Divine Grace and Moral Empowerment in Matthew's Gospel

 Introduction

In this essay, I intend to explore whether and how we might speak of divine grace and moral empowerment in Matthew’s Gospel.  After examining some scholars who have found this absent or problematical in Matthew, I will show how this is actually a key teaching in the Gospel.  There is no need to pit Paul against Matthew in the theology of grace and the ethic of moral empowerment.  To understand this in Matthew, or in Jesus for that matter, one has to understand the narrative theology of Jesus’ Kingdom message and not just its eschatological warning.

[See the previous blog post for a related essay: 'An Ethic of the Heart and Faith in Jesus'.]

An Historical Context for this Study: Protestant Views on the Relationship between Grace and Ethics

The challenge faced in this chapter is both a challenge of Protestant theology and Matthean scholarship.  Lutherans and Calvinists so separated justification from sanctification that they had the theological challenge to explain what was the relationship between salvation by grace through faith and sanctification.  In their eagerness to remove works from justification, they created a theological disconnect between theology and ethics—what would later be called the Problem of the Indicative (of God’s grace) and the Imperative (of ethics).  Ethics became a matter of gratitude for God’s grace, which raised the question about the importance of righteousness (how we should understand ethics) as much as about the transforming power of salvation (how we should understand the nature of God’s grace as more  than penal substitution or repentance and forgiveness).  I would argue that some Anabaptists managed to explain the relationship better, and it is perhaps interesting to note that Anabaptist moral thinking focused more on the Gospels and on the Sermon on the Mount than elsewhere in Scripture.  Even so, our present understanding of Jesus’ ‘Kingdom’ ethics is better than what Anabaptists understood in the 16^th century.

One of the key Anabaptist teachers, Menno Simons, had to argue that Anabaptists were misunderstood when it was said of them that they, like Roman Catholics of the time, believed in salvation by works.[1]  He did so by noting that the central role of Jesus Christ in all things established salvation by God’s grace, not our works.  In his argument, he noted that this was so in both Paul (1 Cor. 8.11) and Matthew (Mt. 10.32, 33).  In Matthew 10, Jesus says that he will confess before the Father in heaven only the one who confesses Him before men.  Simons also insisted that Christ’s work is fuller than what other Protestants found—justification of the ungodly.  He emphasized that Christ’s work also brings life, such that true believers can be known by their walking in the ways of the Lord.  Simons also pointed to a second reference in Matthew 7.24-27 to insist on the importance of works for disciples of Christ. In this passage, Jesus says that those who hear and do His words is like the wise man who built his house upon a rock.

Another Anabaptist, Leonhard Schiemer, wrote,

Those who do not feel in themselves a power about which they have to say that things that were once impossible are now possible are not yet born again of water and spirit, even the Holy Spirit.[2] 

The Johannine language of ‘born again’ in this quotation points to the belief in a moral transformation that takes place through Christ and the Spirit. 

 However, can this theology be found in Matthew’s Gospel, especially since Anabaptist hermeneutics might be designated a hermeneutic of obedience, placing greatest stress on Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount for moral guidance?  That is, did Anabaptists get their moral guidance mainly from the Synoptics but their understanding of moral empowering from John and Paul?  For our purposes, the question is whether or not we find a view on moral empowerment in Matthew’s Gospel at all, or is his ethic purely one of obedience?

 The Lutheran and Reformed wings of the Reformation emphasized the reception of a righteousness from outside—from Christ, not ourselves—so much that their view of the Christian life focused more on a continuous wrestling with the flesh and sin than on sanctification.  Their theologies did speak of a gradual sanctifying of believers.  Their theologies needed corrective teaching, which came in the form of Lutheran Pietism and through the Great Awakening in the case of speakers such as Jonathan Edwards or George Whitfield.  After the revival ministry of John Wesley, a Wesleyan view of sanctification emerged that spoke of the need to grow in grace but also held that God’s salvation included a deliverance from willful sinning.[3]  Some Wesleyans believed that this perfection of ‘entire sanctification’ was ‘a personal, definitive work of God's sanctifying grace by which the war within oneself might cease and the heart be fully released from rebellion into wholehearted love for God and others’.[4]  Also, it typically involved a post-conversion experience.[5]

 A Liberal, Lutheran Challenge to Matthew’s Gospel

Martin Luther is well-known for his remark that the epistle of James was an epistle of ‘straw’.  By this, he indicated that the canon was to be read as holding a centre that was more true to the Gospel—not every part of the canon was equal.  He held this view while also believing that the Scripture was God’s Word.  More liberal scholarship in the Lutheran tradition, however, could sit even more loosely with regard to parts of the canon.  This entails two things.  First, they hold that they have a correct understanding of Paul’s teaching on justification by grace through faith and not through the Law.  Second, they administer this understanding to the canon to determine whether some writing or other is truly ‘Christian’, that is, holds to this interpretation of justification.

The liberal Lutheran scholar, Willi Marxsen, offers just such a view in his New Testament Foundations for Christian Ethics.[6]  Marxsen’s view begins with an assumption that the early Church began from two separate traditions.  One was the discussion as to who Jesus was that began before the cross and resurrection, and the other was a (pre-Pauline) tradition about Jesus that began with the cross and resurrection of Jesus.  Of course, it is one thing to say that there must have been many views about Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry—as the Gospels themselves attest.  It is another thing to claim that there is a sub-orthodox view of Jesus that remains in the canon.  This is precisely what Marxsen says about Matthew’s Gospel.

Marxsen poses the question, ‘What relationship is there between Matthew’s theology and Matthew’s ethics?’  He believes Matthew answers this unsatisfactorily: this Gospel fails to make the connection between indicative and imperative, between Christology and ethics.  Without such a connection, the accent in ethics is on the imperative alone.  That is, Matthew’s ethics is a works-righteousness ethic.  It lacks a foundation in divine grace.  In a word, it lacks a perspective on moral empowerment.

Marxsen develops his understanding of Matthew with respect to the following texts.  First, he believes that Mt. 5.20 offers a view of righteousness that is quantitative: disciples’ righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.  Jesus was understood to be demanding more righteousness.  Marxsen says,

 In Matthew, on the other hand, we can say that people have become Christians (through their baptism).  As a consequence, we have to distinguish between good and not so good Christians now, and the not so good ones have to strive to become good Christians again.[7]

 Second, Mt. 23.2f points to doing what the Pharisees say, not what they do, for they sit on Moses’ seat.  Marxsen says that this shows that the problem with the Pharisees is that they do not do well enough, whereas Jesus’ disciples need to practice righteousness more.  For this reason, the Pharisees are called ‘hypocrites’ (Mt. 23.13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29).  Third, Mt. 7.22-24 is interpreted as a rejection of a ‘right’ Christology—faith in Jesus.  The verses read:

 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' 23 Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.' 24 "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock…. 

Fourth, he argues, Mt. 6.14-15 does not locate our forgiveness in God’s forgiveness.  It is, says Marxsen, the other way around:

 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

 Fifth, Mt. 4.17 changes Mk. 1.14-15 from an indicative leading to an imperative to a strong imperative: ‘Repent’ comes first in Mt.[8]

 

Matthew 4.17	Mark 1.14-15
From that time Jesus began to proclaim, Imperative: "Repent,   Indicative: for the kingdom of heaven has come near."	Indicative:  Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God,  15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; Imperative: repent, and believe in the good news."

 

Reflecting an era in scholarship that accused Judaism of lacking a theology of grace, Marxsen sees Matthew’s ethic as more ‘Jewish’ than ‘Christian’.  Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness (Mt. 18.23-35), mercy (Mt. 9.13; 12.7, quoting Hab. 6.6), and love of one’s enemies (Mt. 5.44), for example, are still commandments.  Also,

 'Salvation is expected in the future; it is not already present.  Through the new law, however, readers now have the opportunity to do what is necessary to achieve salvation.  They do not know if their efforts so far will be sufficient to attain the goal…. Through the new law…readers now have the opportunity to do what is necessary to achieve salvation.'[9]

 Thus, Mt. 13.24-30 (Parable of the Wheat and the Tares) and Mt. 25.31-46 (Judgement of the Sheep and the Goats) hold out the prospect of a future judgement that calls disciples to a ‘greater watchfulness’ (25.1-13) and thus even to greater efforts in doing the better righteousness’.  The Sermon on the Mount, moreover, entails admission requirements for entry into the kingdom of heaven.  Christians must perform works to reach their goal.  Matthew must have thought that this goal was possible, and he apparently believed the demands of the Sermon on the Mount could be fulfilled.  Matthew sees salvation as future, and the Sermon on the Mount’s demands are to be performed now by those concerned about their future salvation.  Also, Marxsen argues, there are two levels of believers in Mt.  This is shown by the term ‘of little faith’ (Mt. 6.30; 8.26; 14.31; 16.8).[10]

Marxsen concludes:

Matthew’s ethic, of course, emerged from the Christian tradition, but we cannot call it genuinely Christian.  It represents rather a relapse into the Pharisaic ethic.  Likewise, … the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount is not a truly Christian ethic, either.[11]

Marxsen is not the only scholar who has tried to show how antithetical Matthew’s Gospel is to Paul.  David Sim, for example, has argued that Matthew 7.21-23 is intentionally anti-Pauline.[12]  Matthew does not represent a tradition that originated before the death and resurrection of Jesus (so Marxsen) but is an intentional correction of an antinomianism that arose from how Paul’s view of the Law was understood by some.

Paul states that a believer is one who calls Jesus ‘Lord’ (1 Cor. 12.3 and Rom. 10.9).  Mt. 7.21-23, on the other hand, states the opposite: many who call Jesus ‘Lord’ will not enter the kingdom of heaven.  In 1 Cor. 12.4-11, Paul describes a variety of charismatic gifts that demonstrate a believer has the Spirit.  Mt. 7.21-23, on the other hand, states that prophesying, casting out demons, and doing deeds of power in Jesus’ name will not be sufficient to be included in the kingdom of heaven.  Whereas Mk. 9.38-40 has a pericope in which Jesus affirms an exorcist (‘The one who is not against us is for us'), Mt. 7.21-23 omits this and says that doing such things will not be sufficient to enter the Kingdom.  This text shows that Matthew is opposed to lawlessness—one must observe the Torah—and so is anti-Pauline.[13] 

 I would note that, while the focus of this chapter is on interpreting Matthew’s Gospel, Marxsen’s and Sim’s arguments raise the question not only whether they have rightly interpreted Matthew but also whether they have rightly interpreted Paul.  I believe they have failed in both respects.

 A Roman Catholic Reading of Matthew’s Ethic: Ulrich Luz

Roman Catholicism has not found the contrast of such Lutheran scholarship between the indicative of God’s grace and the imperative of righteousness so problematic.  Like Marxsen, Catholic scholar Ulrich Luz believes that Mt.’s ethics has to do with striving towards righteousness.  He rightly notes that Jesus does not abrogate but heightens the Law (Mt. 5.17-20):[14]

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

However, he differs from Marxsen in that he does find a doctrine of grace in Matthew.  For example, he finds prayer central to the Sermon on the Mount, and this he identifies with a theology of grace.[15]  His view of Matthew, though, is that it presents a view of grace that might be phrased as ‘justification by grace for those who strive for righteousness’.[16]  Thus, the indicative is related to the imperative in Matthew, but in such a way that the cross is not part of it.  Ethics entails working hard at doing, each according to his or her ability, while taking comfort in knowing that God is merciful.  This emphasis on doing is also seen in two levels of righteousness for disciples.  Like Marxsen, Luz contrasts Matthew to Paul:

Matthew obviously does not know Paul and his theology; but it is basically the case that he would belong to the side of the opponents of Paul.[17]

Luz, also like Marxsen, sees Matthew’s ethic as Jewish: God’s greatest gift is His Law.[18]  Where Marxsen sees this as problematic, Luz finds Matthew’s ethic consistent with Church teaching.  Augustine, for example, taught that Galatians 5.6 holds ‘faith/believing’ together with ‘deeds of righteousness’: Paul speaks of ‘faith working itself out through love’.  Thomas Aquinas spoke of God’s enabling grace rectifying human inadequacies such that righteousness is now something attainable through restored humanity’s works. 

Catholicism also came to distinguish two levels of righteousness, one for the average Christian and one for the inner circle of disciples.  Matthew’s ethic, claims Luz, entails two levels.  There are those who do not sow or reap, spin or weave (Mt. 6.19-24), and there are those who do such things.  Luz says, each disciple of Jesus should travel the path to perfection ‘as far as possible’.  On the Day of Judgment (Mt. 25.31-46),

the Son of Man will show just where the minimum righteousness lies that is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of heaven.  In order to travel this path, the Matthean Jesus makes use primarily of exhortation rather than laws.  The Sermon on the Mount contains examples, pictorial hyperboles (e.g., 7.2-4) and metaphorical imperatives (e.g., 5.29-30) to goad its readers into motion.  But it does not set down “laws”.[19]

For Luz, what mitigates Matthew’s emphasis on works is piety.  Thus, as we see in the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5.21-48), ‘outward righteousness’ is followed by ‘inward righteousness’.  Also, acts of piety are central, with prayer at the center: almsgiving, prayer, and fasting (Mt. 6.1-18).  Luz says,

 

The practice of righteousness then leads to prayer, a prayer directed toward a Father who always knows and hears the pleas of his children (6.7-8) because he can see into their secrets (6.4, 6, 18).[20]

Matthew 6.19-34, following Jesus’ teaching on piety, is about a ‘superior righteousness’, and this is followed by prayer to the Father who answers his children’s pleas (Mt. 7.7-11).

The acts of piety also emphasize another feature of the Sermon on the Mount that moves beyond a pure works righteousness exchange: the relationship the disciple has with God as Father.  ‘Father’ occurs 10 times in this central section of the Sermon on the Mount.

The Sermon on the Mount is, says Luz, is both a promise of salvation and a demand for a higher righteousness, ‘confronting those men and women with whom God is prepared to walk with the demands he imposes upon them’.[21] Thus,

 

mercy and obedience, promise and demand—all are interlinked in Matthew….  The question of the Sermon’s fulfilability also shows signs of receiving an answer.  Human beings are not left to their own devices in their striving for superior righteousness and perfection.  They are sustained by God.  They are permitted to pray.[22]

Matthew’s righteousness is not a matter of fulfilling a ‘quota’ of righteous deeds that will permit disciples to enter the Kingdom on the day that the Son of Man judges the world.  This is seen firstly in that ‘love’ is the foremost commandment (Mt. 22.40; 5.43f).[23]  Matthew, says Luz,

probably felt that the laws of ritual, purity, tithing, sacrifice and the sabbath also remained operative, but should be made subordinate to the more significant commandment of love (see 5.18-19, 23-24; 12.7, 11-14; 15.15-20; 23.23-26).[24]

Thus, Luz argues that ‘love’ is a midpoint, interpreting the laws on the one side and guiding people in concrete situations to the right response on the other.  For this reason, Mt.’s ethic is not a quantitative righteousness—a sum of rules and strictures.

How does Matthew’s concrete ethic function in the community?  The commandments, argues Luz, are exemplary, and disciples will need to reason analogically to new situations.  Also, Matthew links general propositions to concrete examples.  The three examples in Mt. 5.39b-41 are linked to ‘non-resistance to evil’ (Mt. 5.39a).  The three instructions on piety (almsgiving, prayer, and fasting) are examples of righteousness practised in secret (Mt. 6.1).  The Antitheses are examples of love.  The commandments in the central section of the Sermon on the Mount are examples of behaviour motivated by love, fitting the principle of the Golden Rule (Mt. 7.12).

 Luz interprets Mt. 5.20 (‘For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven’) to mean that ‘disciples should do as much as they can on their path to perfection.’[25]  He concludes,

Not everyone will attain perfection in the sense required by the commandments in the Sermon on the Mount.  Not everyone will become a follower of Jesus in the sense that they will sell their possessions and, like Jesus, itinerantly preach the kingdom of God.[26]

Also supporting the view that Jesus’ ethical teaching in Matthew calls for works is the fact that the Sermon on the Mount ends with reference to the Last Judgement (Mt. 7.13-27).  It also features in Mt. 13.36-43, 47-49; 18.23-35; 24.29-25.46.  Luz, as Marxsen,  says that it is a judgement according to works—‘fruit’ (7.20), not according to faith—‘Lord, Lord’ (Mt. 7.21).  However, Luz points out that this must be put in the larger context.  Not passing judgement (Mt. 7.1) enables one to love.  While there is a reward for those who have entered the Kingdom (Mt. 5.12, 46; 6.1-16; 20.1-16), this is not said to be earned.  Also, the reward is disproportionate with what is done (Mt. 10.42—paradise for a glass of water; 20.1-16—workers in the vineyard).  The ‘sheep’ are surprised by their reward (25.31-46).

Also, each person stands before the judge as an individual; being part of the community makes no difference.  However, what does make a difference is the Judge—Jesus, God’s Immanuel and the disciples’ travelling companion, the one leading them in prayer to their heavenly Father.[27]

Responding to These Interpretations

A number of specific texts have been identified in the previous sections that require further exegetical study.  However, the key to interpreting Matthew’s Gospel—and Jesus’ ethic—overall lies in a theological understanding of Jesus’ Kingdom message.  The focus here will be on how to ‘read’ Matthew, and my view is that Matthew captures Jesus’ message rather than is some inadequate, ‘Jewish’ theology that precedes the cross and resurrection (Marxsen), is an anti-Pauline theology (Sims), or is a theology of salvation that leaves open whether the recipient of God’s grace has done enough for salvation (Luz).

An important step in rightly interpreting these texts and Jesus’ ministry is to interpret them in light of the Old Testament narrative that underlies them.[28]  Without this understanding, certain texts in isolation can be misinterpreted as examples of a works-righteousness.  What precedes Jesus’ ministry is John the Baptist’s calling of the nation to repentance—to a baptism or cleansing in preparation for the coming of God’s reign.  John was identified with an early passage in the crucial section of Isaiah that is foundational for both John’s and Jesus’ ministries—Isaiah 40.3 (Mt. 3.1-3).  This ‘voice in the wilderness’ was to announce God’s coming to bring Israel back from captivity—the return from exile.  Israel had gone into exile because of its sin; a restoration from captivity would have to deal with that sin.  Dealing with sin began with repentance but, as the promise of a new covenant stated, more was needed.  God would himself have to remove Israel’s sinfulness (Isaiah 59.20-21; Jeremiah 31.31-34; Ezekiel 36.24-27).  The call to righteousness, then, was predicated upon God’s gracious act of restoration, purification, and empowerment to live under the righteous precepts of God.

Also, the restoration from captivity and the coming of God’s reign were not about an alternative ethical system but God’s enabling His people to live righteously in accordance with God’s Law.  The new covenant called for obedience to the same Law as before.  What was needed was not a move away from commandments to an ethic of love.  What was required was a forgiving and transforming grace.  Forgiving grace involved two things: repentance by those who committed sin and a removal of sin.  Thus, Jesus says to his disciples the day before his death, ‘this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mt. 26.28, ESV).

Scholars who fail to recognize the narrative of the return from exile in Jesus’ Kingdom proclamation will never understand the role of the commandments and the call to righteousness in Jesus’ ethic.  The entire restoration of Israel from captivity was an act of God’s grace.  Everything that followed was predicated upon that grace and was not a matter of earning the right to return from exile.

One scholar who has made the return from exile a fundamental narrative for understanding Jesus and his mission is N. T. Wright.  Wright says that teaching about the Kingdom of God involved three major themes: the return from exile, the defeat of evil, and the return of YHWH to Zion.[29]  With this understanding, Wright correctly challenges the view that Jesus’ ethic (and so Matthew’s) was a works righteousness:

It is not enough to prove, as Sanders, Charlesworth and many others have done quite satisfactorily, that first-century Jews were not in fact proto-Pelagians who thought that they could earn the divine forgiveness.  The point at issue was not that Jesus was offering forgiveness where the rabbis were offering self-help moralism.  The point is that Jesus was offering the return from exile, the renewed covenant, the eschatological ‘forgiveness of sins’ - in other words, the kingdom of God.  And he was offering this final eschatological blessing outside the official structures, to all the wrong people, and on his own authority.  That was his real offence.[30]

We can see this dramatically in the Sermon on the Mount.  The Beatitudes function to identify Jesus’ disciples as persons adopting the self-understanding of Israel’s exiles.  They are the ones who have the penitent posture of persons exiled because of their sins.  The news of the Kingdom was good news to them—to the tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners.  It was not good news to those who adopted the posture of self-righteousness, those not acknowledging their sinfulness, such as the scribes and the Pharisees.  The recipients of the Kingdom were those who stood before God as sinners in need of grace, not those who had exerted themselves with greater righteous deeds than the scribes and Pharisees.

Once this is understood, then one can understand how the call to greater righteousness fits for both Matthew and Jesus.  The new covenant texts of the prophets had already stated this, and there is nothing new in Jesus or in Matthew in this regard.  Those returning by God’s grace from exile in their sins also anticipated God’s transformational power helping sinful people to live new, righteous lives.  Now God would bring cleansing (Ezekiel 36.25).  Now He would bring righteousness to turn His people from their sins (Isaiah 59.20), just as Jesus’ very name indicated that he would save his people from their sins (Matthew 1.21).  Now they could have God’s Word in their mouths (Isaiah 59.21, with reference to Deuteronomy 30.14).  Now the Spirit of God would cleanse and empower them to live according to God’s covenant (Isaiah 59.21; Ezekiel 36.27).  Now the necessary transformation to a heart of flesh and a new spirit would be possible by God’s own doing (Jeremiah 31.31-34; Ezekiel 36.26).

God’s act of mercy offers a pattern for our acts of mercy, according to Matthew 18.21-35, as Wolfgang Schrage notes.[31]  This parable—significantly unique to Matthew’s Gospel and therefore very much a Matthean text—calls for limitless mercy towards others because of God’s antecedent mercy towards us.  For Jesus, ‘repentance’ means total devotion to God, not legalistic penitential zeal.[32]  Schrage also highlights some other aspects of God’s grace in Matthew’s Gospel by noting the essential role of Jesus himself.  Jesus was not just a teacher of ethics.  He calls for and fulfills a better righteousness in word and deed.  He is designated Emmanuel, God with us.  He humbly and willingly dies for others.  He has a ministry of healing to those in need.  He is ‘Lord’ and yet also present with his own after his resurrection.  He is an authoritative teacher, but he also shows his disciples a better righteousness.  His mission in Israel is turned into a universal mission (it was even for unrighteous Gentiles).  Matthew’s (Jesus’) attack against the Pharisees was an attack against hypocrisy and religious show, which occur where there is a sense of the sinner’s own ability to achieve righteousness.[33]  Moreover, argues Schrage, the Torah was judged by Jesus and the Gospel writers in light of the coming of the Kingdom of God—and of Jesus—and in light of the double commandment of love.[34]  We might add that Schrage takes issue with the Lutheran understanding of the Law as a speculum peccati—a mirror revealing our sin.  This in part explains the negative view of someone like Marxsen.  However, the Law plays a positive role for Christians—as well as for Jesus and Matthew.[35]

 Any attempt, as in Marxsen, to wring out of Mt. 4.17 or 6.14 an ethic devoid of God’s prior act of grace needs to reckon with all of Matthew, Matthew 18.21ff in particular.  Indeed, the passage simply assumes that God has first acted in mercy towards us—so much so that the point does not need to be presented as some surprisingly new teaching.

It is worth noting that a problem arises in a theology of grace whenever human depravity and sinfulness are not fully appreciated.  One always has to wonder why God would send His son to the cross as an act of love for the world if the world’s sin is not actually all that bad.  The problem with the Pharisees was that they did not recognize their sinfulness, even though it was less than unrighteous sinners.  The latter recognized their sinfulness, and that is why they were entering the Kingdom.  The poor in spirit (Matthew 5.3), the humble (Matthew 18.3), and the poor (Matthew 19.23-24) are those who recognize their need for God’s mercy and grace, not the Pharisees.  The latter’s problem is deeper than works-righteousness; their problem is that they do not recognize their own sinfulness and, in this failure, do not recognize their need for divine help.  How could they ever accept that a sacrifice so severe as Jesus’ death on a cross was necessary for their sins?  The fundamental issue, then, is not works righteousness.

To return to the question of the relationship of Matthew and Paul, Roger Mohrlang has written extensively that we do not have here two different theological perspectives.[36]  The relationship between the Law and love in Matthew’s Gospel and in Paul is not antithetical.  Jesus’ ethic simply cannot be read as an ethic of ‘command’.  In Mt. 19.16ff, the love command is the epitome of the moral demands of the law.  In Mt. 22.34-40, the law and the prophets hang on the laws of love—the latter do not replace them.  Mt. 24.12 warns that the increase of lawlessness will mean the decrease of love.  Jesus is the ‘example par excellence’ of compassion: 9.36; 14.14; 15.32; 20.34; cf. 18.27; 9.27; 15.22; 17.15; 20.30f; etc.  Opposition to the Pharisees is related to their not showing mercy (9.13; 12.7; 23.23).  Forgiveness is emphasized: Mt. 6.14f; 18.21f, 23-35.  The ‘commands’ of Jesus are intertwined with his understanding of the nature and role of love: non-retaliation, doing good to enemies (Mt. 5.43ff); distribution of wealth to the poor (Mt. 19.21); non self-gratification (Mt. 6.1-4); doing good (Mt. 24.12f); and self-denial (Mt. 10.37ff; 4.22; 8.18-22; 10.21f, 34ff; 12.46-50; 19.12).  Love is seen in terms of law, perfection (5.48; 19.21), and righteousness (throughout the Sermon on the Mount).  Jesus’ call to radical obedience to the Torah is seen as an easier yoke than the burden of the Pharisees (Mt. 11.28ff).  While Mohrlang still sees the primary emphasis in Matthew’s Gospel as on the imperative,[37] but he finds grace alongside it throughout:

1.               God’s mercy and forgiveness (Mt. 6.12-14; 9.2, 5f; 12.31f;  18.23-27,

32f; 21.31).

2.               The soteriological significance of Jesus (Mt. 1.21; 26.28)

3.               Mt. sees Jesus’ teaching itself as an expression of grace (Mt. 13.11)

4.               The true disciples are elect (Mt. 22.14; 24.22, 24, 31; cf. 11.2; 16.17;

13.11; 19.26)

5.               Jesus aids in the disciple’s life (Mt. 18.20; 28.20)

6.               God is seen as a kind and caring heavenly Father (Mt. 6.6-13, 25-34; 7.7-

11; 10.20, 29ff; 18.10-14, 19f). 

To the above arguments over against Marxsen, Luz, and Sims, we might add still more points.  The weight of a legal ethic that these scholars find in Matthew must be balanced with texts such as the desire for the Kingdom of the disciple.  Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount begins with beatitudes highlighting this: the Kingdom belongs to those desiring the Kingdom, to summarise the characteristics of being poor in spirit, mourning, being meek, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, showing mercy, being pure in heart, making peace, suffering persecution for righteousness’ sake and on account of Jesus (Mt. 5.3-12).  The parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl of great price (Mt. 13.44-46) present a completely different ethos than the legalism they find in Matthew.  Matthew emphasises the virtue of humility over against self-congratulating Pharisees and scribes (Mt. 6.1-18; 23.5-11).  Jesus says that ‘whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (Mt. 23.12).  The disciples are called ‘little’, the beatitudes establish an entirely different posture towards righteousness, and ministry of the kingdom involves humble service and persecution.  The emphasis on the ‘weightier’ matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23.23), or of love and forgiveness, bring a virtue-interpretation to the Law, without replacing the Law.  Over against any works righteousness, faith is a particularly significant virtue in Matthew, defining an alternative to Temple Worship (Mt. 21.18-22) and the basis on which Gentiles enter into the Kingdom (Mt. 8.10; 15.28).  The disciples are to demonstrate faith: Mt. 8.26; 17.20; 21.21-22. The problem was not the Law versus grace but the failure to live by the law due to a sinful, hardened heart (Mt. 5.21-48; 15.1-20).  Jesus’ cursing of the religious leaders of Jerusalem was for their failure to produce the fruit of righteousness despite their meticulous following of the Law (Mt. 21.18-19).  The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard—a parable unique to Matthew’s Gospel—explains the economy of grace versus law: the workers do not receive remuneration for the hours worked but as a discretion (grace) of the owner (Mt. 20.1-16).  Also, discipleship in Matthew’s Gospel—as in Jesus’ ministry—goes beyond righteous living to include participation in the mission of the Kingdom and devotion to Jesus.

 One final point needs to be brought into the spotlight in this discussion of grace and moral empowerment in Matthew’s Gospel.  The biography of Jesus, which Matthew is, is a narrative of grace.  Jesus is God’s provision of salvation to a people that could not and would not save themselves.  Matthew begins his Gospel by provided a hermeneutical lens for reading the entire Gospel: Jesus is shown to be the righteous Israel that Israel was not.  The genealogy of Israel from Abraham through the kings to the exile and return and afterwards is all included in who Jesus was.  Jesus lives the story of Israel in Egypt, of Moses surviving the attempted assassination of the ruler (Pharaoh/Herod), of Israel passing through the waters (baptism) and becoming God’s ‘son’, of Israel being tested in the wilderness, and of Israel settling the promised land—Jesus is righteous Israel (Mt. 1.1-4.16).  It is because he is God’s righteous ‘son’ that Jesus can ‘save his people from their sins’ (Mt. 1.21; cf. Ps. 130.8). 

 The Sermon on the Mount is framed with an inclusio explaining Jesus’ ministry as one of compassion through word and deed of a people that could not save themselves (Mt. 4.23-25; Mt. 9.35).  After the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7), Matthew collects stories of discipleship and healing (Mt. 8-9).  The infirmities that Jesus heals, while testimony to his healing power, also involve fitting metaphors for the state of the exiles to whom the Kingdom of God comes: like the leper, they are unclean (the Israelites were unclean in their exile for their sins), like the centurion; they have become ‘not a people’ (yet the foreigners will be included in the coming Kingdom, as Is. 56 says); they are like a people overrun by demons, but Jesus casts the demons out to prepare for God’s reign among them; like the paralytic forgiven his sins, they are sinners (as the Israelites were in their exile); like the dead girl, they are like dead people; like the unclean woman, they are unclean, like the blind men, they are blind. 

 Then follow chapters in Matthew of response to the Kingdom that is graciously offered through Jesus’ and the disciples’ ministry (Mt. 10.1-17.23).  When, in Mt. 17.24-20.28, Jesus characterizes discipleship as ‘littleness’, the description undermines any self-gratulation on attaining righteousness oneself.  Instead, disciples are called to humility.  As the narrative of Matthew unfolds, the reader becomes aware that Jesus is compelled to go to Jerusalem to die during Passover to take the place of sinners, shedding his blood sacrificially (Mt. 26.28).  He is the one who will give his life as a ransom for many (Mt. 20.28, following Mk. 10.45 and reflecting Isaiah 53.10).  Indeed, one must wonder at those scholars who conclude that Matthew is some unchristian Gospel that lacks a theology of grace.

 Conclusion

This essay has argued that the ethic we find in Matthew’s Gospel makes sense as an ethic of Jesus.  Matthew did not revert to a ‘works righteousness’; his emphasis on the Law was set alongside of and intertwined with a theology of God’s grace.  The reason these are related, and the reason that this is as much Jesus’ ethic and Matthew’s, is that this is also the ethic of the prophets and their understanding of the return from exile and new covenant.

This essay began with some historical notes about the interpretation of justification by grace through faith and sanctification.  In conclusion, perhaps we might find a brief look at the Westminster Confession on this matter interesting.  Most Scripture references to the 11^th chapter in this confession, on Justification, come from the Pauline and Johannine writings.  There are, however, some references to the Synoptic Gospels, and so the confession does find divine grace in these Gospels.  Grace is explained in three forms: forgiveness, Christ’s intercession, and substitutionary atonement.  Mt. 6.12 is quoted in reference to ‘5. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified’.  Mt. 26.75 is quoted (also Lk. 1.20—Zachariah’s being struck dumb for his unbelief) in reference to the restoration of sinners (Peter’s weeping once the cock crowed; see section WC 11.5).  Lk. 22.32 (Christ’s praying for Peter regarding his ‘fall’) is quoted in regard to a believer not falling from a state of justification (WC 11.5).  Mk. 10.45, which parallels Mt. 20.28, is quoted in reference to Christ’s substitutionary death and a satisfaction view of the atonement (the Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for many).  No other Scripture passages from the Synoptics are quoted for the doctrine of justification, and most references come from Paul and the Johannine writings.  In WC 16.3, good works and divine enablement to do them are explained as follows:

[People’s] ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.  And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of his good pleasure:  yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.

Thus, while justification is not understood in a way that includes sanctification, the theology of divine transformation and empowerment to do good works is present in this Reformed document.  The Gospel of Matthew, I would argue, offers a way—Jesus’ way—of bringing the teaching on divine grace to save sinners into a fuller theology that includes doing righteous works.  The key to this relationship lies in a broader Biblical theology that we find in Matthew and Jesus: the narrative theology of the return—by God’s grace—of a sinful people to God’s rule (Kingdom of Heaven), where righteousness is now made possible by God’s forgiveness and His cleansing and empowering Spirit.

---

[1] Menno Simons, A fundamental clear confession of the poor and distressed Christians concerning justification, the preachers, baptism, the lord's supper, and the swearing of oaths; on account of which we are so much hated, slandered, and belied, founded upon the Word of God.  (AD 1552).  In this work, Simons mainly articulates his position with reference to Pauline passages and, sometimes, John.  The only other Synoptic reference is Lk. 15.4, which shows the grace of God in going after the lost sheep.  Hence it is God’s initiative, not human works, that results in salvation.

[2] Stuart Murray, p. 131

[3] See the article by Melvin Dieter in Melvin Dieter, Anthony A. Hoekema, Stanley M. Horton,  J. Robertson McQuilkin, John F. Walvoord, Five Views of Sanctification (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1987).  Dieter suggests the following verses for teaching this view: Dt. 30.6; Ps. 130.8; Ez. 36.25-29; Mt. 5.48; 6.13; 22.37; Jn. 3.8; 17.20-21¬ 23; Rom. 8.3-4; 2 Cor. 7.1; Eph. 3.14-19; 5.25, 27; 1 Th. .23.  This sanctification took place before death: Lk. 1.69-75; Tit. 2.11-14, and 1 Jn. 4.17.  Note that several verses from Matthew’s Gospel are in this list, and the suggest interpretation also includes Old Testament authors, Paul, Luke, and John—it is seen as a Biblical theology taught throughout the canon.

[4] Ibid., p. 16.

[5] Ibid., p. 18.

[6] Willi Marxsen, New Testament Foundations for Christian Ethics, trans. O. C. Dean, Jr. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).

[7] Ibid., p. 54.

[8] Marxsen, p. 240.

[9] Marxsen, p. 242.

[10] Marxsen, pp. 243-245.

[11] Marxsen, p. 246.

[12] David C. Sim, ‘Matthew 7.21-23: Further Evidence of its Anti-Pauline Perspective,’ New Testament Studies 53.3 (July, 2007): 325-343.

[13] Sim, p. 342.

[14] Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995; Germ. 1993), pp. 56-57.

[15] Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 49.

[16] Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, pp. 49-50.

[17] Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989; Germ. 1985), p. 87.

[18] Luz, Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 50.

[19] Luz, Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 56.

[20] Luz, Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 49.

[21] Luz, Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 49.

[22] Luz, Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 50.

[23] Luz, Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 53.

[24] Luz, Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 53.

[25] Luz, Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 55.

[26] Luz, Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 55.

[27] Luz, Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, p. 61.

[28] This is actually where Richard Hays’ interpretation of Matthean ethics falls short.  Cf. his chapter ‘Gospel of Matthew’ in The Moral Vision of the New Testament ((HarperCollins: 1996).  He under-emphasizes the role of the return from exile narrative in Jesus’ ministry and therefore looks for clues to interpreting Matthew in the late 1^st century context of the Matthean community.  He believes that Matthew is responding to Judaism’s desire to exclude Gentiles on the one hand (p. 107)—as a characteristic of the Antiochene church that, he supposes, produced Matthew’s Gospel—and an internal division in the church (cf. Mt. 7.1-5; 18.15-17; 13.24-30, 36-43) between those who wanted a rigorous ethic of righteousness and those who emphasized mercy and forgiveness (pp. 100-101).  He further says that Matthew’s ethic, while presented in terms of commandments, is really a virtue ethic, with the emphasis on love and mercy.  This does not account for the continuing, even heightening, emphasis on the Law in Matthew (it is not an either/or matter).  Indeed, love of God is obedience to His commandments in Judaism (Deuteronomy 6.4-9).  Hays writes, ‘Matthew envisions a community characterized by humility, patience, and concern for the “little ones” who may stumble or be weak in faith.  Love is prized above theological consistency, and forgiveness is the hallmark of the community’s life.  No one should be quick to judge others, for all are radically dependent upon the mercy of God’ (pp. 109f).

[29] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996), p. 481, et passim.

[30] Wright, p. 272.

[31] Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), p. 38.

[32] Schrage, p. 42.

[33] Schrage, p. 146.

[34] Schrage, pp. 67-68.  Over against Rudolf Bultmann, who held that there is no concrete substance to love, Schrage argues that love does not exclude concrete commands (pp. 80-81).  This is a key challenge to German, Lutheran scholarship in general.  Schrage follows this statement up by looking at Jesus’ concrete commands as commands related to the commandments to love: man and wife/marriage and divorce, possessions/poverty and riches, and the state and violence (pp. 91-114).

[35] Schrage, p. 46.

[36] Roger Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives.  SNTS Monograph Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).

[37] Mohrlang, p. 81.