Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

            John L. McKenzie, in his commentary on “The Gospel According to Matthew,” gives a liberal believer’s slant to the interpretation of the Bible.  He is not so much interested in the literal interpretation, that is one that assumes the text is giving  an accounting of events as they actually happened; rather, he seems more interested in showing that much of Matthew is contrived so as to better tell the story of Jesus to followers and potential followers.  McKenzie uses terms such as “theological imagination,” “symbolism,” “artificiality,” “contrived,” “symbolic presentation,” and “dream motif,” to such an extent that it seems apparent that he does not believe the historical accounts, as written in the Bible, are accurate and literal recounting of actual events.

            The term “dream motif,” for example, suggests that the author of Matthew used the dream as a way of introducing a scene in the Bible, or as a way of explaining a Biblical event.  It further implies, I therefore believe, that the scene or event is not necessarily an accurate recounting of an actual event.  McKenzie seems to be saying that these various methods were deemed necessary by the writer or writers of Matthew to give the reader a better understanding of the meaning of a particular Biblical passage.  He also mentions that he feels these stories were contrived so that the entire story of Jesus could be presented in a more “seamless” arrangement.

            One surely must concede that his use of the term “artificiality,” when referring to the make-up of the genealogical record cannot, based on careful Biblical restructuring, logically be denied.  It is readily apparent that the writer of Matthew had to make some omissions and deletions in order to come up with three sets of fourteen generations.  One also must concede that the use of the term “artificiality” in this situation does not necessarily give reason to label the commentator a liberal believer.  The fact that the genealogical account omits in some places, and duplicates in others, does not make it any less a recounting of actual descendents of Jesus.  What reveals McKenzie as a liberal believer with regards to the genealogical record is his belief that the list is an artificial compilation manipulated to fill in gaps in the Biblical record.  He feels “It is much simpler to suppose that each genealogy was compiled artificially where the biblical record failed….” (McKenzie, p. 92)

            In contrast to McKenzie’s comments, a fundamentalist would probably concede that there are gaps or additions to the genealogical record.  They would go on to say, however, that a descendant’s omission from the record does not mean he or she was any less a descendent.  And additions to the record, though they may not have been mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, are nevertheless accurate accounts of actual individuals who do indeed belong on the genealogical record.

            McKenzie believes the technique of contriving or artificially including scenarios is also evident in the words Matthew attributes to Jesus.  He believes the “primitive church” used Christ’s words as a means of meditating on the meaning of the life of Christ.  Jesus’ words were, therefore, artificially arranged by Matthew so as to obtain the desired effect on the worshipper.  In speaking of the sayings of Jesus, McKenzie writes, “We can easily suppose that other variant forms of the sayings were in circulation, and Matthew felt free to adopt that particular form and context best suited to his purpose.” (McKenzie, p. 88)

            And again McKenzie proposes that the author of Matthew may have used a handbook of Old Testament texts that were written in such a way as to given credence to the belief that Jesus was the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament.  For these reasons it appears to be McKenzie’s belief that Matthew “retrojected the faith of the apostolic Church into the Gospel narrative….” (McKenzie, p. 90)  Yet McKenzie shows himself to be a believer of the truth of God, rather than a humanist, when he goes on to say,  “…but in spite of this it is the faith of the apostolic Church that his Gospel proclaims.” (McKenzie, p. 90)

            Behind much of this is McKenzie’s belief that the Book of Matthew probably was not written by the same Matthew Christ selected to be one of His apostles.  However, he leaves open the possibility that the apostle Matthew did have some influence on the final Gospel of Matthew.  He writes, “There is no convincing reason why this material may not be stray pieces of oral tradition first put in writing by Matthew.” (McKenzie, p. 88)

            In spite of all this wrangling about the authorship of Matthew, and questions about the authenticity of actual words and events described therein, McKenzie can still impress on the reader the point of the Gospel.  Jesus is the new Moses, bringing a new covenant, and that love is the fulfillment of the law.

            Within Matthew’s genealogy is found four women.  McKenzie claims that “no principle governs their inclusion.” (McKenzie, p. 92)  If we are to view the Bible only as a history book it would seem correct to conclude that there is no reason to include these women.  But the question must be asked.  If these, then why not others?  The conclusion, it seems, is that there is a point to their inclusion.

            A theologian, who is looking to the Bible to reveal the nature and love of God, is more likely to find reason to include these particular women.  Rahab was a prostitute, and therefore certainly not someone you would be likely to associate with religion, God, and the religious lifestyle that goes with these.  But her inclusion does say something about the nature and love of God.  His love is all inclusive, and unconditional.  How often has this story been used by preachers to demonstrate God’s love and forgiveness?  I am sure it has been quite often.  The theme would likely include the idea of a God who is not concerned about your past, or your heredity, but only how you live for him today.

            Bathsheeba, it may be concluded, was also included for this reason.  Her story reminds us of David’s fall into sin.  Yet he too was forgiven.  Again, God is interested in how we look to him today.  Ruth reminds us that even outsiders can become a part of the family of God.  The truth is that they no longer are considered outsiders.  They actually marry into the family.

            I am a bit confused by McKenzie’s statement concerning Joseph’s relationship with Mary before the birth of Jesus.  I do not know what is meant by the statement, “Premarital unchastity in these circumstances was not adultery in the full sense of the word.,… nor was the repudiation of a marriage contract ‘divorce’ (1:19) in the full sense of the word.” (McKenzie, p. 92-93)  This statement seems to imply that there is a good possibility that Mary was not a virgin at the time of the birth of Christ.  Which would, in turn, imply that there is a good possibility that Joseph was the actual birth father of Jesus.

            If McKenzie is a liberal believer, and I believe his commentary in the least expounds the liberal belief, then this interpretation takes a great leap toward denying that the stories of the Bible are a literal recounting of actual historical events.  McKenzie seems to agree that Jesus can be rightfully seen as the one who can save us from our sins; he even seems to concede that the name “Jesus” has meaning.  But he implies that neither the angel or the virgin birth are factual.  He believes the dream is contrived to give credence to the idea that Jesus is the Son of God.  As far as McKenzie is concerned, the Holy Spirit was the means by which the man Jesus received God’s power, but the Holy Spirit was, “not used [as] the agent of human conception.” (McKenzie, p. 93)

            McKenzie is able to further make a leap toward total humanization of the birth of Jesus through his interpretation of the Magi story.  He once again implies that the story does not fit the facts by inserting one ancient historian’s belief, that of Dionysus Exiguus, that Herod the Great died four years before Jesus was born.  If this is true then it is obvious that the Magi did not visit Herod to ask of him the birth place of the Christ.  By relating the belief at that time that each person is represented by a star, McKenzie is able to explain how the story of the manger at Bethlehem may have begun.  The story of the Magi would be a romantic way to emphasize the idea of Jesus as one worthy of worship and honor.  Thus, this story was included, and effectively portrayed how we should glorify Jesus, but it may not be an accurate portrayal of actual events.

            Throughout McKenzie’s comments on these chapters from the Gospel of Matthew he uses the phrase “the dream motif recurs.”  By using this phrase I believe he implies that, rather than actual events, these are simply stories to explain or enhance a spiritual belief.  It seems that McKenzie believes this to be one way the author of Matthew was able to include Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah into the recounting of the life of Jesus.  Thus, for example, the use of Hosea 11:1 as a foundation for the story of Joseph and his family’s flight to Egypt.

            McKenzie also seems to imply that the Old Testament references to where the Messiah was to come from was cleverly handled by creating a story that places Jesus in both Bethlehem, and Galilee.  He is unable to explain Jesus’ residence in Nazareth other than to stretch a reference to the Hebrew word “neser” quoted from Isaiah 11:1.  But again, his theory would hold up if indeed this is the reference made, because Jesus would also have to have a connection to Nazareth.  The cleverly contrived story, he feels, fulfills that need.

            McKenzie also implies that there may have been a need to reconcile the story of Christ’s birth with the apparently known jealousy that Herod had for his own power.  This then would be a wonderful story to legitimize the kingship of Jesus Christ.  After all, why would Herod be concerned about Jesus if he really did not pose a threat to Herod’s kingdom.  Jesus, therefore, must actually be the Messiah; one with power that can overcome worldly kingdoms.