Matthew as an Annotated Study Bible

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 10:14 pm by Scot McKnight

Matthew as an Annotated Study Bible 2015-03-13T22:14:49-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

If you read the Gospel of Mark and then Matthew and compare them when they can be easily compared you will be forgiven for thinking Matthew is annotating Mark’s Gospel. This is indeed the claim of Richard Hays in his new and very clear and compelling record of how the Gospel writers read the Bible — they read it backwards. Once they encountered Christ they were compelled to read the story toward Christ. (See his new book Reading Backward, and we have on this blog a special opportunity for acquiring a free copy of this important new book.)

The “reorganization of religious language to which [Rowan] Williams refers is the subsequent process of retrospective reinterpretation of Israel’s traditions and of the earliest stories about Jesus, in dialogue with one another, and in light of the events of the cross and resurrection. It is, in other words, a process of reading backwards in light of new revelatory events’ (35).

Matthew is far more overt than Mark in his interpretative strategies; indeed, in many passages we find him providing explicit explanations )f Mark’s hints and allusions. … [Here is an example from Mark:] “But when you see the abomination of desolation set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains” (Mark 13:14). …Matthew repeats the saying, but he wants to make sure that the reader will understand, and so he glosses the text with additional information: “But when you see the abomination of desolation—the one spoken of by the prophet Daniel—standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains” (Matt 24:15)…. In instances like this, it is as though Matthew is producing an annotated study Bible, providing notes and references that will give the uninitiated reader enough information to perform the necessary interpretation (36, my boldfaced).

Most notably, the reader of Matthew will observe his “This took place to fulfill…” in its various forms (10-13x). Hays calls these “authorial voiceovers” (37). Even more: “Cumulatively, these passages appear to frame Israel’s Scripture—particularly the prophetic material—as a predictive text pointing to events in the life of Jesus. And, on Matthew’s reading, the prophets are the mouthpieces of God. It is God who is the divine Author plotting the script of history” (37). He may well “frontload” this theme in the first two chapters but what this enphasis does is lead the reader to expect the whole of Jesus’ life to be a fulfillment of Israel’s scriptures. Donald Senior once observed there are 61 citations of the OT in Matthew. Add to these the figural readings and you get to where Richard Hays is leading us: to see Matthew’s art of reading the Bible backwards, from Jesus back.

Jesus is Immanuel — in the frontloaded material in Matthew 1:22-23. We see in part what this means: as Israel was in Egypt, so was Jesus so that Jesus is the “one in whom the fate of Israel is embodied and enacted” (39). He knows this by reading the Bible backwards on the basis of the sonship of Jesus. But Hays sees a “God with us” theme in Hosea 11:9-11. So that:

Matthew is beckoning his readers to interpret the homecoming of the Son out of Egypt as figuring forth the homecoming of Israel from exile (Hos 11:10-11), while simultaneously adumbrating the presence of Jesus as the presence of the God who calls them home and dwells in their midst (Hos 11:9).

Not only is Jesus Immanuel as the one who embodies Israel’s story, he is God’s presence in being worshiped. Here Matthew’s imprint on the gospel tradition is obvious and the term “worship,” though it may only mean doing obeisance, in the context of “God with us” suggests even more — it is worship. Here is one example:

When Jesus finally gets into the boat, the astonished Markan disciples, the reader is told, fail to understand because their hearts are hardened (Mark 6:51-52); the Matthean disciples, on the other hand, worship him, saying, ” ‘Truly you are the Son of God'” (Matt 14:33) (p. 44).

More: where two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name he is present with them (Matt 18:20). This has a parallel in the later rabbinic tradition (m. Aboth 3:2). One can add the “my words will not pass away” (24:35) and his presence with the poor (25:40, which he thinks echoes Prov 19:17).

A dramatic instance of making this Immanuel christology clear is Matthew 28:20: Jesus’ promise of continued presence. Hays is right: “No merely human figure could offer such an extravagant promise of eternal presence; the very content of this comforting word implies the divine identity of the one who speaks it (48). But it’s more than this: there are echoes to biblical texts here. He proposes these:

Genesis 28:12-17, esp Genesis 28:15.
Jeremiah 1:7-8
Haggai 1:13

Hays contends Matthew’s editing of Mark emphasizes this theme of Jesus as Immanuel.

Even before his birth, Jesus is identified by Matthew as Emmanuel, God with us. And after his resurrection he speaks in fulfillment of precisely that identity: he possesses all authority in heaven and on earth, and he promises his sustaining presence throughout all time in all places, as he sends his followers out to summon all nations to obey him. There is only One who can speak such things truthfully (52).

How to explain this? Is this Trinitarian? Not yet, but getting there. Hays:

Jesus and God are not simply identified…By the same token, however, it is far too simple to say that the relation between the Father and the Son is hierarchical or subordinationist; Matthew’s narrative offers, as we have seen, far too many clues of a richer unity in identity….Matthew highlights the worship of Jesus for one reason: he believes and proclaims that Jesus is the embodied presence of God and that to worship him is to worship YHWH—not merely an agent or a facsimile or an intermediary. If we read the story within the hermeneutical matrix of Israel’s Scripture, we can draw no other conclusion. … Matthew has a more radical claim to offer: the one who was crucified and raised from the dead is himself the embodiment of the God who rules over all creation and abides with his people forever (53).

Biblical Studies

Previous Post

November 16, 2014

The Rise of the Dones

Next Post

November 17, 2014 Kathy Escobar on Lessons Learned as a Pastor

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I came from stone when struck, satisfying a grumbling multitude in the wilderness. What am I

Select your answer to see how you score.

Water The Spirit Manna Quail