David R. Bauer. The Gospel of the Son of God: An Introduction to Matthew. IVP Academic, 2019. See here to purchase the book.
David R. Bauer teaches biblical studies at Asbury Theological Seminary.
This book covers the content of the Gospel of Matthew from its
beginning to its end. It also goes into issues surrounding the Gospel of
Matthew, such as its authorship, date, place of origin, and the
different types of scholarly criticisms, as well as topics in the
Gospel, including Christology, God, eschatology, and discipleship.
Some thoughts and observations:
A. Scholars debate about whether Papias was referring to the New
Testament Gospel of Matthew when he talked about a Gospel that Matthew
wrote. Papias says that the Gospel in question was a book of Hebrew
sayings, and that seems to differ from the New Testament Gospel of
Matthew. Bauer makes a fairly reasonable case that Papias indeed was
referring to the New Testament Gospel of Matthew. First, Papias uses the
term logia not only for sayings but also for narrative (i.e., the
Gospel of Mark), and the Gospel of Matthew contains both. Second, the
Gospel of Matthew uses Q, which may have originally been in Aramaic.
Aramaic was called “Hebrew” in antiquity. Third, early church fathers
believed that Papias was referring to the Gospel of Matthew.
B. Bauer contends that the Gospel of Matthew was a Jewish Christian
Gospel yet endorsed the inclusion of Gentiles into the Christian
community and God’s Kingdom. Like the early Methodists, who were in
Methodist communities yet also were part of Anglicanism, people in
Matthew’s church may have been part of the Christian community while
still remaining in the synagogue. Matthew’s community believed in the
continued viability of the Torah, as Jesus affirmed its underlying
principle of love and expanded its reach to the heart, not just external
actions. Yet, it embraced an approach to the Torah that diverged, in
areas, from the Torah itself and from Pharisaic interpretation and
application of it. This is evident on such issues as Sabbath observance
and divorce. Jesus’s innovations in Matthew are due to his inaugurating
new conditions (i.e., the increased presence of the Holy Spirit), which
necessitate a new approach to the Torah. Bauer offers an interpretation
of Jesus’s warning not to flee Jerusalem on the Sabbath day (Matthew
24:20). According to Bauer, Matthew’s community was evangelizing Jews
and did not want to create a stumblingblock by flagrantly disrespecting
the Sabbath day. In this scenario, Matthew’s Jesus was not assuming that
Christians were required to observe the Sabbath but rather supporting
respect for the Sabbath for evangelistic purposes.
C. Christology looms large in this book. Bauer spends pages on
Matthew’s definition of “Son of God” and whether Matthew believed in
Jesus’s divinity. Bauer believes that “Son of God” encompasses Jesus’s
status as ideal Israel and son of David yet goes beyond that, since
Matthew agrees with Mark that Jesus was more than the son of David. For
Bauer, Jesus’s virgin birth relates to how he was the Son of God.
Regarding the question of Jesus’s divinity, Bauer is agnostic about
whether Matthew saw Jesus as ontologically divine, yet he maintains that
Matthew regarded Jesus as functionally divine. Jesus in Matthew’s
Gospel carries divine titles, receives worship, does things that God
does, mediates God’s presence, possesses divine authority, knows God in a
manner that others do not, embodies divine wisdom, and is present with
the church after his resurrection in a way that God is present with
people.
D. In terms of eschatology, Bauer believes that Matthew sees the
Kingdom of God as already and not yet. It encompasses the eschaton and
the Second Coming, but, presently, it entails the creation of disciples
of Jesus. Matthew 24, for Bauer, does not envision the Second Coming
occurring in the first century. Bauer appeals to details of Matthew 24
to make this case. For example, Jesus says that the events of 70 C.E.
marked the beginning of sorrows but was not the actual end. In addition,
Jesus affirmed that no one knows the day or hour of Jesus’s Second
Coming. Bauer concludes that the signs Jesus talks about would precede
the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas the Second Coming would occur
unexpectedly, without any signs preceding it. Bauer provides food for
thought, yet he seems to contradict himself when he accepts N.T.
Wright’s view that Jesus’s Second Coming in Matthew 24 relates to Jesus
coming to his Father at his resurrection and the vindication of Jesus
through the events of 70 C.E. This runs contrary to his argument that 70
C.E. and the Second Coming are distinct from each other.
E. Regarding salvation, Bauer does not seem to think that Matthew
regards it as based on justification by grace through faith alone. In
Matthew’s Gospel, people will be judged, not only on their belief in
Jesus, but also on their words, whether or not they do righteousness,
and what they do with the opportunities for mission that God gives them.
Matthew 25 relates to Jesus’s judgment of the church as to whether it
takes care of the least within its midst, and the price of not doing so
is hell. A profound repentance is a requirement for being in God’s
Kingdom. Yet, Bauer maintains that Matthew presents God as generous and
gracious and assumes different levels of eschatological reward and
punishment.
F. The book is not so much a verse-by-verse commentary on Matthew’s
Gospel, but it goes through passages and shows how the parts fit into
the whole. For example, in discussing Matthew 7:1-5, Bauer says that a
critical spirit towards others runs contrary to identifying the sins in
one’s own life and repenting of them.
G. Overall, Bauer is thorough and judicious in his discussions,
leaving few loose ends. Even though one may think that his conclusions
appear all over the place, there is a remarkable coherence to them.
There are two loose ends, however. First, Bauer argues that John the
Baptist was not a part of God’s Kingdom, yet he also states that God’s
Kingdom retroactively includes the Old Testament saints. Bauer defends
both points from elements in Matthew’s Gospel, but he fails to reconcile
them with each other. Second, Bauer asserts that church discipline
relates to things that Jesus did not explicitly address, and God
supports the church’s decision. That just seems to give the church too
much power, in my opinion, which can be abused. Yet, Bauer denies that
church discipline’s legitimate application is arbitrary but coincides
with the character of God.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.