Jesus and Moses in Matthew 1-4

Introduction

Many have noticed Matthew’s sensitive contrast between Moses and Jesus.  This is fairly obvious when we get to the Sermon on the Mount where, just like Moses, he delivers something of a new law to the people.  If you read any standard introduction to the biblical theology themes of Matthew, you will find many such examples of how Jesus is the New Moses.

Jesus on Mount 

I’d like to share with all of you a little more of how Matthew portrays Jesus as not just the new Moses, but the one who is greater than Moses.  I will focus my attention on the birth narrative in chapters one and two.  Much of this information depends upon common first century beliefs about Moses, and illustrates how a better appreciation of the primary sources can help us understand the biblical text better.

The Direct Quotation

Let’s begin with the quotation of Exod 4:19 in Matt 2:20.  In Exodus, God tells Moses to return to Egypt, while in Matthew, the angel tells Joseph to return to Israel.  Here’s how the two texts read in the NIV:

Exod 4:19       ...for all the men who wanted to kill you are dead.

Matt 2:20        ...for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.

The Greek texts of Exod 4:19 (Septuagint) and Matt 2:20 are actually as close as they can possibly be, except for the difference of the use of the second person (“you”) in Exodus, while Matthew refers in its place “the child,” an unavoidable difference.

So, we have here two very similar stories of the main character returning to his homeland for the same reason, with Matthew giving an almost direct quotation of the earlier text.  This should give us the interpretive clue that Matthew is comparing Jesus to Moses.

Listing the Other Parallels

However, there are many more clues.  Let’s list them.  (I culled the raw data from the New International Critical Commentary on Matthew, pp. 192-193, for full citation of the primary sources.)

Josephus, a 1st cent. Jewish historian

1.         According to Josephus (whose dates are approximate to Paul’s), the Jews believed that Amram (Moses’ father) was troubled at the news of the coming birth of Moses.  Also, Josephus says that God appeared to Amram in a dream and told him not to despair.  In telling the story, Josephus lauds Amram for his piety and noble character.  Matthew says the same things about Joseph:  Joseph was a righteous and noble man, he was troubled at the news of the pregnancy, and he was told not to be afraid.  (See also Pseudo-Philo, probably first century.)

2.         According to Pseudo-Philo, the Jews believed that an angel appeared to make an announcement of the coming birth of one by whom “I will save my people.”  In the same way, an angel also appeared to Joseph to foretell the birth of the one who would “save my people from their sins.”

3.         Pharaoh ordered the death of all the Hebrew boys.  Likewise, King Herod gave similar orders regarding the boys of Bethlehem.

4.         Josephus says that the Jews believed that Pharaoh ordered the drowning of the Hebrew boys because he learned of the birth of a future liberator of Israel (see also the Aramaic Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod 1:15).  Likewise, Herod’s motivation for the slaughter of the innocents was the same.

5.         Josephus says that the Jews believed that Pharaoh learned of this future liberator from sacred scribes (see also the aforementioned Targum).  Likewise, Herod learned of the coming Messiah through the chief priests and scribes.

6.         Just as Moses was forced to leave his home by people who wanted to kill him, Jesus also was forced to leave his home because people wanted to kill him.

7.         Just as Moses took his wife and sons and went back to Egypt (Exod 4:20), Joseph took his son and his wife and went back to Israel.

8.         Finally, the issue in Matthew 2 is, Who is the real king of the Jews?  Obviously, Jesus is, not Herod.  But interestingly, according to Josephus, Philo, and a number of other Rabbinic traditions, the Jews believed that Moses also was a king.

Concluding Comments

Let me just hasten to say that much of the Jewish beliefs about Moses are legendary and found outside of the Old or New Testaments.  However, the primary sources do tell us what first century Jews typically believed about Moses.  When reading Matthew’s Gospel, they would not have overlooked these parallels, even if we moderns don’t get a picture as fully developed as they did.

Now, this is just raw data.  Interpretation of the raw data requires a bit more work.  Minimally, we see that Jesus is being compared with Moses.  Later in Matthew, we see that Jesus’ word is superior to that of Moses.  The theme can be developed much more fully.

The birth narrative in Matthew’s Gospel clearly sets out to compare Moses to Jesus.  It doesn’t quite tell us who is greater, but it gives us a heads up so that we can look for other clues later in the story.

After the Passover, the Israelites departed Egypt and crossed through the Red Sea.  Many have also compared Christian baptism to the same event.  If this comparison is valid we see that Jesus’ baptism might correspond to the Israelite crossing of the Red Sea.  But Jesus’ venture through the waters was followed by the divine pronouncement of his sonship, revealing that he is more so God’s Son than Israel ever was; recall the Matthean quote, “Out of Egypt I have called my Son.”

After the crossing of the Red Sea, the Children of Israel were tested in the wilderness.  Likewise, after Jesus’ water experience, he too went into the desert to be tested.  The Israelites failed in this time of testing, but Jesus Messiah endured the testing successfully.

After crossing the Red Sea, Moses went up to a mountain, received the Covenant and issued it to the people.  In Matthew, after his Jordan experience, Jesus also goes to a mountain and lays out the Covenant to the people (i.e., The Sermon on the Mount).  In doing so, Jesus exerts his superiority to Moses not only by announcing that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, but also by saying, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago....  But I tell you.....”  Clearly the Messiah is a prophet greater than Moses.

My comparison of Jesus to Moses is limited to the first few chapters of Matthew.  However, more could be spelled out.  

Historicity of the Magi Story in Matthew

One of my most awkward moments at Cambridge was at a formal occasion at St. Edmund's College. Over dinner, some very conversant older gentlemen, perhaps about 80 years old, inquired about my research, and became rather animated when he discovered that Matthew's Gospel was my subject.

I didn't know the man, and when at Cambridge, you must always be on your guard in case you discover afterward that you've been talking with the world's foremost leading expert in some subject. At St. Edmund's College, this was often the case in the field of astronomy.

So, my inquisitor, in a rather friendly way and in an uncharacteristically loud voice for a Brit, asked me what I thought about the historicity of the journey of the magi in Matthew 2. In a more or less British fashion, I tried to evade such a direct question. But my inquisitor would not allow my diversion, and he pressed his question more directly, and did so yet a third time.

By this time, his wife and others seemed also a bit embarrassed for me and tried to change the subject, but yet he pressed me. As a matter of fact, I really do believe that Magi from the East came to worship Christ, and I figured that this hostile scholar was about to reveal to everyone at Cambridge that I was an ignorant fool to believe such a myth.

So, not being ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, I said in my most scholarly voice that I figured there was enough evidence to make the case that Matthew at least met the standard of historiography for his time frame.

At this, the man laughed and congratulated me for my answer, and he declared to everyone that I was an upstanding young chap! (My wife disputes that he used the word "young" to describe me.)

As it turns out, the elderly gentleman was none other than world famous astronomical historian Michael Hoskin. His résumé is a mile long, and he belongs to whatever royal academies there are. He even has a planet named after him.

Hoskin the astronomy historian then explained to me the Matthew exegete that astrologers (i.e., Magi) probably witnessed an "heliacal rising" within a constellation of stars viewed as pertaining to the Jews. He then asserted that historically, such astrologers would have been motivated to make the kind of pilgrimage to Judea as described in Matthew. And in keeping with the Matthean account, the star of the heliacal rising would have appeared in the sky for a while, then disappear, and then reappear. Hoskin places this heliacal rising within the time-frame of Jesus' birth.

Of course, I cannot account for any of the astronomy stuff, so I'll defer the science to the experts. But the story I relate above is accurate and I'm glad to know that someone like Hoskin does think the story of the Magi is historically plausible, if not likely.

Here's Hoskin's CV: http://www.michaelhoskin.com/

Pastor's Page: A Tale of Two Kings (Advent #3)

This is a short devotional formatted to fit a church bulletin page (in a large print font) which churches may freely reproduce, if the blog address is cited.

A Tale of Two Kings

One king wasn't born a king at all; he hadn't even a drop of royalty in his blood. He had to scratch, connive, conspire, and backstab all the way to his throne. The other King was born a true king, not by virtue of his genealogy—although he was descendant of kings—but by virtue of his very nature.

One king looked like a king. He wore royal garments and was surrounded by royal courtesans. He lived in fine palaces and was protected by body guards and armies. The other King didn't look like a king at all. He wore swaddling rags and claimed a feeding trough for a crib. His courtesans, so to speak, were bedraggled shepherds.

One king sought everyone's worship and adoration. He exerted his kingship like a petty thug or a child tyrant. On hearing the news of another king being worshiped, he took drastic desperate steps to stop it. The other King was meek and lowly. To those who worshiped him, he gave the gift of rest and life. To show his love for us, he stretched his arms wide open to receive us as he drew his dying breaths.

One king died and was buried. No one mourned his death or built a great memorial to him. The other King, too, died, but was resurrected to life. His monument to us is an empty tomb.

O come, let us adore the true King.

A Christmas Choral Reading for Five Readers

It Was in a Dream:
A Christmas Call to Discipleship

A Christmas Choral Reading for Five Readers

James M. Leonard
Christmas, 2007

http://jmleonardfamily.googlepages.com/itwasinadream%3Aachristmascalltodisciplesh

Pastor's Page: Joying a Great Joy Greatly (Advent #2)

Awkward as it may sound, "joying a great joy greatly" is pretty close to the Greek of those biblical passages describing people's response to the coming of the Lord (see Matthew 2:10). Of course, not everyone is so eager for the coming of the Lord, but those who earnestly seek him are filled with a glorious and unspeakable joy (1 Peter 1:8).

Why such joy at the birth of a baby? Yes, we're all happy about the birth of any baby. But this baby was different, filling not only his parents with unspeakable and indescribable joy, but also even strangers with the kind of joy which is otherwise never, ever experienced. What was it about this baby which brought such joy?

The birth of this baby Jesus was a demonstration of God's great love and commitment to us—let us rejoice! The manger scene was a fulfillment of promises made long ago that God would not leave us in our fallen state—let us rejoice! The angel's announcement signaled that the time had come for a new beginning which will culminate in the new heavens and the new earth—let us rejoice!

This news eclipses even the joy of happy faces opening presents around the Christmas tree. In fact, without the coming of Christ, we'd be left to live in die in the worst sort of misery. So, for this reason, we "joy a great joy greatly."

http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/

Master's Thesis: Fulfillment of Temple Theology in Matthew's Gospel

1994 Master's Thesis: Fulfillment of Temple Theology in Matthew's Gospel (Regent College, Vancouver, B.C., copyright 1994 by James M. Leonard)

Chapter 1

Introduction to the Problem
and Preview of Argument

1.1. Introduction

This chapter is designed to introduce the issue of Jesus and Temple in Matthew's Gospel. The history of research is outlined, followed by a preview of the argument contained in the subsequent chapters.


1.1.1. Review of Modern Scholarship

Developments in modern biblical scholarship have made a study on Jesus and the Temple in Matthew a timely endeavor. Such a study is propelled by advances in the third quest for the historical Jesus and in recent analyses of Matthew's theology. Both of these fronts are briefly analyzed in the following paragraphs.


1.1.2. The Third Quest for the Historical Jesus

The third quest for the historical Jesus has often found the relationship between Jesus and Temple at its center. This is the case, at least to some extent, in works by Marcus Borg, S.G.F. Brandon, Craig Evans, Richard A. Horsley, Ben F. Meyer, Jacob Neusner, but especially so in works by Bruce Chilton, Ernst Lohmeyer, E.P. Sanders, and N. Thomas Wright. The relationship between the historical Jesus and the Temple is explored further in section 3.2., and one may read Sanders for an extended analysis and review of the quest for the historical Jesus. Based upon the insights and contributions of these recent scholars, one may conclude that any resolution to the problem of the historical Jesus must explain Jesus' relationship to the Temple.

A study of the relationship between Jesus and the Temple in Matthew contributes to the quest in two significant ways. First of all, upon mature reflection of the text, one may find numerous indications of the historical relationship between Jesus and the Temple. Second, Matthew, as a member of the primitive community, is able to proffer his own assessment of the relationship between Jesus and the Temple, which may in fact reflect the historical situation. While the following chapters do not emphasize the quest, they certainly invite further consideration of the issue, especially in regard to Matthew's document.


1.2. The Theology of Matthew

In the 1960s and 1970s, redaction criticism came to the forefront as a critical tool of biblical scholarship. Remarkable advances have been made using this tool in conjunction with synoptic studies. However, just a few works providing a more comprehensive overview of Matthew's theology have been published, despite the availability of numerous works which detail specific aspects of Matthean theological peculiarities. To date, there is no work which provides a careful analysis of Matthew's Temple theology.

This last statement needs some qualification. H. Frankemö1le analyzes Matthew's Presence theology, focusing on 1:23 and 28:20 and other texts which refer to Immanuel's presence with his Church. Frankemö1le, however, does not seem to relate his discussion to Matthew's Temple theology. A few works, briefly or in passing, discuss Matthew's Temple theology in counterpoint to one or more of the other Gospels (e.g., Telford, Chance, and Weinert), or in the context of a general overview of Temple theology (e.g., R.E. Clements, B. Gartner, Lloyd Gaston, and R.J. McKelvey). However, the value of these works in regard to Matthew is largely vitiated by their brevity and lack of in depth analysis. No article or monograph provides a comprehensive discussion or even an adequate overview of Matthew's Temple theology.

Given the general interest in redaction criticism and in the Temple's role in the third quest, this dearth of inquiry regarding Jesus and the Temple in Matthew is striking. One would think that a study of Jesus and the Temple in Matthew would considerably advance present knowledge of Matthew's theology and the historical Jesus. Furthermore, such a study would almost certainly impact the issue of early Jewish Christianity and the parting of the ways since Matthew seems to have such a Heimat and since the Temple would likely have been a significant factor in debates between the parent and child communities (cf., e.g., the role of the Temple in Qumran's quarrel with the parent community). Consequently, a study of Jesus and the Temple in Matthew offers the potential to make considerable advances toward a better understanding of the historical Jesus, Matthew's own theology, and the relationship between primitive Christianity and Judaism.


1.3. Preview of Argument

Matthew inherited from the OT a rich and multifaceted Temple tradition. At the heart of this tradition was the notion that God had made his dwelling with his holy people and that God's abiding presence was manifest in the Temple. These traditions developed throughout the course of Israel's history, beginning at Mt. Sinai and continuing with numerous national crises, so that in the last and succeeding years of the kingdom, there arose a vision of a new eschatological Temple associated with the establishment of God's rule. In conjunction with this new vision, there arose disputes regarding cultic procedures and other issues which created some dissent within Jewish society, so much so that some fringe groups distanced themselves from the Temple and engaged in a thoroughgoing polemic against it. Against this background, Jesus and the Christian movement arose. There is evidence that Jesus himself took some (prophetic) action against the Temple and predicted its destruction. Some Christian communities reflected on Jesus' actions and predictions and concluded that the Temple had become obsolete and that somehow the eschatological Temple had arisen and was now comprised of members of the Church; in short, OT Temple theology was viewed as being fulfilled in the Church. Matthew's Gospel seems to reflect one such community.

That Matthew viewed the Church as fulfilling OT Temple theology is suggested variously throughout his Gospel. First of all, Matthew emphasizes God's presence with his faithful people, the Church, in the person of Jesus who is Immanuel, God with us. This emphasis is obtained by Matthew's repeated allusions to the Immanuel passage or its theology. In so doing, Matthew has incorporated the absolute fundamentum of OT Temple theology in describing Jesus' relationship to the Church. Second, Matthew describes the founding and functioning of the Church in terms which have a Temple domain. Third, Matthew hints at the Temple's defilement and underscores Jesus' declaration of judgment against the Temple in such a way as to establish that it is no longer the dwelling place of God. These elements of Matthew's Temple theology are explored in the following chapters with the intention of establishing that Matthew viewed the Temple as having been surpassed by the presence of Jesus in his Church in the new age, and therefore, as having become obsolete and destined for destruction. Matthew's community, then, is probably to be viewed as belonging to a larger Christian community which also viewed the Temple as obsolete and surpassed by something greater in the eschatological age.

Transferal of Old Testament Temple Theology to the Church

One of the major components of OT religion is the Temple. It is an essential element of Jewishness. It factors also into the millennial schemes of some. While Dispensationalists would reject the notion of future sacrifices, a Restored Temple is a future expectation for them.

In contrast, the biblical writers viewed that there was an essential transferal of OT theology from national Israel to the Church. This was not so much a matter of making the Church equivalent to Israel, but rather that the Church was included into Israel by virtue of Christ's position as heir of the OT promises. As such, the Church is the true remnant of Israel, being akin to the stones being raised up as children for Abraham on the basis that they, like Abraham, believed in God.

One example of the transferal of OT theology to the church is Temple theology. The essential element of Temple theology is that the Temple was the locus of God's presence. Without this element, Temple theology would be nil. The motif is so strong and obvious, I won't detail it in this overview, although I wrote about 150 pages on it in my Master's thesis.

Matthew takes this motif and transfers it to the church. In his view, the Temple was no longer the locus of God's presence. Like Ezek 8-11, Matthew represents Jesus Immanuel as abandoning the Temple at the conclusion of Matt 23 and Matt 24:1. Rather than God's presence residing at the Temple, it has moved to reside in God's people, Jesus' disciples.

This portion of Matthean theology is perceptible in his Immanuel inclusio. Jesus himself is Immanuel, God-with-us (Matt 1:21). And he is with us always, even to the consummation of the age (Matt 28:20. Moreover, the theme is reinforced at significant points in Matthew, for where two or three are gathered in Jesus' name, Immanuel is present with them.

The fact that God's presence is removed from the Temple, makes the Temple a haunt for every kind of foul spirit and abomination; the swept house is made seven times worse. It is left to them desolate. It deserves to be torn down, without a stone being left atop the other. No longer is it a house of prayer, as the house of prayer now belongs to the disciples of Jesus who gather in his name, and among whom Immanuel is present as they ask anything in his name.

In every conceivable way, Matthew takes every aspect of Temple theology and transfers it to the church. Much more could be said.

But the one point I'm arguing is that the Church receives all the OT promises. Temple theology is but one example of an OT theme or promise being transferred to the Church. This was an interpretive matrix of the earliest Christians. By virtue of their faith in Jesus—the Supreme Jew—they were all made joint-heirs with Jesus, regardless of race.