Return to Gospels


Survey of Approaches to the Structure of Matthew

 
Gary E. Schnittjer
Copyright © 2012
 

All seem to think Matthew’s Gospel is structured.[1] Yet, there is no consensus concerning the nature of the structure. Here is a brief survey major approaches, interacting with representative interpreters.[2]
 

The Five Discourses [3]

            Matthew contains five major discourses: Sermon on the Mount (5-7); Missionary Discourse (10); Parables of the Kingdom (13); Community Discourse (18); Mount of Olives Discourse (24-25). Each discourse ends with an identical phrase: 5:1-7:27 (7:28-29 When Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at his teaching; for he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes); 9:36-10:42 (11:1 When Jesus had finished giving instructions to his twelve disciples . . .); 13:1-52 (13:53 When Jesus had finished these parables . . .); 18:1-35 (19:1 When Jesus had finished these words . . .); 24:1-25:46 (26:1 When Jesus had finished all these words . . .).[4] It is also helpful notice the parallels of terms and phrases in the discourse introductions/settings (cf. 5:1-2; 9:35-10:1, 5; 13:1-3, 36-37; 18:1-3; 24:3-4).[5]
            The first to propose this schema was B. W. Bacon, who argued that the five-fold format was arranged as the Pentateuch. That is, each of the five discourses and their sections corresponded with one of the books of the Pentateuch.[6] Although the connections to the specific pentateuchal books are too broad to be useful, the five-fold pattern need not be discarded altogether.
            Another way of looking at the five-fold structure is C. H. Lohr’s chiastic arrangement which specifically plays off the alternation between narrative and discourse.[7]
1-4       Birth and beginnings
5-7       Blessings, entering the kingdom
8-9       Authority and invitation
10        Mission discourse
11-12   Rejection by this generation
13        Parables of the kingdom
14-17   Acknowledgment by the disciples
18        Community discourse
19-22   Authority and invitation
23-25   Woes, coming of the kingdom
26-28   Death and rebirth
Narrative
Discourse
Narrative
Discourse
Narrative
Discourse
Narrative
Discourse
Narrative
Discourse
Narrative
 
            D. C. Allison, Jr. proposes an outline that features alteration between narrative and discourse without trying to suggest any symmetrical (i.e., chiastic) arrangement.[8] Again, these comparisons are quite broad and may not reflect a conscious set of comparisons by Matthew. However, the five-fold format is still a viable way to consider the structure of Matthew. The five-fold pattern may have been used merely as a broad arrangement of the material. Further, the macro-pattern need not be pressed to the point of doing damage to the literary patterns which can be detected in the constituent parts. Perhaps the five-fold structure is merely reflective of a popular way of grouping in Hebrew literature. For instance, note the five books in the arrangement of Psalms or the five books of the scrolls in the canonical order of the Hebrew Bible (i.e., Ruth, Song, Eccles., Lam., Esther).
            Turner offer a recent treatment of Matthew’s structure focused on the alternation between narrative and discourse, without thinking of chiastic structure or correlation to the Five Books of Moses.[9]
 

The Headings in 4:17 and 16:21

            Jack Dean Kingsbury and others have advanced that Matthew is divided into three sections by two headings––(4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand and 16:21 From that time Jesus Christ began showing his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day). Hence, 1:1-4:16 the person of Jesus; 4:17-16:20 the proclamation of Jesus; 16:21-28:20 the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Messiah.[10] Further, the attempt is made to tie these headings in with the respective climaxes of each section––the recognition of Jesus by God (3:17), Peter (16:16), and the centurion (27:54). This connection adds considerable force to this suggestion, especially in light of literary concerns. The problem seems to be in the too broad categories of person, proclamation, and death/resurrection.[11]
 

The Plot of Matthew

            Many have begun to approach the biblical literature as literature and employ the techniques of literary studies to the biblical texts. Here are two recent examples of literary approaches to Matthew.
            Carter suggests that the structure of Matthew can be ascertained by a plot analysis. He believes that six kernels or scenes (major branching points) identify six narrative blocks which are expanded by other satellites or scenes––1) God initiates the story of Jesus in the conception and commissioning of Jesus to manifest God’s saving presence 1:18-25 (1:1-4:16); 2) Jesus manifests God’s saving presence in his public ministry of preaching and healing 4:17-25 (4:17-11:1); 3) Jesus’ actions and preaching reveal his identity as God’s commissioned agent, necessitating a response of acceptance or rejection from human beings 11:2-6 (11:2-16:20); 4) Jesus teaches his disciples that God’s purposes for him involve his death and resurrection 16:21-28 (16:21-20:34); 5) In Jerusalem Jesus conflicts with and is rejected by the religious leaders 21:1-27 (21:1-27:66); 6) God overcomes opposition, sin, and death by raising Jesus. Jesus commissions his disciples to world wide mission promising to be with them 28:1-10 (28:1-20).[12] This approach is important because it is relating itself to the nature of Matthew’s genre. It allows for the kind of dynamic development that is basic to a gospel story. It is similar to my own proposal (below), yet it lacks the formal structural criteria (e.g., discourse formulae, headings, etc.) for selecting particular scenes as kernels.
            Playing off the plot of Matthew, Senior suggested: 1) The Origins of Jesus and His Mission (1:1-4:11); 2) Jesus: Messiah in Word and Deed (4:12-10:42); 3) Responding to Jesus: Rejection and Understanding; 4) The Journey to Jerusalem (16:13-20:34); 5) In the Holy City: Conflict, Death, Resurrection (21:1-28:15); 6) Finale (28:16-20).[13] Again, this suggestion has many strengths and merits. The dynamic nature of narrative is taken seriously. However, this proposal lacks the controls of those analyses that play off particular verbal formulae within the text. There seem to be other literary matters around which the text could be arranged. The story-oriented approaches are among the most promising, but need to be wed with the formula-oriented observations. Is there a way to benefit from both the dynamics of the story approaches yet gain the controls of the verbal formula approaches?
 

Other Suggested Structures

            Davies and Allison argue for the use of triads (groups of threes) in each of the five discourses, and also in the narrative sections especially from chapters 1-13.[14] Beginning with chapter 14, however, they follow Gundry’s suggestion that editorial fatigue set in and that Matthew basically follows Mark.[15] In addition, Matthew makes use of twos: demoniacs (8:28), blind men (9:27; 20:30, false witnesses (26:60); sevens: demons (12:45), pardon (18:21-22), brothers (22:25), loaves (15:34), baskets (15:37), woes (23:13-30).
            If the groupings are examined––especially the groupings of threes––some interesting patterns and correlations emerge relative to the above discussed structural hypotheses. This is attractive since the evangelist is seemingly self-conscious about the threes in several places (cf. 1:17; 5:21-32; [note palin, v. 33] 5:33-48; 6:1-18; 13:24-33, 44-50; 25:1-46). The use of threes seems especially evident in the five discourses (see Micro-view above). Beyond the threes in the discourses (i.e., chaps. 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 24-25) note:[16]
  1:1           three names
12-17       three fourteens
1:18-2:23 three angelic appearances
2:11         three gifts
4:1-11      three temptations
5-7           threes in sermon on mount
8:1-17      three miracle stories
8:23-9:8   three miracle stories
9:18-34    three miracle stories
10:26, 28, 31 threefold fear not
11:2-19    three questions and answers
11:20-24  woes against three cities
12:1-50    two sets of three
13:24-48  two sets of three parables
15:21-27  three pleas for help (contra Mk. 7:24-30)
16:21       three groups (cf. Mk. 8:31)
16:24-28  three gavr clauses (contra Mk. 8:34-38)
17:1         three disciples
17:4         three booths (cf. Mk 9:5)
17:22-23  three actions (cf. Mk 9:31)
19:12       three classes of eunuchs
20:19       three punishments (contra Mk 10:34)
21:9         three cries (contra Mk 11:9-10)
21:28-22:14 three parables
22:15-40  three questions for Jesus
23:8-10    three warnings
23:20-22  three oaths
23:23       three spices and three virtues
24-25       threes in Olivet discourse
26:36-46  three prayers
26:57-68  high priest speaks three times
26:69-75  three denials of Peter
27:38       three crucified
27:39-44  three groups insult Jesus
27:45       three hours
27:51-55  three responses to his death––veil ripped, dead rise, centurion
27:56       three women
 

Evaluation of Proposals

            Neither the proposed five-fold structure nor the one playing off the two headings (i.e., 4:17; 16:21) should be put aside entirely. Both are based on the idea that Matthew self-consciously used a verbal formula as a structural marker in the gospel. Certainly, these formulas should each be noted as an editorial tool for the composing of the narrative. Beyond these, though, the gospel contains other structural literary techniques which perhaps suggest a patterning––e.g., the pervasive use of groupings. The caution to the student of the gospel should be to not over-interpret the structural patterns of the gospel. It seems that Matthew used a variety of techniques in shaping his gospel.
            None of the above-mentioned structures, however, are quite adequate. First, Matthew should not be understood as basically a numerically patterned narrative. Certainly he used various groupings, especially threes, but this is not the mainframe of his narrative (contra Allison and Davies). It seems to me that the narrator was not simply obsessed by a numerical strategy, but articulated the story through the characters and plot. Second, although Matthew may perhaps be seen as some type of inspired hybrid midrashic-narrative, it seems strange to think that half way through the narrative Matthew became fatigued and just copied Mark and Q with little editing (contra Gundry). A rhetorical reading as suggested above (Micro-view) seems to reveal Matthew as structured, creative, and distinctive (from Mark and Luke) throughout his gospel. Hence, I would argue that the failure to grasp the creative and dynamic plot-structure of Matthew by Gundry, Allison and Davies, and others may reflect the fatigue of the commentator rather than the gospel-writer. Third, neither the five-discourses nor the two-headings are overly useful in recognizing a structure which illuminates the narrative (contra Carson, Kingsbury, et al.). Both of these structures are so broad that fail to reflect the pattern of the story. Some of the formulas, however, noted by the five-discourse and two-heading views are minor and even major markers within Matthew.
            A clue can be gained from examining the plot of Matthew’s gospel.[17] If there is a formal structural marker, however, these should be noted in relation to the plot-development (contra Carter). Many interpreters focus on the coming of Jesus (often as the new Moses or the King) and develop an outline around the opposition and rejection of Jesus. This type of interpretation is valuable, but usually suffers from one or two shortcomings. First, limiting Matthew’s presentation of Jesus to either Moses or David or the Son of God does not adequately cover the variety of Matthew’s imaging techniques. Rather, Matthew seems to be suggesting that Jesus is in various ways each of those, plus uses some other more subtle pictures. Better, it seems to use the Anointed One (Messiah, Christ) as Matthew’s broader category (cf. 1:1, etc.). The Anointed One ideal can serve several sub-categories, like prophet-like-Moses, Son of David, mediator of Israel, and the Son of God. Second, often the presentation-rejection theme is applied too narrowly and does not allow for the full-range of movement of the narrative. A simple reading of the text reveals that Jesus was simultaneously embraced and rejected by different groups of characters. For example, he was embraced by the children (21:15) while being rejected by the religious leaders (21:14-16). Some have labeled the rejection an official rejection. This suffers from the lack of agreement by its proponents as to when it takes place which reveals the weakness in the view, that is, Matthew does not openly mention an official rejection. Further, these divisions are often somewhat arbitrary as the plot is dynamic and needs to have room for exceptions.

 



[1] In relation to the many interpreters who put significant weight on their structural proposal Donald A. Hagner is an anomaly. After a discussion of various interpretive schemas, Hagner offered that in his commentary no overall structural outline is offered (Word Biblical Commentary, liii).
[2] For a detailed survey of approaches to the structure of Matthew see Bauer, Structure, 21-55.
[3] For examples of this pattern used in interpretation of Matthew see Toussaint, Behold, 24-25.
[4] Some view the fifth discourse as beginning at 23:1 and view woes and Olivet discourse as arranged together.
[5] See note on 5:1-2 in Micro-view above.
[6] See Bacon, Studies.
[7] Cited in Davies/Allison, ICC, 1: 60; see also Hagner, lii.
[8] See D. C. Allison, Jr. The End of the Ages has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 1208 cited in Hagner, liii.
[9] See Turner, 2008.
[10] See Kingsbury, Matthew, 33; Bauer, Structure.
[11] For other critique of this understanding of the structure of Matthew see Carson, 50.
[12] See Carter, Matthew, 159-75, esp. 159.
[13] See Senior, Gospel of Matthew, 31-32.
[14] See Davies and Allison, 1: 61-72.
[15] See Gundry, Matthew, 10; also see Davies and Allison, ICC, 1: 61, 71.
[16] Adapted from Davies and Allison, ICC, 1: 86-87.
[17] For a helpful discussion of a literary reading of Matt. see Matera, Plot, 233-53.


For further reading, and full details of sources cited in notes see New Testament bibliography.  Also see bibliography on the use of scripture in scripture.


Copyright © 2012

ScriptureWorkshop.com


 
Return to Gospels