) E
    6. Sermon: Parables of the Kingdom (13) F
    7. Narrative: Acknowledgment by the Disciples (14-17) E’
    8. Sermon: Community Discourse (18) D’
    9. Narrative: Authority and Invitation (19-22) C’
    10. Sermon: Woes, Coming of the Kingdom (23-25) B’
    11. Narrative: Death and Rebirth (26-28) A’
    Lohr’s theory (and those who have modified his essential view; see Bauer, Fenton, Gooding, Com brink, Rolland, Gaechter) has several important features. Besides recognizing Matthew’s structural alternation between narrative and discourse, the proposal observes the connections between various sections of Matthew as well as the various topics that Matthew develops. However, Lohr’s approach has been widely criticized for its failure to heed chronological features inherent to the text itself as well as its fancifulness in connecting various sections. One example will suffice: it may be structurally pleasing to say that chapters 1–4 are birth and beginnings and chapters 26–28 are death and rebirth, but this does not represent the theological and literary content of these important sections of Matthew. Any skilled literary artist (or homiletician) can find connections of this sort at the abstract level, but such constructions fail at the level of exegesis and details.
    2.4. Biographical and Theological. The fourth proposal, a biographical and theological model, has commanded the most discussion as well as consent. This model, originally developed by N. B. Stonehouse and then improved by E. Krentz, has been fully worked out by J. D. Kingsbury and D. R. Bauer. In essence this model recognizes an essential biographical aspect to the drama of Matthew’s Gospel but sees it as subservient to an overall theological program. Matthew leaves clues to this structure through a superscription device: namely, at 4:17 and 16:21 Matthew uses an expression (“From that time on Jesus began ...”) that signals the outset of a new division. This provides a neat and useful threefold division to the Gospel.
    1. The Person of Jesus Messiah (1:1–4:16)
    2. The Proclamation of Jesus Messiah (4:17–16:20)
    3. The Suffering, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Messiah (16:21–28:20)
    The alternatives are clear: either the structural devices of alternating narratives and discourses, or the repetition of the formula at 4:17 and 16:21 are to be given the structural priority. Scholars have argued that (1) the additional use of the superscription formula at 26:16 as well as (2) the essential use of Mark 8:31 at Matthew 16:21 (rather than a unique signal in Matthew) suggest that Kingsbury has gone too far in making Matthew 4:17 and 16:21 structurally determinative. In fact, it can be said that though 16:21 may have been a major turning point in Jesus’ actual life, it is not a necessary turning point in Matthew’s structural plot. Kingsbury has elevated to the level of a structuring device a Markan comment on the life of Jesus that Matthew has incorporated into his Gospel. In neither Gospel was it intended to play such a role.
    2.5. Considerations for Determining Matthew’s Structure. In light of the above survey several features must be incorporated into any adequate proposal for understanding Matthew’s structure.
    First, it must determine the genre of the Synoptic Gospels and, in particular, the genre of Matthew (see GOSPEL (GENRE)). P. L. Shuler has investigated this matter recently with respect to Matthew and has concluded that Matthew is essentially encomium, or laudatory, biography (see Shuler, Aune).
    Second, the structure needs to reckon with the clear theological tendencies of the author. Both redaction critics (see REDACTION CRITICISM) and literary critics (Literary Criticism) have expanded our knowledge of the nature of a Synoptic Gospel in highlighting the Evangelist’s contributions and literary strategies. The implication of these approaches for structure is a recognition that the Gospels, however biographical, are directed by an author’s theological and literary designs. The authors of the Synoptics are more than historians.
    Third, at times the structure of sections of Matthew may well be determined by the traditions and sources Matthew inherited. Thus, while we see major innovation on the part of Matthew in chapters 4–13 when compared to Mark, from Matthew 14 on we see very few deviations from the essential Markan structure. One gains the impression that church tradition had grown accustomed to what we now see in Mark and this tradition, rather than the Evangelist’s own designs, controlled the direction of Matthew’s pen.
    Fourth, at times sections in Matthew may be con trolled more by theme than by chronology and historical succession. Hence Matthew, in the interest of a more thematic arrangement, may at times reorder and relocate traditions found elsewhere in Mark or Luke. When we look at Matthew’s discourses and compare their material with the same material found in either Mark or Luke, we often find that Matthew’s arrangement differs and that Matthew’s pattern seems to be thematic. For example, the material Luke relates in the context of two different missions (Lk 9:1-6 [cf. Mk 6:6-13]; 10:1–12) Matthew records as only one mission (Mt 9:36–11:1). It is apparent that Matthew has thematically grouped material around “missionary instructions” rather than paying strict attention to chronology. (In the same discourse of Matthew, compare Mt 10:17-25 with Mk 13:9-13; Mt 10:26-33 with Lk 12:2-9; Mt 10:34-36 with Lk 12:51-53; Mt 10:37-39 with Lk 14:26-27 and 17:33.)
    Fifth, for a structural proposal to be complete it must pay special attention to Matthew’s redactional alterations and arrangements. Hence, in reading a “red letter” edition of Matthew, it may at times be very important to give special attention to the black letters to observe Matthew’s authorial angle. Whether that redaction of Matthew pertains to smaller (cf. Mt 11:2 and 11:19 with Lk 7:18 and 7:35; cf. Mt 8:1–9:35 to 10:8 and Mk 6:7 or Lk 9:1-2) or larger (cf. the structural importance of Mt 4:23 and 9:35) units, painstaking observations of details distinct to Matthew are significant for determining Matthew’s overall structure.
    2.6. A Proposed Structure. As Bacon and Lohr have observed, the most important literary and redactional feature of Matthew’s Gospel is an alternation between narrative and discourse. Furthermore, five discourses stand out in relief on the Matthean landscape. These two features are crucial to Matthew’s ordering of his material. The following outline organizing these two structural features under an essential biographical or chronological plot:
Prologue (1:1-2:23)
Introduction (3:1-4:11)
1. The Messiah Confronts Israel in His Galilean Ministry (4:12-11:1)
1.1.        Narrative: Introduction (4:12–22)
1.2.        Discourse: The Messiah’s Call to Righteousness (5:1–7:29)
1.3.        Narrative: The Messiah’s Ministry (8:1–9:34)
1.4.        Discourse: The Messiah Extends His Ministry (9:36–11:1)
2. The Responses to the Messiah : Rejection and Acceptance from Galilee to Jerusalem (11:2-20:34)
2.1.        Narrative: The Messiah Is Rejected by Jewish Leaders but Accepted by the Disciples (11:2–12:50)
2.2.        Discourse: The Messiah Teaches about the Kingdom (13:1–53)
2.3.        Narrative: The Messiah Is Rejected by Jewish Leaders but Accepted by the Disciples: Responses Intensify (13:54–17:27)
2.4.        Discourse: The Messiah Instructs on Community Life (18:1–19:1)
2.5.        Narrative: The Messiah instructs on the Way to Jerusalem (19:2–20:34)
3. The Messiah Inaugurates the Kingdom of Heaven through Rejection and Vindications: Jesus the Messiah Confronts Jerusalem (21:1-28:20)
3.1.        Narrative: The Messiah Confronts Israel in Jerusalem (21:1–22:46)
3.2.        Discourse: the Messiah Predicts the Judgment of Unbelieving Israel (23:1–26:2)
3.3.        Narrative: The messiah Is Rejected in Jerusalem but Vindicated by God through Resurrection (26:3–28:20)
    This outline utilizes the guiding themes (see 3. below) of Matthew for its main points: Jesus as Messiah, kingdom, confrontation, etc. In addition, we make the following observations. First, it needs to be observed that Matthew has essentially two introductions, a prologue (1:1–2:23) and an introduction to the public ministry of Jesus (3:1–4:11). These two introductions stem from two essential traditions: the prologue is derived from Matthew’s special material (“M”; see “M” TRADITION) and the second introduction is a conflation of Mark’s introduction with Q traditions on John the Baptist (see JOHN THE BAPTIST) and the temptation of Jesus (see TEMPTATION OF JESUS). Thus the problem of two introductions is essentially a source-critical matter (see SYNOPTIC PROBLEM); Matthew had at his disposal two different ways to begin his Gospel and he chose to use both.
    Second, Matthew 4:23 and 9:35 are virtually identical in wording and form an inclusio around the material between them. In fact 4:23 is an outline of 5:1–9:34 : Jesus is described in 4:23 as one who teaches and preaches (5:1–7:29) and one who heals all diseases (8:1–9:34; see HEALING). It appears that 4:23 and 9:35 are a literary device used by Matthew to announce to the reader what is coming (4:23) in 5:1–9:34 and what has transpired (9:35). This device of beginning and ending a section with the same literary form is called an inclusio. Furthermore, the essential unity of the first major section, 4:12–11:1, is seen in that the last element of 4:23 and 9:35 is then used for describing what the disciples are to do–heal every disease and sickness (cf. 10:1). In addition, Jesus’ ministry of healing and casting out demons (see DEMON, DEVIL, SATAN) in 8:1–9:34 is then commanded of the disciples in 10:8. What needs to be noted here is that the missionary commands of Matthew (10:8) are much more complete than those of either Mark (6:7) or Luke (9:1–2), and the commands of Matthew are clearly a repetition of what Jesus has done previously.
    Third, in light of these observations it follows that Matthew 4:12–11:1 is essentially a programmatic description of the ministry of Jesus directed toward those who wish to follow him as disciples. Put differently, in 4:12–11:1 Matthew presents Jesus in the fullness of his ministry, thereby enabling readers to decide how they will respond to him. It is therefore of no surprise that the section following 4:12–11:1 is primarily wrapped around various responses to Jesus (11:2–20:34).
    Fourth, there are two sections in 11:2–20:34 that are organized around the twin response to Jesus: rejection by leaders and acceptance by the disciples. These sections are 11:2–12:50 and 13:54–17:27, the latter section revealing both deeper acceptance by the disciples (cf. 16:21–17:27) and more radical rejection of Jesus by the leaders (cf. 14:1–12; 15:1–20; 16:1–12). Between these two sections falls the third discourse (13:1–53). To entitle this the “Discourse on Parables ” gives too much attention to form rather than content. Instead, chapter 13 is concerned with Jesus’ parabolic teaching about the nature of the “kingdom of the heavens” (Matthew’s literal rendering of a Jewish equivalent to “kingdom of God,” hereafter translated “kingdom of heaven ”; see KINGDOM OF GOD). Here we see that the kingdom (1) effects various responses (13:1–9, 18–23), (2) comes silently and nonviolently (13:24–30, 31–32, 33, 36–43), (3) calls for drastic commitment (13:44, 45–46) and (4) has an ethical call that is rooted in God’s final judgment (13:47–50). Buttressing these teachings are comments by Jesus on the privileged knowledge of the disciples (13:10–17) and the dawn of fulfillment in Jesus’ parabolic teaching itself (13:34–35). Those who can understand Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom of heaven are compared to scribes who understand all things (13:51–52).
    Fifth, perhaps because of Christian familiarity with the final week of Jesus, several comments need to be made about how to read 21:1–28:20. To begin with, in light of Matthew’s theology (and NT theology in general), readers need to bear in mind that this section is not just a rehearsal of the last week of Jesus for the convenience of historians or for the liturgical needs of church calendars. Rather, this section tells of the passion and vindication of Jesus that together bring about salvation for the world. From the Matthean perspective these climactic events inaugurated the kingdom of heaven more fully than had any other event or set of events since the advent of John the Baptist (3:2). Furthermore, there is an essential unity to 21:1–25:46 : (1) Jesus enters Jerusalem as Messiah (see CHRIST) to display who he is (21:1–22), (2) he enters into a contest with the Jerusalem authorities to demonstrate his wisdom and calling by God (21:23–22:46), and (3) he then warns the nation that judgment is coming because it has rejected God’s appointed Messiah (23:1–25:46).
    Due to a keen interest in end-time eschatology, modern-day evangelicals have frequently separated 23:1–39 from 24:1–25:46. This separation usually leads to major interpretive errors. It is important to recognize that 23:1–39 leads into 24:1–36; the rejection of Jesus Messiah by the leaders prompts Jesus to predict the destruction of Jerusalem (see DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM). Jesus predicts not the destruction of Judaism but the destruction of Jerusalem, thereby making it clear that he sees God’s judgment directed primarily against the Jewish establishment centralized in Jerusalem (see Levine). It follows from this contextual tie (cf. 23:36 and 23:37–39 with 24:1–3, 8, 33, 34 in their uses of “all these things”) that the dominant concern of 24:1–36 is the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and not a final tribulation at the end of history. Indeed, it is difficult to interpret 24:29 (“immediately ...”) and 24:34 in any other way than as a primary (if not total) reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (see France, 333–48).