^{page 149 note 2} Cf. Die Mitte der Zeit, Studien zur Theologie des Lukas (5. Aufl. 1964), Tübingen.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 3} Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J., Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium (Neukirchen, 1960)Google Scholar; Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (München, 1963)Google Scholar; Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, Uutersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus (Göttingen, 1962)Google Scholar; Stendahl, K., The School of St Matthew (Upsala, 1954)Google Scholar; Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel, Studien zur Theologie des Matthäusevangeliums (3. Aufl. 1964, München).Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} G. Barth, in Bornkamm-Barth-Held, op. cit. pp. 80 ff. When Barth says that πάντα in xxiii, 2 does not include the rabbinic tradition, he does violence to the text. What would remain in ‘all that the scribes and the Pharisees tell you’, if not the scribal traditions?

^{page 151 note 1} R. Hummel, op.cit. pp. 46ff., among others. We think this interpretation is right in its major line.

^{page 151 note 2} The interpretation of G. Barth cited on p. 150 n. I is an example.

^{page 152 note 1} G. Strecker, op.cit. p. 47.

^{page 152 note 2} Cf. von Dobschütz, E., ‘Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet’, Z.N.W. XXVII (1928), 338–48;Google ScholarSchille, G., ‘Bemerkungen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, II, Das Evangelium des Matthäus als Katechismus’, N.T.S. IV (1958), 101–14.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 3} Cf. Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew (Oxford, 1946).Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 4} The study of the formula citations by K. Stendahl, op. cit. shows a deep insight in this direction.

^{page 153 note 1} ix. 35–8 should be understood in the same sense. The image of sheep without a shepherd is an image applied in the Old Testament to the people of Israel (Num. xxvii. 17; I Kings xxii. 17; II Chron. xviii. 16; Ezek. xxxiv. 5; Judith xi. 19; Jer. xxvii (1). 6), and the same expression is applied in Matthew always to Israel (x. 6; xv. 24). So in this context it is Israel which is like sheep without a shepherd.

^{page 153 note 2} At least, following G. Strecker, viii. 5–13; ix. 33b-34; xi. 16–24; xii. 38–45; xiii. 10–13; xv. 21–8; xxi. 12–16; xxi. 33–xxii. 14; xxiii. 37–9; xxvii. 24 f. show an anti-Jewish tendency.

^{page 154 note 1} As for Mark, either he did not know it, or he omitted it intentionally.

^{page 155 note 1} Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, p. 156 n. I.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 2} Jeremias, J., Jesu Verheißung für die Völker (Stuttgart, 1956).Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 3} This type of oversimplification results in eisegesis of the texts. For example, J. Jeremias starts from the presupposition that Matthew supports the mission to the Gentiles, so he finds allusions to the Gentile mission even in texts where it is not mentioned, e.g. v. 13f. where there is no mention of the Gentiles, not to speak of the Gentile mission! xxii. 9 f.; xxv. 40, ‘one of the least of these’ means, according to Jeremias, ‘die unter den Heiden predigenden Jünger’!

^{page 155 note 4} There are many studies of Matthew from this one-sided viewpoint. Here we mention as an example Winter, E. K., ‘DasEvangelium der jerusalemischen Mutterkirche’, Judaica, IX (1953), 1–33.Google Scholar Beginning with the observation, right in itself, that there are many elements of a Jewish scribal character in Matthew, he immediately concludes that the Gospel of Matthew is a product of the ‘mother-church of Jerusalem’ and is written in the purely Jewish Christian spirit.

^{page 156 note 1} G. Strecker, op. cit. pp. 99–118; W. Trilling, op. cit. pp. 99–105; R. Hummel, op. cit. pp. 141f.; Bornkamm, G., ‘Der Auferstandene und der Irdische, Mt. 28: 16–20’, Zeit und Geschichte, Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann (Tübingen, 1964), pp. 171–92 (esp. pp. 181 f.Google Scholar).

^{page 156 note 2} Bornkamm describes very well in this article the fact that the evangelist Matthew, being a Hellenistic Jewish Christian, opposed Pharisaic Judaism on the one hand, though standing within the Jewish tradition, but on the other hand, though adopting the Christology of the Hellenistic church, criticized that Christology from the standpoint of the Jewish tradition. In spite of this correct understanding, Bornkamm tries to solve the problem of the contradiction between ch. x and ch. xxviii by introducing period-differentiation of the history of salvation (heilsgeschichtliche Periodisierung). But it seems to me quite improbable that a man who was very proud of standing in the Jewish tradition should have been convinced that the present post-resurrection period was the time of the Gentile church. The Apostle Paul was also racially a Jew, but he was the very apostle who had abandoned Judaism because of Christ, so that he was able to become the apostle to the Gentiles (cf. Phil. iii. 1 ff.). Matthew is different from Paul just at this point.

^{page 156 note 3} The recent attempts made by G. Strecker, W. Trilling and P. Nepper-Christensen to prove that Matthew was a Gentile Christian are not convincing. Nepper-Christensen, P., Das Matthäusevangelium, ein judenchristliches Evangelium?, Acta Theologica, Danica, I (Aarhus, 1958),Google Scholar raises five points: (1) the traditions of the church fathers are not sure enough to prove the Jewish character of Matthew; (2) the first Gospel is originally written in Greek and not a translation from a Semitic language; (3) the schema prophecy-fulfilment is a motif formed before Matthew and does not reflect Matthew's redaction; (4) there is no typology in Matthew; (5) the text which show Jewish tendencies are taken from older traditions. Of these five points, the first, second, and fourth prove nothing about the nationality of Matthew. The third and fifth points are questionable. Upon these two points, G. Strecker, op. cit. pp. 15–35, is exegetically more detailed. But his arguments are very forced, and reveal his methodological faults. For example, the word on divorce (Matt. v. 32 f. and xix. 3–9): all commentators agree that the phrase ‘except on the ground of unchastity’ (v. 32; xix. 9) is an addition of Jewish character added to the sources of Q (v. 32) and Mark (xix. 9). Strecker argues against this agreement that this addition belongs also to a tradition earlier than the First Gospel. According to him, if Matthew had wanted to reinterpret this word of Jesus from his own viewpoint, it would have been necessary for him to give a more detailed account; the fact that only a few words are added shows that the re-interpretation was not made on his own initiative, but was given by the tradition. But in so arguing Strecker exposes his own misconception of the character of the redactional activity of the evangelists. The synoptic writers never develop their interpretation of the earlier traditions by detailed reasoning, but they reveal their opinion by delicate addtions to and omissions from the traditions. In this sense they are editors and not authors. Moreover, when Strecker says, ‘wahrscheinlicher ist daher, deß der Redaktor schon in einer Tradition lebte, die die Ehegesetzgebung in dieser (rabbinischen) From praktizierte, und daß er sie hier als Einfügung in seine Vorlagen Schriftlich niederlegte. Der Jüdische Einfluß ist danach ein fester Bestandteil der vormatthäischen mündlichen Überlieferung’ (p. 17), he falls into self-contradiction. If Matthew ‘lived in such a Jewish tradition’, if he himself adopted such a tradition—a correct assumption—it is anything but a proof of the non-Jewish character of the evangelist Matthew; it proves, on the contrary, that the evangelist shared in the thinking of the social group which preserved the tradition. So Strecker not only misunderstands this fact, but he develops his arguments on methodologically faulty provedures. In all the other cases also, e.g. the citations of the Old Testament, the pericope of xv, 1–20, the pericopae of the sabbath problem (xii. 1–8, 9–14), etc. he attributes the elements of Jewish character to the earlier tradition. This one-sided and arbitrary elimination of materials unfavourable to his thesis is the fatal defect of his detailed study. The discussion given by W. Trilling on this point is not far from that of Strecker. So we find no reason to reject the traditional view that Matthew was a Jewish Christian.

^{page 157 note 1} H. Conzelmann's study of the Lukan theology clarifies this very fact. R. Hummel, op. cit. pp. 141 f. would find the same schema of the different periods of the history of salvation in the expression peculiar to Matthew άπ' άρτι (xxiii. 39; xxvi. 64). According to him, when Matthew says ‘from now on’, it means, ‘Die Erhöhung Jesu beendet seine speziell auf Israel gerichtete messianische Wirksamkeit, charakterisiert sie als eine Epoche der Niedrigkeit und macht den Weg frei für die Heidenmission’. Surely ‘from now on’ in xxvi. 64 designates a differentation of the Christological situation. ‘Till now’ Jesus has been in the humble state of the incarnation, but ‘from now on’ he will be the glorified Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power. But one must note that this text concerns only the Christological situation, not the heilsgeschichtlich period-differentation. The state of Jesus is different in his lifetime on earth and after his resurrection, but the discipleship is always the same from the Matthean point of view; the έκκλησία existed for him from the lifetime of Jesus and its essence has not been changed since then. Moreover, the fact that άπ' άρπι in Matthew does not mean neccessarily different epochs of the history of salvation is also proved from the usage of άπό τότε. This is also a peculiarly Matthean expression and is the narrative expression which corresponds to the άπ' άρτι of Jesus' own words. It is used three times, once to mark the beginning of the public activity of Jesus (iv. 17), then to mark the first revelation of intention of suffering (xvi. 21), and finally with reference to the decision of Judas Iscariot to seek an opportunity to betray Jesus (xxvi. 16). So the expression ‘from that time’ corresponding to ‘from now on’ of xxvi. 64 means in Matthew that something new is beginning, but it does not mean necessarily the differentiation of the periods of the history of salvation, the time of Jesus and that of the Church.

^{page 157 note 2} Hahn, Cf. F., Das Verständnis der Mission im Neuen Testament (Neukirchen, 1963).Google Scholar All the long speeches of Jesus in Matthew are recorded as directly oriented to the Church of Matthew's time.

^{page 157 note 3} WhatR. Hummel says of the relation of the Church and Israel, op. cit. pp. 157 ff., is close to this type of interpretation.

^{page 158 note 1} G. D. Kilpatrick, op. cit. pp. 101 ff.

^{page 158 note 2} In so far as it concerns the problem of the mission to the Gentiles, F. Hahn is of the same opinion, op. cit. pp. 108 ff. ‘Was Matthäus in seiner… Weise damit zum Ausdruck bringen will, ist die Priorität und bleibende Verpflichtung der Mission an Israel… die aber nur recht betrieben wird, ween im Wirken unter allen Völkern zugleich der universale Auftrag wahrgenommen ist’ (p. 111). This interpretation is to some degree right. But it does not take into consideration the exclusive meaning of the utterance ‘only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’. ‘Only to Israel’ is not the same thing as the priority of Israel. The contradiction remains a contradiction.

^{page 158 note 3} The recent commentary of Bonnard, P., 'Évangile selon Saint Matthieu (Neuchâtel, 1963)Google Scholar, tries to analyse the Gospel of Matthew from this point of view, but it is to be regretted that this point of view is not sufficiently applied to the exegesis of each text.

^{page 158 note 4} It is S. Yagi to whom I owe the important suggestion that the basic key to the problem of the Gospel of Matthew is its community consciousness; cf. especially his recent article, ‘Sin and its Negation of Matthew and Luke’ (written in Japanese), in: Seisho ni okeru Hitei no Mondai (The Problem of Negation in the Bible), symposium published by the Japanese Institute of Biblical Studies (Tokyo, 1967), pp. 90–106.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} W. Trilling, op. cit. pp. 95 f.

^{page 159 note 2} x. 23 belongs to another context. This sentence treats, at least in the intention of Matthew, of the relation of the persecution to the eschaton, so the problem of the evangelistic mission is not directly mentioned here, nor the problem of national consciousness. Bammel, Cf. E., ‘Matthäus 10:23’, Studia Theologica, xv (1962), 79–92.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 1} Cf. G. Bornkamm, op.cit. p. 183. The fact that Matthew alone of the synoptic evangelists uses the word έκκλησία is not an objection to out thesis. This fact shows, of course, that the community consciouness of Matthew was very strong, but not that Matthew reflected upon the essence of the community.

^{page 160 note 2} According to G. Bornkamm, op. cit. p. 189, the descent from Abraham, emphasized along with the Davidic descent, in the genealogy of Matt. i. 1–17 is also an expression of the same assertion. ‘Die natürliche Abrahamskindschaft charakterisiert nicht mehr eo ipso das Gottesvolk und garantiert ibm Anteil an Segen und Verheißung. Mit um so stärkerem Nachdruck heißt es jetzt betont und exklusive im Blick auf Christus: ER ist Davids und Abrahams Shon.’

^{page 160 note 3} Cf. Haenchen, E., ‘Faith and Miracle’, Studia Evangelica, I(T.u.U. LXXIII), 1959, Berlin, pp. 495–8.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 4} M'Neile, A. H., The Gospel according of St Matthew (London, 1915)Google Scholar, ad loc., and P. Bonnard, op. cit. ad loc.

^{page 160 note 5} G. Strecker, op. cit. pp. 99–101; M'Neile, , ad loc.; BonnardGoogle Scholar, ad loc.

^{page 160 note 6} Cf. Smith, C. F., ‘The Mixed State of the Church in Matthew's Gospel’, J.B.L., LXXXII (1963), 149–68.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 1} G. Strecker, op. cit. p. 170.

^{page 161 note 2} W. Trilling, op. cit. p. 61; Bonnard, ad loc.; Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Matthäus (2. Aufl. Göttingen, 1958)Google Scholar, ad loc.

^{page 161 note 3} F. Hahn, op. cit. p. 108.

^{page 161 note 4} G. Strecker designates many other texts as of anti-Jewish tendency, op. cit. pp. 99 ff. But within these texts, ix. 33 f.; xii. 10–13 and xix. 28 contain no anti-Jewish criticism at all. xi. 16–24; xxi. 12–16; xxii. 1–14 and xxii. 37–9 are certainly criticisms against the Jews, but these criticisms are not made in contrast with the Gentiles. Matthew criticisms the Jews rather from the standpoint of the Church elected from the Jewish people. In xv. 21–8 it is a matter of the Gentiles as in viii. 5–13, but just as in the latter text the faith of the Gentile is here recognized as an exception.

^{page 161 note 5} In addition, x. 18 and xxiv. 14 can be considered to reflect in one sense or other the consciousness of the Gentile mission.

^{page 162 note 1} Cf. the excellent analysis of this word by G. Bornkamm, op. cit. pp. 182 f.and p. 187.

^{page 162 note 2} This paper was written in May 1967.