Matthew's community and the Gentile mission

Abstract

Matthew contains seemingly contradictory passages with regard to the Gentiles and the Gentile mission. On the one hand, it seems that the Gentiles are disparaged and excluded from the missionary activities of Jesus' disciples. On the other hand, some Matthean passages imply the Matthean community's open attitude toward the Gentiles. Scholars have stressed one part of evidence over the other and come to the conclusion that either Matthew's community was extra muros or intra muros, respectively. This thesis is to find the social location of Matthew's community by examining their attitude toward the Gentile mission. Chapter one is the introduction of the thesis. It explains its background and problem and discusses the methodologies to apply in our study. While Stanton and Foster are in the extra muros position, Sim, Saldarini and Overman are in the intra muros position. This thesis uses critical methodologies like redaction criticism, social-science criticism, and mainly literary criticism. Chapter two examines the Ultimate Commission (28:18-20) and if it could function as an important key with which to interpret the whole Gospel. All the themes of the Ultimate Commission (i.e. Jesus' authority, discipleship, Jesus' teaching, baptism, and Immanuel) can be found everywhere in the body of the gospel. Readers of Matthew would be prepared, while reading the body of the gospel, for all the themes of the Ultimate Commission. They won't be surprised at the risen Lord's final words. Matthew as a literary work is heading to the final climax in the Ultimate Commission, which functions as the key for interpreting complicated details in the body. Then our study of the Matthean community's attitude toward the Gentiles and the Gentile mission should be scrutinized with the Ultimate Commission as the final climax in mind. Chapter three examines positive evidence with regard to the Matthean community's open attitude toward the Gentile mission. First, the beginning part of Matthew contains various signals. to point toward the Gentile mission. Jesus' genealogy describes Jesus as the son of Abraham, the father of all nations and extraordinarily contains four Gentile women. Matthew's nativity story includes the visit of Gentile magi and Jesus' flight into Egypt, which views physical Israel as spiritual Egypt and vice versa. Matthew also includes Capernaum and other Gentile cities as Jesus' working area, which shows that Jesus is not only for the Jews, but also for the Gentiles. Jesus' ministry includes a son of a Roman centurion, two demoniacs of Gadara, a Canaanite woman's daughter, and Gentile multitudes. When they are viewed from the Matthean theme of the eschatological realization, they should not be regarded as exceptional cases, but as a demonstration that the kingdom of heaven has arrived or at least dawned to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. Matthew also contains Jesus' expectation of world-wide proclamation of the Gospel before the end and the Gentile centurion's confession at Jesus' crucifixion. Gentiles are also cited positively in Matthew, when compared with the Jews who are viewed negatively. The Matthean community's acceptance of their mission as the salt and light before the world also implies that Matthew's community embraced the world in their mission. Chapter four scrutinizes the seemingly negative expression of the Gentiles in Matthew. It suggests understanding Jesus' command in the proclamation discourse (10:5-6) as anti-Jewish, rather than pro-Jewish. Jesus is sending his disciples as preachers, just as the ancient invading country sent their preachers to the enemy country they were about to invade. They are to announce the imminent invasion of the kingdom of heaven (the kingdom of heaven is near) and the conditions of surrender (repentance), In this point of view, Israelites are not the ones who have the favours of God, but the enemies of God. Jesus' command not to go to the Gentiles and the Samaritans, but to Israelites should not be viewed as if the Israelites are privileged. In the Proclamation Discourse, they are viewed as more gentile than the Gentiles, as Jesus' admonition to shake off the dust from feet. In line with the Ultimate Commission, the Proclamation Discourse does not exclude the Gentiles from the Matthean community's propaganda. Jesus' apothegm not to give dogs what is holy should not be understood as a veiled prohibition of the Gentile mission. While it is not impossible to view it that way, it is not convincing, just as all the allegorical interpretations are. Also, Matthew's disparaging of the Gentiles in his conventional use of the term does not imply the Matthean community's negative attitude toward the Gentiles, just as we can find similar usage in Paul. Also, Gentile persecution of the community cannot be the reason for their abandonment of the Gentiles, because the persecution was universal. Chapter five examines whether Matthew's community abandoned the Jews in the missionary activity. The phrase Πάντα τα έθνη in the Ultimate Commission should be translated as "all nations," including not just the Gentiles, but also the Jews. Some argue that the Jewish persecution of Matthew's community could have led them to turn away from the Jews. However, it is not likely, because the persecution was universal and the persecution itself would not have made them lose their heart or zeal for their fellow Jews. Also, some argue that the theme of Jewish rejection of Jesus in Matthew reveals the Matthean community's negative attitude toward the Jews. However, the rejection of Jesus was universal, not only by the Jews, but also by the Gentiles. Also, we have much positive evidence that Jesus came for his people Israel. Finally, chapter six examines whether Matthew's community accepted the Gentiles as far as they complied with the requirements of the law. As far as the Jewish boundary markers like the Sabbath, the purity and dietary laws, and circumcision, are concerned, it is not likely. Matthew shows a most lenient form of law-observance. Jesus' words of perpetual validity of the law are to be understood as hyperbole to stress the authority of the law in the community. However, the law as Matthew's community sees it is different from the law as their opponents see it. It is the law as Jesus who has authority over heaven and earth interprets it. In sum and conclusion, it is more plausible to view Matthew's community as extra muros as they are significantly different from their opponents. They were open to the Gentiles and did not require the converts to adhere to Jewish boundary markers.