Jesus as Role Model in the Gospel of Matthew:

Do the historiographers remodel their sources to fit their own agenda?

Koot van Wyk

Abstract: There are some scholars who feel themselves at liberty to take the navigation seat in order to be able to judge the works of the three Synoptics or any book of the New Testament, to allocate certain word forms and expressions as really from Jesus and others as not from Jesus but a portrayed Jesus. For them we have not to do with the Jesus of the Synoptics but with the Matthean portrayal of Him. Excluding the theology of the Old Testament and most of the New Testament as well, excluding the Systematic Theological concepts of the origin of evil in the Rebellion in Heaven events, excluding the reality of the divinity of Jesus as a given, they have argued that Jesus is presented by Matthew in conflicting terms as imitatio dei and role model for us, but then also with shocking statements in such militaristic and antagonistic terms that one doubts the veracity of the peace statements. For the scholar David Sim, "Jesus' attacks on the scribes and Pharisees, especially in [Matthew] Chapter 23, seem to conflict with

his teachings in the Sermon [Matthew 5], and Jesus' future activity as the final judge is also at odds with his earlier moral standards. Consequently, Jesus does not always practice what he preaches in Matthew".1

1. Introduction

"From the very beginning the Christian tradition has viewed Jesus as the perfect role model, whose life and teaching are to be emulated by his followers. In the first Christian generation Paul looked upon Jesus as the definitive exemplar for himself and his congregations. He advised the Corinthians to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor. 11:1), and this view is fleshed out with concrete examples in the epistle to the Romans (Rom. 15:1-7). In the early second century the first epistle of Peter continued this tradition. According to 1 Pet. 2:21-23, Jesus provided an example that

should be followed; he committed no sin or acts of guile, did not revile those

who reviled him and did not threaten when he suffered. Many other New Testament texts refer similarly to Jesus as the perfect Christian model who is to be imitated (e.g. John 13:15, 34; 15:12; Heb. 12:2; 13:12-13; 1 John 2:6), and further references are found throughout the writings of the Church Fathers and in a host of later Christian texts. The concept of the imitation Christi has had a widespread and lasting influence on the Christian Church over the centuries, and many saints and other holy figures, from ancient times to the modern day, have lived their lives guided by the example set by Jesus. These Christians have been inspired by the ethical teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel and by the life of Jesus as presented in all four canonical Gospels"2 What David Sims do not mention, is that the epistemology of those who had this traditional view were filled with the right approach to hermeneutics: on their knees, with the Word of God in their hands, with the Holy Spirit as guide and navigation to reason, with reason rescued from self-set goals and aims and focused on the glory of God as prime mover, all in all, with a hermeneutics of faith and not a hermeneutics of suspicion.  For those who are not informed as to the role of the hermeneutics of suspicion in modern hermeneutics, some doctoral students traced it back to Feuerabend. It goes through Schleiermacher and it is passed on from generation to generation with names like Nietzsche, Heidegger, Bultman until the present.

2. Matthew had sources

The first error that scholars are making with the book of Matthew, is to ignore that he had sources very related to those that were used by Mark, John, Luke and others. The proximity of the detail in each event, is too close to ignore the presence of the same source used by all.

Matthew's sources were copied and brought together by him in an arrangement

Matthew received apparently a bundle of fragments containing diaries, memos, notes, genealogies, lists, sermon dictation notes copied by listeners at the events, witness accounts, legal documents. It appears as if there were copyists and distributors of these anecdotes and notes in those days who made money this way by sharing the information to eager buyers. It may have been that copying and distributing Jesus' latest sermon was common. Twenty years after the resurrection of Jesus in 31 CE, thus in about 51-58 CE, it was no problem for the evangelists to take hold of Jesus collectables like this and use for their arrangement, copying it painfully precise. Even though Mark's fragment and witness notes read that there were 3 people but Matthew's fragment and notes read only 1, Matthew did not harmonized his information but kept to what his source is saying.

John and Luke actually give us hints that this is the modus operandi that they were using in writing the gospels.

3. Matthew tried to be as chronological as possible

Matthew did not sit down and decide to concoct a story about Jesus that he could use as propaganda in his own day fighting enemies of later years during the Jewish Revolt years of 66-70 CE, as Sim is indicating.3 Matthew looked at all the pieces of data that he had with him, studied each one of them and then arranged them to be copied in sequence one by one to fit their space in his combination of the sources. Here and there at the seams he added a title, theme, heading, explanation of a difficult word or concept, but it will amount to less than 1% of the content of the whole book.

4. How do we know that is the way Matthew was written?

1. All the synoptics and John is agenda-less. Proper bookwriting in those days, similarly to the book of Plutarch on the Moon, gave the views of his participants with exactness, not leaving room for his own views except when he participated as well in the discussion as in the case with Plutarch. But then again, he cites verbatim only what he said and not what his own reflections are about what they said or he said. The rules of the writing game of those days did not allow this freedom. Paul could not speak his own agenda. He had to move from prooftext to prooftext for every single observation he made.

2. In his book Ptolemaic Alexandria, especially the volume dealing with the Notes, M. Frazer indicated that the Ptolemees were keen to copy books to be placed in the library of Alexandria. We learn that there were families who's occupation it was to duplicate books and sell it on the open market. There were keen collectors of books among the wealthy. When someone was a good speaker or good preacher, people took notes or memos of the exact words the important person was saying and then copied them to distribute them to the interested parties for money. Preaching CD's and Tapes of famous preachers are still produced privately today. It was no different in those days except that the means of copying was different.

3. If thousands come to listen to Jesus, you can accept that at least one of them is a writer who would be able to take notes, memos or word for word account of the event.

4. Book thefts and book burning practices led to people hiding their home libraries. Qumran may be such a case of hiding a library due to persecution.

5. Revision of the description of David Sim on Matthew’s Jesus

Understanding the role of hermeneutics of suspicion, understanding the historiography of the first century CE, understanding the role of biblical theology and systematic theology of the Old and New Testaments, we are ready to look again with faith at the topic which David Sims placed on the table.

There are two points that Sim wants to focus on in the book of Matthew:

"The first concerns Jesus’ attitude towards the scribes and Pharisees which occurs within the story that Matthew narrates. Jesus’ scathing critique of these people, albeit in response to their mistreatment of him, stands in significant tension with the ethical principles he teaches in the Sermon on the Mount.

The second and more significant instance does not relate to the words and actions of Jesus at the time of his historical mission, but to his role at the eschaton after he returns in glory to preside over the final judgment. Matthew’s portrait of this eschatological Jesus as a figure of brutality and vengeance with no forgiveness or

compassion stands in complete contrast to the moral code proclaimed by the

same Jesus at the time of his earthly appearance."

What David in essence is saying, is that in Matthew 5 Jesus is portrayed as preaching love your enemies but in Matthew 23 He had in his actions sharp criticism against them. Thus, Jesus did not practice what He preached. How do we answer this objection?

a. David Sim does not understand the Old Testament properly the way Matthew did.

The Messiah of the Old Testament was to come two times, first as a lamb and secondly as a lion. Soteriology was connected to the Christology of His First Advent, but the Judgment was connected to His actions later at His Second Advent. It is thus appropriate for Matthew to present the complete view of Christ as Savior and inviter to salvation but also later as the Judge at the Executive Judgment in the Eschaton. The one image of the Messiah was not suppose to cancel the other image. The Priestly Messiah was not suppose to cancel the options of the Kingly Messiah. This fundamental aspect lacks in the investigation of Sim.

b. He lacks a proper view of the role and function of the Messiah at His first Advent

Christ came to His own because He worked with spiritual Israel. The Pharisees were suppose to be spiritual but they lacked the proper spirituality. They did not come up to the expectations of what He outlined through Moses and the prophets to them.  Jesus did not hate the Pharisees per se, see Nicodemus' case, it is a matter that all humanity is subject to, what do you do with Jesus?

c. What Sim does not understand, is that Matthew may have written his gospel between 31-33 CE, see Acts 1:22-26. Matthew had the responsibility to remember and witness of Jesus from His baptism to His resurrection. This means that the whole theory of a writing originating in 66-70 CE, after the death of Paul and Peter, is nil and void. The complete understanding of Paul of incidents in the life of Jesus, means that the gospels and their information was distributed and available to all long before Paul wrote Corinthians.

d. Scholars' understanding of Matthew 5 is a problem Pope Ratzinger in his book Jesus of Nazareth 2007: 54 states that "This is supposedly the real task of religions to work together for the coming of the 'Kingdom'. Ellen White in her classic Desire of Ages 1898: 312 stated: "Bible religion is not one influence among many others: its influence is to be supreme, pervading and controlling every other".

e. In Matthew's autobiography of himself and his calling in Matthew 9:9-13, he is very modest in saying that "he stood up and followed Him" but Luke gave us the full picture that Matthew "left everything behind" in that moment (Luke 5:28).

f. What Sim does not understand is that when you are dealing with seemingly contrasting data between the Synoptics, you are not polarizing them but harmonizing them. The data are fused so that it is not a case of one or the other but the one plus the other. For example, in Matthew 9 it is Jesus that are blamed but in Luke 5 it is the disciples that are blamed. Did Luke change the true picture or did Mattthew reported wrongly? No, both are correct. The one action may have happened a second before the other. If they blame Jesus, it is natural that the disciples would respond and then they would blame the disciples also. One witness remembered that the disciples were blamed and another witness remembered that Jesus were blamed. If people are eating they are noisy, and if they are far from where Jesus are sitting they will only hear the criticism against themselves eating but due to the noise they could not hear the first blame against Jesus that the person heard who was sitting next to Jesus and that became the source for Matthew's account.

6. Jesus the Role Model

As far as Jesus the role model is concerned, the ethic Jesus taught in Matthew 5 was not new. It is the character of God and embedded in the true reading of the Law of God given to Moses on Sinai. There is no elevated ethic here. What you have here is the Sinless Divine Creator of the universe, spells out what He gave to Moses in the first place, and the ethic will be forceful and primary. If you study the sins of Israel in the prophets, it was their lack of these aspects that gave them a problem with their spirituality. Psalm 15, Psalm 24 and many other passages correctly understood the Matthew 5 ethic. Christ was the one that made sure all in the Old Testament understood it.

a. "Jesus blesses meekness among his followers (5:5) . . .  In 11:29 he pronounces ‘I am meek and lowly of heart’, while in 21:5 Matthew the narrator cites Zech. 9:9, ‘Your king is coming to you meek and mounted on an ass’, as Jesus prepares to enter Jerusalem. " Of course as the lamb of God Jesus is still the King of the Universe since He is its Creator and Lawgiver. Of course it is meekness to ride a donkey when angels are eager to carry Him.

b. "servanthood."  "Jesus teaches that

leadership is tied up with servanthood (23:11; 24:45-51; 25:14-30) and he

proclaims that he came not to be served but to serve, and does so by giving

his life for the many (26:28)."

c. "Jesus directs his followers to renounce worldly goods (6:19-21, 24-25) and he lives an itinerant existence free of comfort (8:20)."

d. "He also warns them that they must be prepared to take up their cross (16:24), and of course towards the end of the narrative the innocent Jesus is crucified (27:35-50)."

e. Prayer. "He advises that prayer must be performed in private (6:6), and Jesus prays by himself on a mountain (14:23) and alone on three occasions in the Garden of Gethsemane (26:36-44). "

g. Forgiveness.

"In the Lord’s Prayer Jesus teaches that his followers must forgive their debtors just as they are forgiven by God (6:12), and this is reiterated in the two verses that come after the conclusion of the prayer (6:14-15). The notion of forgiveness is also prominent in Chapter 18. In vv. 21-22 Jesus tells Peter that he should be prepared to forgive not just on seven occasions but as many as seventy times seven, a concept that probably entails limitless forgiveness."

h. Mercy.

"the setting for a parable about the necessity of forgiveness and mercy in 18:23-35, the moral of which is that we should forgive our debtors just as God has forgiven

our much greater debt to him. In accordance with this emphasis on forgiveness, the Matthean Jesus has the authority to forgive the sins of others (9:2-8) and he dies on the cross for the forgiveness of sins (26:28). Jesus likewise emphasises the quality of mercy (5:7) and Matthew spells out in detail how the mission of Jesus exhibits this concept."

1.”Jesus shows mercy by eating with tax collectors and sinners (9:9-13), but it is in

his healings and exorcisms that his compassion is most clearly illustrated” (Sim 2010).

2. “In the healing of the two blind men in 9:27-31, the afflicted men approach Jesus and ask him to have mercy on them. Jesus responds with compassion by healing them. A second healing of two blind men in 20:29-34 follows the same pattern. In response to their double plea for Jesus to show them mercy, Jesus takes pity on them and opens their eyes” (Sim 2010).

3. “The Canaanite woman also appeals to Jesus’ mercy to heal her possessed daughter, and Jesus accedes to her request (15:21-28)” (Sim 2010).

4. “In a similar episode a father asks Jesus to have mercy on his possessed son, and Jesus exorcises the unclean spirit (17:14-21)” (Sim 2010).

5. “The same theme appears in the healings that Jesus performs on the Sabbath in 12:1-14” (Sim 2010).

6. “When he is criticised by the Pharisees, Jesus cites in his defense Hos. 6:6; ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice’ (cf. 9:13)” (Sim 2010).

i. Law. "Jesus’ constant demonstration of mercy in Matthew’s Gospel  is informed by the

statement in 23:23 that mercy is one of the fundamental aspects of the Law. This introduces another important connection between the teaching of Jesus and his actions in Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus proclaims that the Mosaic Law must be fulfilled to the letter (5:17-19) and he instructs the healed leper in 8:4 to abide by the demands of the Torah. The greatest of the commandments are love of God and love of neighbour (22:34-40; cf. 19:18-19), and Jesus fulfils both in his mission. The love of God is demonstrated by obedience to the will of the Father (6:10; 7:21; 12:50), and Jesus accedes to his Father’s will by submitting to crucifixion (26:42). His love of neighbour

appears in his miracles of mercy and compassion and by his atoning death (20:28; 26:28)." (Sim 2010).

j. Peacemaking, reconcilliation and non-retalliation

"The Matthean Jesus places great store in peacemaking (5:9), reconciliation and non-retaliation. Disciples are not simply to refrain from killing, but are to resist the temptation to become angry, to insult others and to call their brother a fool (5:21-22). They are also to reconcile themselves with their accusers (5:23-26) and not resist those who are evil. When struck on one cheek, they are to offer the other; when sued for one garment, they are to offer another garment as well; and when forced to go one mile, they are freely to go a second mile (5:39-42). Jesus demands that his followers must love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them as they strive for perfection (vv. 43-48)." (Sim 2010).

1. Arrest.

"As he is arrested, Jesus does not resist. When one of his disciples retaliates by cutting off the ear of the high priest’s slave, Jesus denounces this violent act by stating that all who take the sword will perish by the sword (26:51-52)." (Sim 2010).

2. Trial.

"During his trial before the High Priest and the council, Jesus remains controlled and largely silent. He offers no resistance when he is spat upon and beaten (26:57-68), and he continues to adopt his silent and non-retaliatory posture before Pilate (27:11-26)." (Sim 2010).

3. Mocking.

"Jesus is then handed to his executioners who mock him, spit on him, beat him and humiliate him (27:27-31). Again Jesus maintains a dignified silence and offers no

resistance to these brutal Roman soldiers. As he hangs on the cross, he is subjected to a range of derisory comments by passersby, the chief priests, scribes and elders, and even by those who were crucified with him (27:39-44). Once more Jesus makes no attempt to respond, and his final sound is a loud cry to God as he dies (27:50). Despite being subjected to a host of injustices, indignities and brutal punishments, Jesus offers no resistance to his enemies. He does not get angry, but remains meek, passive and silent as he fulfils the will of the Father." (Sim 2010).

6. Sim’s turning point

"But these texts tell only part of the story, and it is to the other parts that we may now turn. We shall begin with the attitude of the Matthean Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees."

7. The Matthean Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees

“In Matt. 5:22 Jesus pronounces that whoever says ‘(you) fool’ will be condemned to the fires of Gehenna. Yet the Matthean Jesus uses that very term in 23:17 when he addresses the scribes and Pharisees as ‘fools and blind men’ .” (Sim 2010: 8).

What Sim is not understanding, is that Christ was divine and He could read the hearts and minds of His audience. They were really foolish and is it not sensible to say, while we cannot read hearts and minds of other people. and thus cannot say they are foolish, Christ can? His evaluation is thus not false but true. This is not disappointing since He is the great Judge of the Universe. He has the authority and legitimacy to test anyone and evaluate anyone. Nothing is hidden from His eyes. In this sense, foolishness is adequately declared by the correct analysis of the right Person.  It is immaterial whether Jesus allowed the word fools for outsiders but not our fellow Christians.4

As Sim indicated correctly, the Pharisees were really wrong:

"In the context of Matthew’s narrative these groups, either singly or together, are the real villains of the piece. They are offended by the teaching of Jesus (15:12), they think evil of him (9:4), they charge him with blasphemy (9:3), they attack him with breaking the Torah (12:2; cf. 15:1-2) and for eating with sinners (9:11), they test him (19:3; 22:15-16, 34-35), and they plot to kill him (12:14)."

Sim expected Jesus to act softly and as a meek peacemaker. Sim accuses Jesus of acting in a similar way as the Pharisees.

"They are hypocrites (6:2, 5, 16; 15:7; 22:18; 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27-29), blind guides

(15:14; 23:16, 19, 24, 26), fools (23:17), children of Gehenna (23:15) and a brood of vipers (12:34; 23:33; cf. 3:7). In terms of their behaviour Jesus criticises them for failing to practice what they preach (23:3; 27-29), for placing intolerable burdens on others (23:4), for soliciting admiration (23:5-7), for placing their own tradition before the will of God (15:2-3; 23:15-26), for lacking the appropriate level of righteousness (5:20) and for either agreeing to or committing acts of murder (23:29-36; cf. 22:6). They abuse their leadership roles by leading the people astray (15:14), by preventing

them from entering the kingdom of heaven (23:13) and by making converts twice as much a child Gehenna than they are (23:15). Both the scribes (9:4) and the Pharisees (12:34; 22:18) are described as evil, which in the context of Matthew’s dualistic schema marks them as followers of Satan, the evil one (cf. 5:37; 6:13; 13:19, 38)."5

"The harsh polemic of the Matthean Jesus against these opponents is distributed throughout the Gospel, but it reaches its climax in the discourse of Chapter 23. Here Jesus mounts a bitter and unrelenting attack on his enemies using no less than seven times the condemnatory opening formula, ‘woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites’ (23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29), or the alternative, ‘woe to you, blind guides’ (23:16)."

Sim's analysis of the data is correct. His interpretation of the data needs serious revision. He concluded with a hermeneutics of suspicion:

"We find in this vitriolic speech no mercy, forgiveness, reconciliation or love of enemy, but plenty of anger, negative judgements, retaliation, and insulting and abusive language. In his dealings with these opponents, the Matthean Jesus appears not to

practise himself what he preaches to his followers. As a result his charges of hypocrisy against the scribes and Pharisees contain more than a touch of irony."

How does Sim solve this dilemma he created for himself? He claims that Matthew is trying to mirror Jesus on a similar situation of a resurgent Pharisaism (or Formative Judaism) in 66-70 CE and that Matthew is unleashing these criticisms through the mouth of Jesus on them. Kind of a fake or pseudo creation by Matthew he claims, and actually leads him to blame Matthew for misconstruing the image of Jesus.6

8. Various scholars addressing the issue of the anger in Matthew

D. C. Allison

He maintained that while Jesus was a prophet, He had the right to speak with anger to His opponents.

D. C. Allison has suggested that Matthew (and the Matthean Jesus) permitted exceptions to the teaching on anger. "As a prophet Jesus has every right to display prophetic indignation and speak harsh truths against his opponents who are leading others to eternal damnation (23:15-16). His obligation to love and save everyone overrides in some circumstances the command not to get angry."7

U. Luz

Sim felt that Luz is honest by rejecting Matthew's description as "distateful":

"‘For me there is a fundamental contradiction between Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies and what happens in the woes against the scribes and Pharisees. It is a contradiction that cannot be explained away’."8

We need to point out that we have an Australian concept of honesty here. Sim is claiming that Luz is "more honest" because he lashes out against the Bible. It is the second time that I found a scholar from Australia working with this negative view of honesty. Mudslinging is considered "honest" while romanticizing about something is not.

Ellen White

In Desire of Ages (1898): 611-612, Ellen White address this change in Jesus' last day of preaching. She said about the people who came to listen to Him: "Through their reverence for tradition and their blind faith in a corrupt priesthood, the people were enslaved. These chains Christ must break. The character of the priests, rulers, and Pharisees must be more fully exposed."

She gave us another picture of that day in Matthew 23:

"Christ's indignation was directed against the hypocrisy, the gross sins, by which men were destroying their own souls, deceiving the people and dishonoring God. In the specious deceptive reasoning of the priests and rulers He discerned the working of satanic agencies. Keen and searching had been His denunciation of sin; but He spoke no words of retaliation. He had a holy wrath against the prince of darkness; but He manifested no irritated temper. So the Christian who lives in harmony with God, possessing the sweet attributes of love and mercy, will feel a righteous

indignation against sin; but he will not be roused by passion to revile those who revile him. Even in meeting those who are moved by a power from beneath to maintain falsehood, in Christ he will still preserve calmness and self-possession" (Ellen White, Desire of Ages 1898: 619-620).

This is the perspective that Sim lacks. It is against Satan and his works in humanity that Christ direct His accusations. Christ loves the sinner but hates sin (also a saying by Ellen White).

9. Conclusions

This study has examined the historiographical understanding of some scholars and also their understanding of first century writing protocols. It was found that they are operating with a handicap in their epistemology, the hermeneutics of suspicion that shows up in their methodology and prevents them from having a complete understanding of the true role and function of Jesus in the book of Matthew. It was also found that they lack a basic understanding of biblical theology in general and systematic theology of the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, their Christology, Eschatology, and a proper understanding of the sources that are the foundation of these concepts, does not reflect a harmonious wholesome understanding. Caution is called for.

Author: Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD) is teaching at Kyungpook National University Sangju Campus in South Korea and is also Conjoined lecturer at Avondale College, Australia. and a

member of the Adventist Theological Society.

Email: kootvanwyk@gmail.com

Endnotes

1. The article in mind here is that of David Sim, "Jesus as Role Model in the Gospel of Matthew: Do the Matthean Jesus Practise what He Preaches?" AEJT 16 (August 2010): 1-20.

2. Ibid.

3. D. Sim, AEJT 16 (2010): 11. See the major studies on this view cited by Sim; J. A. Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990); A. J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); and B. Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism (FRLANT 189; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000).

4 Discussed by David Sim (Sim 2010: 8), and contested by him as a solution for the opposition between Matthew 5:22 and Matthew 23:17. Insider and outsider distinctions were made by R. Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives (SNTSMS

48; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 181 n. 45; R. H. Gundry,

Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn 1994) 463; and U. Luz, Matthew 21-28

(Hermeneia: Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005) 120 n. 63. W. D. Davies and D. C.

Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint

Matthew (ICC; 3 vols; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997), III, 291, note this

explanation without committing themselves to it. An alternative understanding is

proffered by A. H. M‘Neile, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan,

1915) 334, who suggests that what is at issue is not the word itself but the spirit in

which it is uttered. Sim felt that M'Neile is introducing an aspect that is not present in Matthew

5:22 although it may explain Jesus use of it in Matthew 23:17. As Ellen White says in Desire of Ages 1898: 307 "The Pharisees prided themselves on their obedience to the law; yet they knew so little of its principles through everyday practice that to them the Saviour's words sounded like heresy. As He swept away the rubbish under which the truth had been buried, they thought He was sweeping away the truth itself. They whispered to one another that He was making light of the law. He read their thoughts...." This is the key, since Christ could read people's thoughts, He had the right to allocate foolishness properly as a correct attribute of a person's heart.

5. See D. C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (SNTSMS 88;

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 76-77.

6. D. C. Sim 2010: 10-11. J. A. Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism:

The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990); A.

J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1994); and B. Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew:

Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship between the Matthean

Community and Formative Judaism (FRLANT 189; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 2000).

7. D. C. Allison, ‘Deconstructing Matthew’, in Allison, Studies in Matthew, 237-49

(247-48).

8. U. Luz, Matthew 21-28, 138, 175.