The author of the Gospel of Matthew was mainly focused on convincing his audience, widely postulated to be the Jews, that Jesus was the promised Messiah and thus tried to portray him as a ‘new Moses’, a bringer and giver of the new law. He attempted to achieve this goal by showing that Jesus approached the Torah in different ways. Sometimes he intensifies its demands, sometimes he sets its demands aside, sometimes he affirms its demands, sometimes he offers new teachings that can either supplement or, in some cases, supplant some of the Law’s demands, and sometimes he fulfils its promise or demands. The instances in which he did this are seen in various chapters of the book of Matthew and the author interrupts his narrative a total of twelve times just to highlight that the part of the story being told is fulfilling Old Testament prophecy[footnoteRef:0]. Matthew 4:14-16 is a great example of such an interruption. [0: Robert J. Miller, Born divine, First Edition edn (Salem: Polebridge Press, 2003), p. 155-157]
Throughout the gospel of Matthew, the argument between the Jewish leaders (the Pharisees in particular) and Jesus about the true or best interpretation of the Torah forms a constant theme. In the time of writing Matthew, estimated to be around AD70 at the very earliest[footnoteRef:1] It seems that various Jewish groups debated questions about the meaning and practice of the Torah and about the authority to interpret it. Various localised groupings with a mutual emphasis on Torah conservation and interpretation replaced the temple-based worship. The group that would be recognised as the most authoritative and accurate interpreters of the Law, would become the dominant force. Matthew’s text reveals an underlying conflict and struggles for authority. It seems that this struggle should probably be attributed to the strenuous Jewish-Christian relations of the 1st century. Although on the surface it seems that Jesus and his followers are the victims in such conflict scenes, Jesus and his followers in an ironic manner emerge as the victors in these scenes, demonstrating the superior authority of Jesus. [1: Robert T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, First Edition edn (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), p. 19]
Another way the author of Matthew can be seen going to great lengths to demonstrate Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophecy is when reading the Gospel of Matthew and paying attention to the amount of times the author applied Old Testament books in his teachings. The author of Matthew did this more than the rest of the New Testament writers. He did this because;
Firstly he was aware that Jesus would require a character and behavior not equal, but even greater and superior than that of Moses[footnoteRef:2]. The approach balanced both the beliefs of the dominant Pharisees (a Jewish religious party of laymen and scribes) on the matters of the Law of Moses while also positioning Jesus as the saviour of the Messianic prophecy that came for the fulfillment of the Mosaic laws. [2: John C. Fenton, J. The Gospel of St. Matthew, First Edition edn (England: Pelican/Penguin, 1963), p. 402]
The author seems to have also steered clear of all discussions on and around the authority of Moses and the law. To make the point at hand, Moses is mentioned but four times in the Gospel of Matthew, these being in Matthew 8:4, Matthew 19:7-8, Matthew 22:24 and Matthew 17:3-4.
This probably to eliminate doubt on the authenticity of Jesus as a Lawgiver and also to ensure he is not seen as a destroyer of said law (Matthew 5:21-48). The focus on ensuring that his audience believed that Jesus was the Messiah was among the methods the author of Matthew applied in portraying Jesus as the new Lawgiver.
Secondly, the author of Matthew internalised the faith that had been shamelessly externalised by the Pharisaic hypocrisy (Matthew 23:1-4). The Pharisee had also made people believe that the laws of Moses were final and could not be challenged by anyone despite being aware that the Messiah of the prophecies would be superior to Moses and the laws. As a result, the Pharisees avoided the discussions on Jesus as the Messiah, which was among the charges they used to justify the crucifixion. Verse 26:59-64 of the Gospel of Matthew demonstrates the argument.
Thirdly, the author of Matthew emphasised the relevance of Jesus’s choice of the twelve disciples by significantly focusing on how they represented each of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 10:1-4). The argument is confirmed in the works by Boxall, which posits that the explanation of the role of the twelve disciples and the fact that they represent the twelve tribes neutralised the tensions between them and the Pharisee[footnoteRef:3]. The same approach was also aimed at appeasing the Pharisees, who perceived the coming Messiah as coming to fulfill the laws rather than oppose it. Jesus confirms these claims in Matthew 5:16-18, which states as follows: [3: Ian Boxall, Discovering Matthew: Content, interpretation, reception, First Edition edn (London: SPCK, 2014), p. 17]
Lastly, the author of Matthew justifies the relationship between the actions of God and those of Jesus on matters of the Law. For example, Jesus sent his disciples to witness the twelve Jewish tribes just as God had sent the twelve tribes to be His witnesses. The argument affirms that Jesus acted in tandem with the provisions of God, who is also the creator of the Laws[footnoteRef:4]. It is, therefore, justifiable to claim that by aligning the legal purpose of Jesus to those of God, the author of Matthew portrayed Him as the new giver and promoter of the Law. The fact that both the witnesses of Jesus and those sent by God directly did not contradict the Law also offered the author of Matthew an opportunity to defend Jesus as a giver rather than a destroyer of the Law[footnoteRef:5]. The linking of Jesus’ disciples to the laws of Moses also offered the author of Matthew a foundation to defend Jesus as a new giver of the Law. [4: Ian Boxall, Discovering Matthew: Content, interpretation, reception, First Edition edn (London: SPCK, 2014), p. 22] [5: Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth & Heinz Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, New Edition (London: SCM, 2014) p.318]
Though found outside of the Gospel of Matthew, there are other passages within the New Testament, and parallels with the Hebrew Bible, that indicate strongly there is a single Godhead. An example being 2 Corinthians 13:13 in the New Testament. Deuteronomy 6:4 is such an example of parallels with the Hebrew Bible. An additional argument therefore could be made, using Trinitarian theology, that the Father and the Son would, by definition, be acting in tandem on matters of the Law. This does however bring us marginally outside of the scope of how the author of Matthew specifically made the case but it’s still an interesting and relevant argument to observe and be mindful of.
The author of Matthew also views Jesus as fulfilling the Law by personalising his positive gains and hopes as revealed in the Law and through the prophets. The study by Bornkamm, Barth and Held support that argument by postulating that the author of Matthew downplayed the concerns of the Pharisees on matters of the law, while elevating the position of Christ in the fulfillment of the law[footnoteRef:6]. The claims are supported in the book of Matthew 12:15-21 by the author interrupting the narrative to highlight Jesus fulfilling prophet Isaiah’s messianic prophecy. [6: Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth & Heinz Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, New Edition (London: SCM, 2014) p.319]
The author of Matthew also showed that Jesus was a sign of both Israel and Jonah foreshadowed, as seen in Matthew 12:38-41. The claims are supported in the study by Stanton, which asserts that the Pharisees were more aware of the role of John the Baptist and Israel in the development and teaching of the Law, thus making it easier to use the two in portraying Jesus as the Lawgiver[footnoteRef:7]. The role of Jonah especially on his proclamations on the prophecy of the Messiah was undoubted facts. The same applied to the role of Moses in the development and application of the laws. Using the two to justify his arguments about Jesus especially his role in the fulfillment of the law was therefore enhanced. The approach reduced the doubts that would have emanated if he ignored the roles of Jonah and Moses in matters of the law. Matthew 12:38-41 is among the sections of the book of Matthew that shows how the author described Jesus as the Lawgiver by showing Jesus was above the challenge presented by the Pharisees and instead of giving them a sign made a prophecy of a sign to come. [7: Graham Stanton, A Gospel for a New People, First Edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992) p. 109]
Moses also revisited some of the sections where the leaders of Israel exalted tradition. By invoking these sections, the author of Matthew ensured that most of the issues that would have raised questions about Jesus as a follower of the Law were eliminated. The book of Matthew 15:1-9 is an explicit example of how the author applied some of the aspects of the holy traditions of the Israelites to defend Jesus as a giver of the Law. The citing of the traditions of the people gained him support from the population which relied on culture in their approach to the laws. For example the Pharisees abided by the laws while at the same time strictly following their traditions. it was probably due to this reason that the author of Matthew found it necessary to use the approach to appeal to the would-be opponents of Jesus as the new law giver. The strongly spoken verses in Matthew 15:1-9 can be used to prove these points.
Further, Jesus reaffirms many elements of the Old Covenant as well, but he exercises a selective hermeneutic, highlighting certain parts as more crucial, more central than the rest.
Laws regarding the Sabbath, circumcision, diet and purity were foremost to form the behaviour and thought of the Jewish society. Observance of these laws was considered as normal and formed the identity markers of the society. Jewish religious leaders defended and enforced these identity markers, which resulted in boundary markers between Jews and Gentiles. In Matthew’s Gospel, these laws or identity markers are recognisable, indicating their closeness to the Jewish society. However, it seems that the Matthean community challenged the way the rabbinic movement in their society interpreted these laws. They based their understanding of the teaching and activity of Jesus.
The author of Matthew also applied the strategy which superseded Elijah and Moses as the primary spokesmen of God to the world. The approach was entirely aimed at gaining the support and confidence of the Israelites on the teachings of Jesus[footnoteRef:8]. These claims are also corroborated in the study by Bornkamm, Barth, and Held, which postulates that mentioning Moses and Elijah offered Matthew a convicting opportunity on the role of Jesus in the promotion of the Laws[footnoteRef:9]. These claims are also supported in the book of Matthew 17:1-8, which describes Jesus’ transfiguration in front of Peter, James and John. [8: Graham Stanton, A Gospel for a New People, First Edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992) p. 114] [9: Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth & Heinz Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, New Edition (London: SCM, 2014) p.201]
The author of Matthew also emphasised God’s original purpose for family and marriage to prove that Jesus was the giver of the Law. The issue of divorce was among the most critical issues of the Law, hence the desire by the Pharisees to use the same to test Jesus on matters of the Law. The study by Burridge affirms these arguments by holding that the Pharisees would not have accepted the teachings of Jesus as a man who promoted the Law if it had contravened its provisions[footnoteRef:10]. The claims are explicitly seen in Matthew 19:1-8 when Jesus teaches, in response to the Pharisees testing him, that divorce is not permissible as what is done by God should not be undone. [10: Richard A. Burridge, Four Gospels, One Jesus? (London: SPCK, 1994) p. 87]
The authority of Jesus is clearly stated in the climactic conclusion of the Gospel. The author of Matthew claims that Jesus is the all-authoritative Son of God. He has authority over all things, also to interpret the scriptures. His interpretation would therefore provide the answer to the correct way of understanding the scriptures, in contrast to the teaching of the Pharisees that is proven wrong throughout the Gospel. The disciples of Jesus are commanded to teach others what Jesus taught them. Jesus did not only teach with words, but also through his deeds. In this ending, the author of Matthew describes Jesus as the one who lived as the authoritative interpreter and teacher of the scriptures. His teaching serves the salvation of all people.
What implications does this have for the life of His Church today?
Among the leading implications of the teaching of Matthew, confirming that Jesus is the giver of the Law is an assurance that His followers are no longer under the laws of Moses. According to Burridge, the Law seemed cruel and offered a minimal remedy option for specific sins[footnoteRef:11]. However, the reign of Jesus overruled some of the aspects of the Law by providing grace as the primary means to salvation to the church of today. The latter is considered lighter than salvation through the laws of Moses, as seen written in Matthew 11:28-30. [11: Richard A. Burridge, Four Gospels, One Jesus? (London: SPCK, 1994) p. 88]
The portrayal of Jesus as the giver of the Law does not only offer assurance but also hope for the church of today. As opposed to the laws of Moses, portraying Jesus as the master and giver of the Law creates a sense of hope and belonging among the Christians of both yesterday and today[footnoteRef:12]. The church also boasts of the fact that their leader claims to have an unmatched authority over the Law, as shown in Matthew 28:18-20 where Jesus points out all the power in heaven and earth are his alone. [12: Graham Stanton, A Gospel for a New People, First Edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992) p. 107]
Portraying Jesus as the Lawgiver would also imply that today’s church is the chosen one described in the Law that those who follow the Law and the teachings of Jesus shall be called his children. The same also affirms the role of the church, as stated in Matthew 28:19, which exhorts the followers of Christ to “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The arguments are confirmed in the study by Stanton, which asserts that the role of the church today, based on the teachings of Jesus as the giver is the Law is to spread the gospel[footnoteRef:13]. [13: Graham Stanton, A Gospel for a New People, First Edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992) p. 116]
Though it might seem clear to most Christian denominations that the author of Matthew portrays Jesus as the new Lawgiver, for some Jesus’s comments during the sermon on the mount in relation to the law remain contentious and have given birth to various new Old Covenant laws observing protestant and even Catholic movements. Their theology can be described as dual-covenant theology[footnoteRef:14] in that they observe both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant as they consider themselves Jewish. Examples of this are Messianic Jews[footnoteRef:15] who observe all Jewish holidays, traditions and rituals including the wearing of the kippah, Tzitzit and, during prayer, the Tefillin. Equally interesting are Hebrew Catholics[footnoteRef:16] who are in complete communion with the Latin Church yet still observe Jewish holidays such as Passover, Rosh Hashanah and Hanukkah. These examples show that though for most the case for Jesus fulfilling the Laws and prophecies of the Hebrew Testament is enough to end adherence to most, or sometimes all, of the laws of Moses, some Christian denominations continue to observe them. [14: Phillip Sigal, 'Aspects of Dual Covenant Theology: Salvation', Horizons in biblical theology, 4.1, (1982), 1-48 (p. 1).] [15: Union of Messianic Jews Council, (2020) [accessed 2 Nov 2020]] [16: Association of Hebrew Catholics, (2020) [accessed 2 Nov 2020]]
Bibliography
Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth & Heinz Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, New Edition (London: SCM, 2014)
Ian Boxall, Discovering Matthew: Content, interpretation, reception, First Edition edn (London: SPCK, 2014)
Richard A. Burridge, Four Gospels, One Jesus? (London: SPCK, 1994)
John C. Fenton, J. The Gospel of St. Matthew, First Edition edn (England: Pelican/Penguin, 1963)
Robert T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, First Edition edn (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 2007)
Robert J. Miller, Born divine, First Edition edn (Salem: Polebridge Press, 2003)
Phillip Sigal, 'Aspects of Dual Covenant Theology: Salvation', Horizons in biblical theology, 4.1, (1982)
Graham Stanton, A Gospel for a New People, First Edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992)
Union of Messianic Jews Council, (2020) [accessed 2 Nov 2020]
Association of Hebrew Catholics, (2020) [accessed 2 Nov 2020]