Benadam74′s Blog

The Conclusion of Matthew by Hans Kosmala 8-9

VIII

We have already seen that the early Christian mission consisted in the preaching of the “name of Jesus (Christ)”. Everything was done in his name, through his name, for (the sake of) his name, etc. The conclusion of the Gospel of Matthew reflects this fact very well, for which there is also sufficient evidence in the Gospel itself. As we have so far omitted examples of this evidence in Matthew, we add a further list. We must not expect to find here all the examples we culled from the other writings of the New Testament. Matthew’s Gospel which is certainly not the oldest document of the New Testament can rightly presuppose all that was said in the earlier tradition about the “name of Jesus”, but Matthew adds some remarkable passages underlining the importance of the new beginning in his name.

Matthew describes the name-giving and its significance in greater detail than the other evangelists (Mt. 1, 21-25; there are only two brief remarks in Luke, 1, 31 and 2, 21; there is nothing at all in Mark). Any gathering together, however small, must be done in the name of Jesus and he will be present (Mt. 18, 20; no parallels). On the occasion of the quarrel of the disciples, who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus likens the greatest to a humble child. Without that humbleness man cannot even enter into the Kingdom; but whoever receives one such child “in my name receives me” (Mt.18, 1-6; Mk. 9, 33-37; Lk. 9, 46-48). In Mark (10, 29) and Luke (18, 29) Jesus requires man to leave everything, house, family, and relatives for his and the gospel’s sake (Mark) or for the sake of the Kingdom of God (Luke); only Matthew’s wording is: “for my name’s sake” (19, 29). As God demanded of Abraham to leave his past life behind (Gen. 12, 1-3), so also he who enters into the new life “in the name of Jesus” must give up what was dear to him.

When Jesus sent out his disciples for the first time (to the lost sheep of the house of Israel) he warned them against the things that will await them: they “will be hated by all for his name’s sake” (Mat. 10, 22; not in Mark and Luke). The same admonition is repeated in one of the last speeches to the disciples concerning the tribulations of the end (Mat. 24, 9). The parallel texts (Mk. 13, 13; Lk. 21, 12.17) have the wording as Mat.10, 22, whilst Matthew puts it here in a slightly different form: “you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake”. The conclusion of Matthew shows that this is not a chance alteration. The nations which are to be taught “in his name” (cf. also 24, 14! =Mk. 13, 10) will hate and persecute them “for his name’s sake”. All synoptics warn against the false Messiahs who will rise in Jesus’ name in the time of the end (Mt. 24, 5; Mk. 13, 6; Lk. 21, 8), but Matthew alone speaks of those who, though not pretending to be Christ, do signs in his name, but do not do the will of the Father (7, 21-23; with a distant parallel in Lk. 6, 46).

IX

We come now to the last and perhaps most interesting passage, Mat. 12, 18-21. It is important not only for the conclusion of the Gospel, that is, the Eusebian conclusion, but also vice versa, the conclusion sheds new light on the version of this text. It is a quotation from Is. 42, 1-4, and it must be noted that it is unique to Matthew. It is not the LXX version 13); it is closer to the MT, especially in verse 18, on the other hand it deviates in a few instances from both the MT and the more literal translation of the LXX; it also omits the whole of Is. 42, 4a (to the atnach). A study of the differences between the three versions would be rewarding, but they do not concern us here with one exception which is important to us. It is the last line which, in this case, is practically identical with the LXX version…Some scholars have suggested that the LXX translation as it has come down to us is due to the error of a scribe who found in his Vorlage the correct translation TS1NOM but made a visual mistake and wrote TS2,ONOMATI. This error, these scholars argue, was perpetuated by subsequent copyists and was taken over by the NT writers who also left out the preposition En’L which had become redundant.

It is, however, hardly believable that the “correct” rendering…should have been entirely lost during the LXX transmission, also that the synoptic writers should have simply copied just this “error” when they otherwise did not follow the LXX (note also the additions of the LXX in Is. 42, 1; had the gospel writers adopted here the LXX rendering, they would have spoiled the object of their quotation completely).

Wherever the NT version of Is. 42, 4b came from, it must be admitted that it is the only wording of the line which makes sense in connection with the preceding verses 12, 14-17. It serves as a biblical support (verse 17) for Jesus’ request in verse 16. He had healed many people and he charged them not to make him known, with other words, his name and renown must remain unknown for the time being. We must not forget here that the name of a person is of course not just a name in the modern sense; the name designates the person himself. In particular, knowing and uttering the name of God (or of any divine power) assures, according to the biblical (OT and NT) conception, his presence (for help, as a witness, etc.) just as doing something in that name invokes his presence and assistance.

This helps us to understand the meaning of the last line of the quotation. It must be translated as follows: “and to his name the nations shall look forward”…The nations desire, and hope for, his coming, they wait for the revelation of his name, that is, his person and his authority. This is also exactly what the context of Matthew requires in order to make sense.

The Greek translation would go back to a Hebrew line…This line would also underlie the LXX translation. However, no such text has come down to us in Hebrew-but this would by no means be a final proof against the possibility that such a Hebrew text with semo instead of torato once existed. Such a text is not only quite possible, but, as we shall see, it makes good logical sense even in the original context of the Servant songs.

We should like to make one or two further observations on the MT text of Is. 42, 1-4 15). The word we might expect in the last line of this Servant song is micpato. Instead we find torato. The milpat which the Servant will bring about is mentioned twice before, not torah. Milpat is the justice to be actualized and made effective by the Servant. This is what the nations are waiting for: the realization of justice on earth, not just only another revelation of Torah, like that of Moses on Mount Sinai which probably was the idea behind the plural torotaw of the Isaiah MS found in Qumran. The word Torah is here well chosen, since the Servant is the mediator and dispenser of God’s Torah which is the basis of the Mishpat to be established on earth. The role ascribed to the Servant in Is. 49, 1-6, although he still remains hidden (verse 2), is far too active (verse 6b) than that he should be a mere law-giver only. We are mentioning this point to show that at an early stage some thought must have been given to this object of hope for the nations.

Another and perhaps more noteworthy point in this little poem (42, 1-4) is that it gives us a picture of the person of the Servant himself. It tells us what sort of a man he is. What he will be doing, is also declared in two very short lines: he will bring forth mispat to the nations, and he will bring it forth in truth. But one question over which we are kept in suspense still remains to be answered: Who is he? Or who will he be? His name has not been revealed, his person is not known. Is he already there, but still hidden? There is this mystery about the Servant of the Lord, and it is intended to be and to remain a mystery, at least for the present time, by the author of the Servant songs himself (49, 2): God is hiding him until the time for his revelation has come.

The nations are not only waiting for the Servant, they must remain waiting until he is revealed. A line which had lihvo is therefore as much to the point in this poem on the Servant as the line of the traditional MT with letorato. How does this apply to Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew? Jesus did not want to be made known; the time of his final revelation had not yet come. The author of the Gospel understood this very well. He also understood the mystery about the Servant in the ancient songs of Isaiah. He saw the inner resemblance. It is only in the last four lines of the Gospel that we hear that the full message of Jesus should now be spread: all nations should be made disciples and taught in his name. The message contains after all also a teaching, a new Torah in the prophetic sense which must be observed, a new Mishpat which must be established. In the Eusebian conclusion of the Gospel the quotation from Isaiah is remarkably well fulfilled, and vice versa, it is this same conclusion which would also justify a Hebrew version…Although the word uletorato of the MT does not appear in this line, the idea it stands for is de facto taken into account. With other words, the two versions of Is. 42, 4b are very close to each other.