Gospel of Matthew

Kenton C. Anderson and Gregory J. Henson, Theological Education: Principles and Practices of a Competency-Based Approach

Anderson, Kenton C., and Gregory J. Henson. Theological Education: Principles and Practices of a Competency-Based Approach. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2024. Pb. 144 pp. $21.99.   Link to Kregel

Competency-based theological education (CBTE) for ministry preparation is a hot topic for Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries as they try to find a way to continue their mission in a rapidly changing educational environment. What’s the problem? Education is very expensive, and the ministry does not pay very well. This means fewer people are interested in traditional theological education. Seminaries are competing for fewer students. Traditional models of theological education require people to attend two or three years of graduate work on a physical campus. Many people who want to enter ministry today are “second career” rather than young and fresh out of an undergrad program. They do not want to uproot families to move to study at a seminary. Unfortunately, many churches have lowered their standards for theological education. Gone are the days when an M.Div. was required for ordination. Many churches seek ways to train laypeople to serve in the church rather than sending them off to a traditional seminary. Why go into debt for a theological degree when you can watch seminary-level videos and learn the same material?

Competency-based theological education (CBTE)

Competency-based theological education offers a possible solution to these problems. Anderson and Hanson describe this as reverse engineering traditional education. In the past, students sat in classrooms, accumulated credit hours, and eventually entered a ministry context. In CBTE, students remain in their ministry context, utilizing computers and online resources and only occasionally entering a classroom (likely online). One of the first institutions I heard of using CBTE was Grace College and Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. They call their program Deploy. It uses subscription-based billing, so graduates finish the degree nearly debt-free. Both authors are leaders at Christian Universities. Anderson is President of Providence University College and Theological Seminary (formerly Winnipeg Bible College), and Henson is President of Kairos University. Both institutions offer programs using innovative billing methods and CBTE.

Anderson and Hanson outline six principles for CBTE (ch. 2) and six organizational practices (ch. 3.) CBTE assumes partnerships with local churches to train leaders for local churches. This is a collaborative mission since the seminary and the church have the same goals. Educators are reluctant to put theological education into the hands of the church, and churches are reluctant to put theological education into the hands of the ivory tower. CBTE tries to bridge this gap (or address the suspicions) by allowing learners to do some or all their education in the context of a local church. If the missions and the outcomes are the same, what is the problem? CBTE creates a team that includes denominations, seminaries, and churches. Since CBTE is highly customizable, students can learn the things they need to do in their local context to do ministry in that local context.

Concerning organizational principles, CBTE creates affordable programs using new tuition models (often subscription-based). Students pay a flat monthly fee and take as many classes as they want. To make this work, unified systems must remove old departmental lines, leading to cross-disciplinary integration. This also creates the opportunity for collaborative governance. Partner organizations are part of the conversation on what education looks like. This is important since people doing the ministry should know what is required for those preparing for ministry.

CBTE requires flexible technology, with an emphasis on mobile technology. Anderson and Hanson warn against the old LMS, which is very expensive, usually comes with a long-term contract, and is difficult to customize. They prefer stackable solutions (a range of mobile apps to meet specific needs). They recommend several software packages that can help students learn within the context of CBTE. Since the program is extremely flexible, it allows for continuous improvement. Traditional programs also assess and continuously improve, but the authors claim that CBTE is data-driven and allows for micro improvements.

Anderson and Hanson’s proposal in this book is not an online seminary but a partnership with local churches to train people for ministry collaboratively. I will confess that, as someone who has worked in higher education for more than 25 years, I get defensive when I hear administrators talking about CBTE. I enjoy teaching in a classroom and interacting with students. I do not look forward to a time when I sit in my office grading reflection papers, only interacting with mentors and local churches who are actually doing the education. To their credit, Anderson and Hanson never complain that traditional theological education is wrong. The main problem with traditional theological education is that it does not address the cultural and technological context of the modern world.

Some types of theological education are difficult to do outside of a classroom. Sometimes, it is necessary for a student to sit down in a classroom and learn the content of the Bible and theology, not to mention the biblical languages. However, that classroom does not need to look like a seminary in 1950. Some classes, such as preaching or counseling, cannot effectively be taught online. “People skill” classes need interaction between people. That can happen in a local church through CBTE.

Conclusion. Anderson and Hanson provide a basic overview of the principles behind Competency-based theological education. Although they offer some advice on what CBTE looks like in real life, this is a brief introduction and not a fully developed methodology. Since CBTE is highly customizable, no two CBTE programs will look identical.  This book should be required reading for people teaching in traditional institutions looking for ways to adapt their educational mission for the real world of the twenty-first century. The next step is to attend a CBTE conference.

 

 

NB: Thanks to Kregel Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

David B. Capes, Matthew through Old Testament Eyes

Capes, David B. Matthew through Old Testament Eyes. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2024. Pb. 389 pp. $30.99.   Link to Kregel

David B. Capes is the executive director of the Lanier Theological Library. With Rodney Reeves, E. Randolph Richards, Capes contributed to Rediscovering Jesus (IVP Academic, 2015, reviewed here) and Rediscovering Paul (IVP Academic, 2017). His The Divine Christ: Paul, the Lord Jesus, and the Scriptures of Israel was published in the Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology series (Baker Academic, 2018).

Capes, Matthew

This is the fourth volume of the Through Old Testament Eyes series, the first since Seth Ehorn joined Andrew Le Peau as co-editor. In the series introduction, Le Peau observes that the New Testament writers were Old Testament people. Although this seems obvious, the symbols and literary patterns of the Old Testament are often overlooked in popular preaching and teaching on New Testament books. The TOTE series attempts to bridge the gap by setting the documents of the New Testament in the context of the Old Testament. This commentary is not a detailed intertextual study nor a commentary on how the New Testament uses the Old. The commentary aims to shed light on the Gospel of Matthew by observing various Old Testament texts to provide context. The Old Testament text may or may not be directly quoted or alluded to in Matthew. It is often the overall biblical theology of the Old Testament that is used to illuminate the New Testament.

In his ten-page introduction, Capes explains that Matthew was the favorite gospel of the early church. After surveying the evidence for this status, he suggests that one of the reasons Matthew achieved is that Matthew “creatively and consistently engages with the text of the Old Testament” (16). Matthew is structured around five sermons, and a key literary feature of the Gospel is the fulfillment of Scripture. Matthew often uses a fulfillment formula (Matt 2:13-15, for example). Many events in the gospel are grounded in the Old Testament. For example, unlike Luke, the virgin birth is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. Jesus is “God with us” who continues to be with us even until the end of the age (Matt 28:19-20).

Concerning authorship date and place of writing, he acknowledges that tMatthew is anonymous. However, there is a strong tradition that the apostle Matthew was the author (19). Citing Papias and other early traditions, Capes states that “we are on good grounds” that the author was an eyewitness, likely writing from Syrian Antioch. He is sure that Matthew used the gospel of Mark, but he is unsure whether the temple was still standing when Matthew wrote. The Olivet Discourse uses language like a prophetic Oracle, implying a date in the late 60s or early 70s. He concludes this brief section on introductory matters by observing that the date for Matthew’s gospel does not matter as much for reading Matthew in context.

In Matthew, Jesus is often seen in tension with Jewish groups, especially the Pharisees. Jesus describes them as hypocrites, even if they are faithful interpreters of the law. For Capes, these tensions are an intra-family issue (23). Not all Jews are responsible for Jesus’s death. This is an important observation since the commentary intentionally reads Matthew’s gospel through the lens of the Old Testament.

Like other volumes in the TOTE series, each chapter covers a chapter of Matthew. The commentary is on the English text (Although informed by the Greek text).  Sometimes, the notes are brief, treating phrases, and sometimes larger chunks of text. This is necessary due to the brevity of the commentary style. No secondary literature is cited in the body, but occasional endnotes point toward other academic literature.

In keeping with the goals of the commentary, he often draws attention to Old Testament passages that help explain the text in question. For example, commenting on the story of Jesus healing a paralyzed man by first forgiving his sin (Matthew 9:1-3), Capes draws attention to Solomon’s prayer of dedication of the temple (2 Chronicles 7:13-14). The key phrase is “I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin, and I will heal their land.” “Forgiveness is not automatic,” Capes says, “it depends on God’s people humbling themselves, praying, and repenting of their sin. But notice: God is the one who forgives” (143). He then cites Micah 7: 18-19 and several other passages that describe God as the one who forgives sin. In the context of the miracle in Matthew 9, these Old Testament texts enhance our understanding of Jesus’s claim to be the one who forgives sin.

Occasionally, the commentary blends Old Testament texts with Second Temple Judaism. For example, commenting on the miracles in Matthew 11:4-6, he looks at miracles in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q521) and Isaiah. However, the commentary does not attempt to understand Jesus through the lens of the Judaism of his day but rather the Old Testament. This is not a “Through Mishnah Eyes” commentary!

In keeping with the series design, each chapter has three types of sidebars. First, “What Does the Structure Mean?” These sidebars comment on the outline of the gospel, such as a discussion of the apocalyptic discourse in Matthew 24-25 or the structure of a series of parables (Matthew 19:30, 20:16). Capes provides a comment on the three predictions of Jesus’ death (234-25). Although he indicated his belief that Matthew used the gospel of Mark, he rarely discusses any synoptic issues. Capes’ focus is entirely on the text of Matthew and how Matthew is better understood through the lens of the Old Testament.

Second, each chapter contains at least one “Through Old Testament Eyes” sidebar. These comments examine connections to the Old Testament. For example, Matthew 12:42 refers to the Queen of the South. This leads to a discussion of Solomon and the visit of the Queen of Sheba. When discussing the virgin birth, Capes examines the apparent connection to Isaiah 7:14. Matthew 12:5-21 is an opportunity to discuss the servant poem in Isaiah.

Third, each chapter contains at least one sidebar entitled “Going Deeper.” These sidebars tend toward biblical theology and other intra-canonical connections. For example, he deals with the connection between sin and sickness, demonstrated by the healing of the lame man in Matthew 9:2-8. He looks back at several Old Testament texts that connect sin and sickness, but then he’s quick to comment that not all disease and sickness are directly or indirectly related to sin (145).

 

Conclusion. This commentary on Matthew does not cover every detail in Matthew’s text, nor does it even attempt to. Nor is this an exegetical commentary on the Greek text of Matthew. Those are not the aims of the commentary series. Capes achieves his goal of reading the Gospel of Matthew “through Old Testament eyes” by providing a basic commentary on the English text and drawing attention to how the Old Testament sheds light on Matthew’s gospel. The commentary style will be valuable for laypeople as they work through the church’s favorite gospel.

 

Other volumes in the Through Old Testament Eyes series:

 

NB: Thanks to Kregel Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Walter T. Wilson, Matthew Volume 1 & 2 (Eerdmans Critical Commentary)

Wilson, Walter T. Matthew Volume 1: Matthew 1-13. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023. xxi+632 pp. Hb; $45.00.  Link to Eerdmans

Wilson, Walter T. Matthew Volume 2: Matthew 14-28. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023. xxi+610 pp. Hb; $45.00.  Link to Eerdmans

Walter Wilson serves as Charles Howard Candler Professor of New Testament at Emory. He previously published a monograph, Healing in the Gospel of Matthew: Reflections on Method and Ministry (Fortress, 2014), and numerous academic articles on the first gospel. He recently published Ancient Wisdom: An Introduction to Sayings Collections (Eerdmans 2022, reviewed here) and, in 2023, a commentary on the Wisdom of Sirach in the Eerdmans Critical Commentary. This new Matthew commentary is the first in the ECC series since 2012.

Wilson, Matthew Commentary

In the twenty-page introduction, Wilson suggests the author of the first Gospel was a Jewish Christian, reliant on the Gospel of Mark, writing between 75 and 95 CE, likely from Syrian Antioch. The author retained the plot from Mark and rarely omitted an episode. But he tended to abbreviate Mark, and he expanded Mark’s outline with material from a sayings source. Wilson suggests this is a different version of the sayings source than Luke’s. The use of Q (sayings source) and M (unique material) is the clearest in the five speeches. Matthew also adds a frame to Mark’s plot, the birth narrative, and the return to Galilee (Matt 28:16-20). “Evidence for Matthew’s editing within individual passages is pervasive,” even if the mode of editing is variable (6). Wilson frequently observes Matthew’s handling of sources in the commentary. For example, commenting on Matthew 8:1-9:38, he suggests, “for the substance of these chapters, Matthew draws on various stories adapted from Mark and Q, altering both their content often through abbreviation and order” (262). The rest of the paragraph offers detailed evidence supporting this thesis.

Concerning genre and orientation, Wilson suggests that the “messianic movement is a continuation and culmination of the foundation story of Israel imparted by the Old Testament” (7). Matthew imitates scripture and invites readers to read scripture in a new light. Matthew recasts salvation history in an eschatological mode. “The life of Jesus is properly understood as one continued realization of biblical (especially prophetic) predictions” (7). Like the disciples, Matthew’s readers are expected to understand Jesus’s teachings (13:51-52) and teach them to others (28:19-20). However, they will struggle to put Jesus’s teaching into practice. There is a discrepancy between the ideal disciple who follows Jesus’s teachings and the disciples’ failure. Readers should identify with the disciples since they struggle, face opposition, and often fail.

Wilson sees Jesus and the Pharisees in a mutually antagonistic relationship (15:13-20, a text not in Mark or Luke). The Pharisees are blind guides (23:16) who will be uprooted (13:37-43). Wilson suggests this estrangement mirrors Matthew’s community. They may be sectarian, factional, or a beleaguered dissident minority (11). They are becoming increasingly different from formative Judaism and open to including non-Jews (28:18-20). Matthew’s gospel “helps justify the mission to the Gentiles.”

If the Gospel of Matthew has a thesis, Wilson suggests it is Immanuel (1:23; 18:20; 28:20). Jesus reveals and enacts God’s will” (14). Jesus is the son of God, the Messiah, and the son of David. He has a royal association indicating Jesus is the agent of God’s Kingdom. There is a conflict between Israel’s Messiah and Israel’s leaders. Citing Matthew 4:1-11, this conflict is “set against the backdrop of a cosmic conflict between divine and satanic agents (15). Matthew reconfigures God’s people around Jesus. The site of redemptions revelation shifts from Mount Zion to a mount in Galilee, the sermon on the mount, the mountain in the final Commission, for example. Attachment to one’s family and land is replaced with attachment to Jesus.

The major aim of Jesus’s proclamation is to explain the demands of God’s reign. The basis of discipleship is bearing fruit in keeping with repentance (3:8; 7:16-20; 12:33; 13:23; 21:19, 43). “The ethos of the new age finds its standard, especially in obedience to the law” (19). But this obedience is the more radical standard of righteousness of the heart. All the requirements of scripture hang on the command to love and expressions of mercy. Good works manifest God to others (5:13-16).

Wilson divides the twenty-eight chapters of Matthew into eleven sections covering a chapter or two each. These sections are further divided into several (untitled) units. Sections begin with a short introduction describing themes and addressing synoptic parallels. Each unit also has a short introduction tying it to the overall context of Matthew’s gospel. Wilson provides his own translation, followed by a commentary on the Greek text (with no transliteration). There are occasional comments on textual issues since this is not the commentary’s focus.

Wilson comments on lexical and syntactical issues (with details in the footnotes). The commentary has copious footnotes to secondary literature, so the body of the commentary is uncluttered and easy to read. Wilson includes excellent notes on Old Testament parallels and background throughout the commentary. This includes occasional references to Second Temple literature. For example, he suggests the ten miracles in Matthew 8:1-9:48 are “meant to recall the ten wonders performed by Moses in Exod 7-12” (263). In Matthew 19:28, he observes parallels between this text, Daniel 7, and 1 Enoch 108 (155). Commenting on Matthew 24:29-31, Wilson draws attention to several prophetic passages describing the collapse of the order of creation and the Testament of Moses and other Second Temple texts. He draws attention to parallels between 1 Enoch 62 and the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46. Although many of these comments often appear in a Matthew commentary, Wilson seems to have a knack for tracing these allusions.

The commentary does not spend much time on geographical or historical issues. For example, commentaries often offer details on Pilate when he is introduced in Matthew 27:1. Wilson comments briefly on his title “governor” and points to relevant literature in a footnote. Likewise, there is no interest in locating places like the Mount of Transfiguration or the Upper Room.  Wilson’s focus is on the textual and literary features of Matthew.

In the conclusion to each unit, Wilson summarizes and occasionally comments on theological issues raised in the unit.  He occasionally points out a theological nuance that comes forward because of Matthew’s redaction of his sources. These conclusions cannot be described as “theological interpretation” nor “application,” although he often draws out implications from the text for church life.

Each volume includes a bibliography (vol. 1, 79 pages, vol. 2, 80 pages) and indices (vol. 1, 65 pages, vol. 2, 95 pages).

Conclusion. Wilson’s two-volume Matthew commentary is an excellent addition to the Eerdmans Critical Commentary series. Wilson’s exegesis is clear, and his interest in Matthew’s use of the Old Testament (and parallels to Second Temple literature) is stimulating. Although some readers may not care for his approach to Matthew’s redaction of his sources, Wilson has produced a Matthew commentary which is a please to read. This solid academic Matthew commentary will serve scholars and students of the First Gospel for many years.

 

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Book Review: Jeannine K. Brown and Kyle Roberts, Matthew (Two Horizons Commentary)

Brown, Jeannine K. and Kyle Roberts. Matthew. Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2018. 575 pp. Pb; $38.   Link to Eerdmans This new addition to the Two Horizons New Testament Commentary series is the first on the Gospels (Scott Spencer’s Luke volume was published in April 2019). Brown and Roberts have contributed an excellent example of theological interpretation Scripture as applied to Matthew the theologian and pastor. Brown, Roberts, THNTC MatthewIn the introduction to the commentary the authors define what they mean by a theological and interdisciplinary approach to Matthew. The commentary is interested in how Matthew’s narrative theology was derived from his literary rhetoric and was informed by the socio-historical realities of his world (4). In the introduction to the commentary, Matthew is the implied author (whether he is or not does not matter for a theological reading of the Gospel). The gospel was written to a Jewish audience that believed the Jesus was the Messiah. The authors employ the two-source hypothesis, implying that Matthew must have been written sometime after A.D 70. They take the burning of the city in 22:7 as an allegorical allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem. Since Didache and Ignatius make use of the gospel it cannot be dated later than A. D. 90. The Gospel is divided into three parts based on the phrase Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο in 4:17 and 16:20. After the preparation and identity of Jesus (1:1-4:16), 4:17-16:20 is the announcing of the kingdom of God, 16:21-28:20 concerns Jesus his trip to Jerusalem and the kingdom enacted through the death and resurrection of Jesus. The commentary proper is divided into seven units covered in chapters 2-8.
  • Jesus’s Preparation for Ministry: Matthew 1:1-4:16
  • Jesus Teaches about the Kingdom: Matthew 4:17-7:29
  • Jesus Enacts the Kingdom: Matthew 8:1-11:1
  • Growing Opposition toward Jesus’s Ministry: Matthew 11:2-16:2
  • Jesus Teaches about His Coming Death: Matthew 16:21-20:28
  • Jesus Clashes with Jerusalem Leadership: Matthew 20:29-25:46
  • Jesus’s Passion and Resurrection: Matthew 26:1-28:20
In the body of the commentary Brown introduces each section with a paragraph on the narrative structure and logic followed by a fresh translation. Each pericope is treated as a whole; due to the brevity of the commentary it is impossible to do phrase by phrase or verse by verse. For example, Matthew 5:17-48 are treated in just over five pages. All Greek words appear in transliteration. Although she interacts with other major commentaries, this is done mostly in the footnotes, making for an extremely readable commentary. Brown is not particularly interested in the grammatical or syntactical problems found in the text, and there are only a few occasions when she deals with textual critical issues in the footnotes. The second part of the commentary is a biblical theology, entitled “Thinking Theologically with Matthew.” In the first chapter of the section lays Roberts lays out his methods for theological engagement with Scripture (ch. 9). He recognizes Matthew’s theological categories are not those of contemporary systematic theology. We need to recognize our own assumptions and pre-readings before approaching Matthew’s gospel. But it is important to understand Matthew’s gospel is inherently theological (268). The gospel writer was already doing theology by working out the implications of the gospel. Each chapter in this section of the book begins with several pages unpacking a theological concept, the move into a reading of a pericope in the light of the theological issue. For example, Roberts reads the Beatitudes through the lens of Matthew’s already/not yet view of the Kingdom. The second section of the book comprise of four chapters covering an important aspect of Matthew’s theology. First, Roberts deals with the complex and elusive problem of what the kingdom means for Matthew (ch. 10). Robert examines the Old Testament and Second Temple literature and argues Matthew picks up on these trajectories to prove Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah. Jesus’s kingly identity remains central throughout the gospel. There is an eschatological nature to the kingdom of God, and here Robert highlights the already/not yet of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus. Since the kingdom of God cannot be separated from Matthew’s Christology, Roberts devotes the next chapter to Matthew’s Christology (ch. 11). In Matthew, Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, the Torah fulfilled, and wisdom embodied. He is the representative of Israel and by the end of the book is the full embodiment of Yahweh. Three critical moments in the gospel Matthew describes Jesus as “God with us” (1:23, 18:20, and 28:20). Chapter 12 examines the Holy Spirit in Matthew. Although it is unusual to include the Holy Spirit as a theological theme in the Gospel of Matthew, Roberts traces Matthew’s pneumatology from the baptism through the final lines of the book (the Trinitarian formula in Matt 28:19). Since the Holy Spirit is actively involved in Christian mission, Robert is able to transition into Matthew’s understanding of discipleship (ch. 13). The burden of this chapter is how Matthew communicates discipleship. The reader will learn discipleship from Jesus his actions as well as the various characters who appear throughout the story. For example, Gentiles who have great faith or other seekers who come to Jesus. “Matthew thematizes the identification of Jesus as Isaianic servant whose ministry of teaching and healing, as well as his death and resurrection, embody mercy and justice for Israel and for the nations. This portrait of Jesus as servant sits at the center of Matthew’s meaning of “the gospel of the kingdom” (367). Finally, Roberts discusses the “Meaning of the Messiah’s Deeds” (ch. 14). Roberts warns against narrowing the theology of the Gospel of Matthew to only the death and resurrection of Jesus. In fact, Matthew introduces the word gospel early (4:23) so that the entire book is “the gospel.” Yet it is true the death and resurrection of Jesus is the “obvious climax to the gospel.” Matthew foreshadows the Passion throughout the gospel. Robert asks whether Matthew has an atonement theology and whether this view supports later theories of atonement as expressed by systematic theology.  He concludes there are aspects of Christus Victor, substitution, and substation theories in the Gospel, but it would be wrong to reduce Matthew’s view to a single theory of atonement. The final section of the book “Constructive Theological Engagement with Matthew.” After a short introduction to the method for the section, Robert asks “what would be missing from biblical theology if we did not have the contribution of the Gospel of Matthew?” He observes that Matthew’s place in the canon functions as a bridge between the testaments. Matthew looks back to the Old Testament to explain what Jesus does in his death and resurrection. The egalitarian values for the Christian community or a contribution of the Gospel of Matthew. Roberts describes Matthew 18 as “egalitarian in its values and practices” (396). The last five chapters summarizes how various perspectives read Matthew (feminist Perspectives (ch. 17); Global Perspectives and Liberation Theologies (ch. 18); Reading Matthew Pastorally (ch. 19); Reading Matthew Politically (ch. 20); and Reading Judaism Ethically in the Post-Holocaust Era (ch. 21). Most commentaries would be written from the one of these perspectives. For example, there are many approaches to Matthew that read Jesus as a political activist, and that the gospel is generally anti-imperial. By including a chapter on each perspective, the reader is provided with multiple lenses to understand the Gospel of Matthew. Conclusion. This commentary by Brown and Roberts is an excellent example of a theological commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. The commentary portion provides solid exegesis of the text without being lost in the details of grammar and syntax. The wide ranging theological articles included in the second half of the volume will stimulate readers to think more deeply about Matthew’s contribution to biblical and systematic theologies.   Reviews of other commentaries in this series:   NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.  

Book Review: Ian Boxall, Discovering Matthew

Boxall, Ian. Discovering Matthew: Content, Interpretation, Reception. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2015. 216 pp. Pb; $22.   Link to Eerdmans

Ian Boxall’s Discovering Matthew is the first of two contributions to the new Discovering Biblical Texts series from Eerdmans, joining Discovering John by Ruth Edwards. The sub-title for the series is “Content, Interpretation, Reception,” indicating an interest in both the general content of the Gospel of Matthew but also how the Gospel ought to be read in the light of the reception of the Gospel by the church.

Boxall_Discovering Matthew_wrk04.inddMatthew has been a popular gospel because it was thought to be the earliest Gospel and written by an eyewitness, the tax-collector turned disciple, Matthew. As a result it was used in liturgy and catechisms by the early church, so that many Christians are only familiar with the forms of the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew or the Lord’s Prayer only in Matthew.  In the nineteenth century that consensus broke down, Mark became the earliest of the Gospels and Matthew was written by an anonymous writer as many as sixty years ears after the death of Jesus. This author used (and sometimes abused) Mark’s Gospel. Some are offended by Matthew’s vitriolic attacks on the Jewish leaders, especially the Pharisees, yet others are drawn to the Gospel’s interest in the Gospel going out to the nations.

The first three chapters of this introduction deal with introductory matters, including strategies for interpretation and the text of Matthew. Boxall surveys various exegetical approaches to the Gospel beginning with Aquinas and other pre-critical readings (allegorical, etc.) He introduces Historical Criticism (source, form and redaction criticism) as well as social scientific readings of Matthew and Narrative criticism and Reader-response approaches. For each of these categories he offers a brief description and evaluation supplemented with a few key references to representative scholars. With respect to Matthew’s sources, Boxall briefly summarizes the arguments for (and against Q), although he does not come to a firm conclusion (“leaving Q aside,” p. 35). He dates the Gospel after A. D. 70 and before A.D. 100 and later in the book Boxall surveys several possible provenances for the Gospel and concludes a precise identification does not add much to the interpretation of Matthew (74).

Chapters 4-5 describe the characters of Matthew’s story (following Jack Kingsbury) and the historical and social setting of the first Gospel. The setting of Matthew is a hotly debated topic, with some scholars following W. D. Davis suggestion Matthew was written as an alternative to “Jamnia Judaism,” the Judaism which formed out of the Jewish response to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Others (Richard Bauckham, for example), reject this view of the background of Matthew since it is not tenable Matthew addressed a specific situation as if it was a Pauline letter. Boxall thinks Bauckham has overstated his case: there are passages which do appear to address a specific situation (65). But what is that situation? Was the Gospel written to people who were essentially Jewish who believed Jesus was the Christ, or Christians who were ethnically Jewish (intra vs. extra muros)? Unfortunately, Matthew’s Gospel is ambiguous, both are possible given the evidence of the book. It is even possible Matthew was a gentile, or at the very least has a pro-Gentile bias. John Meier suggested this, Boxall is not convinced (70).

The next seven chapters treat major themes of Matthew’s Gospel, beginning with the Infancy Narratives (ch. 6), Jesus as Teacher (ch. 7), Jesus as healer and exorcist (ch. 8), Jesus as fulfilment of the Law (ch. 9), The Gospel of the Church (ch. 10), The Passion (ch. 11) and resurrection (ch 12). These chapters provide light commentary on genre, sources and content, but also reflection on Matthew’s theology as presented in the unit. As with the other sections of the book, Boxall offers a wide range of opinion in order to introduce students to secondary literature on Matthew.

A concluding chapter offers a few comments on interpreting Matthew today (ch. 13). First, Boxall observes they growing awareness in scholarship that a text is capable of meaning several things. Authorial intent is only one possible meaning sine a text tends to take on a “life of its own once it leaves the author’s hand. If this is the case, Boxall’s second observation is that there is a need for a variety of interpretive tools to more fully interpret a complex text like Matthew. By focusing only on historical-critical questions, one will miss the rich theological possibilities raised by narrative criticism or the study of Reception history. Third, as newer approaches to the text have made clear, interpretations have consequences. Here Boxall alludes to the unfortunate consequences of some interpretations of the phrase “his blood be on our heads” (Matt 27:25). Finally, Boxall concludes modern interpretive methods have increased our understanding of the participation of readers in the process of interpretation. The days of the detached, unbiased historical critic are long gone and it is difficult to separate interpretation from application.

Conclusion. Discovering Matthew offers a brief overview of the Gospel of Matthew with special attention to recent trends in New Testament interpretation. What is remarkable is the vast amount of secondary literature surveyed in this short book. Boxall is able to summarize a wide variety of views on virtually every aspect of Matthew, including historic Christian writers as well as modern commentators. The most significant shortcoming of the book is its frustrating brevity. Virtually every topic could be expanded to a chapter length presentation. Nevertheless, Boxall’s Discovering Matthew is an excellent introduction to the ongoing exegetical and theological discussion generated by the First Gospel

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.