Matthew

Home A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Abbreviations Glossary

---

Matthew, by Richard B. Gardner (Believers Church Bible Commentary)

Introduction

Relevance

Perhaps more than any other book of the Bible, the gospel of Matthew has shaped the faith and practice of Anabaptist communities. It was written as a resource for training disciples of Jesus to recognize his presence in their midst and to help one another discern and obey the will of God as interpreted by Jesus. Consistent with this purpose, Anabaptists have taken a Jesus-centered, communal approach to interpreting and living the Scriptures. In Matthew they have heard Jesus calling for some of their most distinctive commitments, including believers baptism, peacemaking, and communal discipline. After summarizing the background and content of Matthew, this article will highlight some passages that have inspired Anabaptists’ efforts to follow Jesus faithfully.

Sources

Comparing the gospels of Matthew and Mark gives us our best evidence for how and when Matthew took shape. Approximately ninety percent of the stories and sayings found in Mark are also in Matthew, often with very similar wording, although Matthew’s rendition tends to be more succinct and smoother grammatically. Matthew is significantly longer than Mark because it includes additional material, such as a genealogy, a birth narrative, many more parables and other teachings, and two scenes in which the risen Jesus appears to his followers. (The appearance story in Mark 16:9-20 is absent from early manuscripts and was not originally part of that gospel.) In Matthew, Jesus makes much clearer claims to be Israel’s Messiah and Son of God; he does not need to ask for information; and he comes across as a more successful teacher, able to make his disciples understand (13:51). At the end of the story, the Matthean disciples are more clearly equipped and authorized to continue Jesus’ teaching ministry. These and other improvements (from a first-century perspective) have convinced most scholars that Mark was a source for Matthew, not Matthew for Mark. There is also evidence to suggest that the author of Matthew used oral or written sources in addition to Mark. If the authors of Matthew and Luke each used a source that is now lost to us, it would explain why they share many sayings not found in Mark

Date and Context

Assuming with most scholars that Mark was written around 70 CE, we can date Matthew between 80 and 100 CE. This allows time for Mark to circulate and gain popularity before being used independently by the authors of Matthew and Luke. During that time Jewish communities were still adjusting to the devastation of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem by Roman armies in 66-73 CE. In response to the loss of the Temple, rabbis in the tradition of the Pharisees took leadership in refocusing Jewish identity on the study of Scripture wherever God’s people could gather. The Jewish-Christian communities who first heard the gospel of Matthew were making similar adjustments, but their small assemblies were centered around the presence and authority of the risen Jesus.

Conflicts intensified as Jewish communities moved on a trajectory toward the separation of Jesus-followers from Judaism. Matthew’s allegory of the wedding banquet (22:1-14) is one of many passages reflecting sharp conflict. It interprets Rome’s burning of Jerusalem as a divine punishment for the leaders’ rejection of Jesus’ call to repent and enter the reign of heaven (22:7). In fact, Rome destroyed Jerusalem to punish the Judean people for rebelling against excessive demands for tribute. Matthew’s characterization of Israel’s leaders is consistently negative, portraying them as merciless, murdering hypocrites. There are indications that Matthean communities felt slandered by the leaders of nearby synagogues (e.g., 5:11), and those feelings were probably mutual.

The oppression of Jews throughout the empire worsened after the Roman war against the Jews. Matthew’s call for turning the other cheek and going the second mile was, in part, a peaceful strategy for dealing with Roman oppression; however, to call this strategy “non-resistant” would be to ignore the ways in which Matthew resists Roman ideology. According to Matthew, Israel’s God, not Jupiter, is the true ruler of heaven and earth; and Jesus, not Caesar, is the Son of God and the Lord and Savior of the world (e.g., 5:34-35; 25:31-46; 26:27-29; 28:16-20).

Allusions to Matthew by Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century are part of the evidence persuading some scholars that Matthew was composed in Syria, probably in Antioch. This geographical pinpointing is far from certain, nor is it necessary since Jews would have faced similar conditions in many other cities of the eastern Roman empire.

Authorship

Early church tradition dating from the second century claims that Matthew was written by the tax collector whose call is reported in Matthew 9:9; nevertheless, the evidence discussed above makes authorship by one of the twelve apostles less likely. It is difficult to explain why an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry would rely extensively on other sources, including Mark, which was not written by an eyewitness. The title “according to Matthew” was not added to manuscripts until after the first century.

Efforts to identify the author might be better spent asking why he or she chose to remain anonymous. Anonymity would have helped keep audiences’ attention focused on Jesus. It also would have recognized that remembering and proclaiming the gospel was a communal task, making this rendition of the gospel the property of the community. Attributing gospels to named apostles became more important in the second century when various gospels were competing for authority and when some of them claimed that Jesus had given special revelations to favorite followers.

This article uses Matthew as a shortened title for the book, not as a name for the author. With or without a name, we can say with confidence that the author was well versed in Jewish traditions, supportive of mission to Gentiles, fluent in Greek, poetically gifted, and well organized as a teacher. Matthew 13:52 gives us a glimpse of the author’s self-concept: “every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old” (NRSV passim, unless otherwise indicated).

Structure of Matthew

Richard Gardner’s explanation of the literary structure of Matthew includes two intriguing analogies (Gardner: 22–23). First, Matthew is like a house where added rooms have made the structure more complex. A repeated phrase in Matthew 4:17 and 16:21 helps audiences navigate the enlarged floorplan: “From that time Jesus began to . . .” The first main part of the narrative (1:1–4:16) focuses on presenting Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. The narrator then announces a new focus: “From that time Jesus began to proclaim, ‘Repent, for the reign of heaven has come near’” (4:17 AT). Audiences then hear an extended report of Jesus’ proclamation of the reign of heaven in word and deed as well as varied responses to that proclamation. A third focus begins in 16:21 without canceling the previous two: “From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Although Jesus is still in Galilee at that point, attention shifts toward Jerusalem and the suffering that awaits him there. This analysis suggests a three-part outline:

• 1:1–4:16 Presentation of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God
• 4:17–16:20 Jesus’ proclamation of the reign of heaven and responses to that proclamation.
• 16:21–28:20 The suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus

Gardner recognizes the transitions at 4:16 and 16:21 plus a few others in his proposal of a six-part outline:

• 1:1–4:16 Jesus’ Origins and Calling
• 4:17–10:42 Jesus’ Messianic Mission
• 11:1–16:20 Israel Responds to Jesus
• 16:21–20:34 Jesus’ Final Journey
• 21:1–25:46 Jesus in Jerusalem
• 26:1–28:20 Jesus’ Death and Resurrection

Gardner’s second analogy compares Matthew to a musical drama in which the action pauses periodically while characters burst into song. In Matthew’s case the soloist is Jesus, who pauses to instruct both the disciples in the story and the audience of the story. After five such discourses, a similar phrase signals a transition back to a more action-oriented narrative: “Now when Jesus had finished saying these things . . .” (7:28-29; compare 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). Each discourse focuses on a topic related to the reign of heaven:

• 5:1–7:29 The greater righteousness of those who will enter the reign of heaven (Sermon on the Mount)
• 9:36–10:42 Instructions for proclaiming the reign of heaven
• 13:1-52 Parables that conceal and reveal the mystery of the reign of heaven
• 18:1-35 How to be great in the reign of heaven
• 24:1–25:46 The end-time consummation of the reign of heaven

Although these discourses slow the flow of the narrative, they do not divide it into five books as some scholars have proposed.

Summary and Comment

Conflicts

Two conflicts drive Matthew’s plot toward its climax and resolution in the passion narrative.

Jesus vs. Leaders

The first conflict to emerge is between Jesus and the religious and political leaders of his people. It is essentially a dispute over authority. The crowds observe authority in Jesus that the leaders cannot match (7:28-29). The leaders hear blasphemy when Jesus claims authority to forgive sins (9:1-8); and, when he goes so far as to revise Sabbath laws, they begin plotting to destroy him (12:14). Jesus brings the conflict to a head by confronting the leaders in Jerusalem, their seat of power. His prophetic demonstration at the temple elicits their burning question, “By what authority are you doing these things?” (21:23). Recognizing that Jesus acts with divine authority could lead to repentance; instead, the leaders conspire to have Pilate execute Jesus, an outcome foreshadowed in the infancy narrative (2:1-23) and in John’s story (3:1-12; 4:12; 14:1-12; 17:12-13). This conflict is resolved in Jesus’ favor when God raises him from the dead, allowing him to announce that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (28:18).

Jesus vs. Disciples

A second conflict is between Jesus and the twelve disciples. Their small faith pales beside the great faith of some who seek healing from Jesus (e.g., 8:10; 8:26; 14:31; 15:28). The twelve also fail to understand that Jesus’ way of being Messiah will not bring an immediate triumph but will require service and suffering in solidarity with others. Peter shows this misunderstanding when he rejects Jesus’ prediction of suffering and when Jesus responds, “Get behind me Satan!” (16:23). This conflict comes to a climax at Jesus’ arrest when he refuses to act in self-defense and his male followers betray, deny, and desert him (26:45-75). Meanwhile, Jesus has female followers who remain loyal to him, become the first witnesses to the resurrection, and successfully gather the eleven men who remain following Judas’s tragic suicide (27:3-5, 55-56, 61; 28:1-10). Like the conflict with Israel’s leaders, Jesus’ conflict with male followers is resolved in the final scene (28:16-20). Having forgiven the “brothers,” Jesus includes them in a commission to teach all nations. Matthew’s audiences can expect success in that mission, not because of the disciples’ strength or wisdom but because Jesus has promised to be with them always.

Purposeful Rhetoric

Both major conflicts contributed to the purposes of the gospel of Matthew in the late first century. Jesus’ conflict with Israel’s leaders served in part to justify a movement of house-based assemblies that would be different from “their synagogue[s]” (4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54). It would also have encouraged audiences to avoid hypocrisy while worshiping and following Jesus as Messiah. Meanwhile, Jesus’ conflict with disciples would have encouraged audiences to deepen their faith, to practice solidarity even at the cost of suffering, to forgive as God had forgiven them, and to value servant-oriented leadership among sisters and brothers in faith.

Audiences would have learned from Jesus’ discourses what the reign of heaven is like and how to live out its virtues on earth, including love, justice, righteousness, peace, reconciliation, humility, and mercy. The discourses typically use deliberative rhetoric, which answers the question, “What should we do?”

Matthew also employs a rhetoric of comparison that demonstrates the superiority of Jesus to followers, opponents, and great figures of the past. Sayings and stories demonstrate that Jesus and the reign he has inaugurated are greater than John the Baptist (3:11), Jonah (11:41), and Solomon (11:42). When Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus on a mountain, Jesus is the one affirmed from heaven as “my Son the Beloved” (17:1-9). These comparisons enhance the gospel’s persuasiveness by magnifying the wisdom and authority of Jesus.

Points of Emphasis

Fulfillment of Scripture

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them. Thus, the voice from heaven in 17:5 (“listen to him!”) does not imply that disciples should listen only to Jesus while ignoring Moses and Elijah. Their appearance together shows agreement and illustrates Matthew’s theme of fulfillment. A notable feature of Matthew is the quotation of prophetic texts that God has fulfilled through events surrounding the life of Jesus. In addition, Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets by carrying out their purpose and instructing his disciples to do the same. Jesus may seem to contradict the law when declaring, “You have heard that it was said . . . , but I say to you . . .” (5:21-48). In fact, he is calling for obedience that goes beyond the law’s letter to accomplish its deeper purpose. The same is arguably true when Jesus heals on the Sabbath, since healing can restore the rhythm of work and rest that the Sabbath laws support (e.g., Deut. 5:12-15; cf. Matt. 11:28-30). This theme in Matthew has informed an Anabaptist understanding that the relationship between the Old and New Testaments is one of promise and fulfillment.

The Reign of Heaven

“Reign of heaven” (also translated kingdom of heaven) is Matthew’s distinctive term for God’s work as the sovereign of all creation. It is synonymous with “reign of God,” which also appears in Matthew 12:28 and 19:24. Since the word “heaven” is a substitute for “God,” the reign of heaven is more than a place where faithful souls go after death. Jesus teaches his disciples to pray that God’s reign will come on earth as it is in heaven (6:10). Matthew summarizes the message proclaimed by John, Jesus, and the twelve as “repent, for the reign of heaven has come near” (3:2; 4:17; cf. 10:7 AT). The reign of heaven is near in time since the Messiah has already appeared, and it is physically near since he embodies it. The church is also called to embody God’s reign but can never encompass or control it.

Ongoing Presence

Matthew ends with Jesus’ promise to remain with his disciples always (28:20). Strikingly absent from the narrative is any reference to Jesus ascending into heaven (see Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9; also Mark 16:19). Matthew anticipates a future visible appearance of Jesus in power (24:30), emphasizing, however, that disciples can welcome him already as an unseen presence in their midst, or as one of the people considered “least” (18:5, 20; 25:31-46). This emphasis begins in the birth narrative, where Jesus is called “Immanuel” meaning “God is with us” (1:23). The references to Jesus’ presence at the beginning and end of Matthew create what scholars call an inclusio in which repeated ideas interpret what comes between them.

Conclusion and the Anabaptist Tradition

Believers Baptism

Following Mark, Matthew reports Jesus’ baptism at the beginning of his mission as the Messiah and beloved Son of God (3:13-17). John baptizes people for repentance, treating Jews like proselytes who need to be cleansed for a fresh start. Jesus seeks baptism for a different reason, “to fulfill all righteousness.” In other words, Jesus’ baptism will further God’s project of restoring right relationships in the end-times. Although Jesus presumably does not need repentance, he is making a costly decision to obey God’s will, a decision that Satan will test (4:1-11; cf. 16:21-23; 27:39-43).

Anabaptists have understood John’s baptism of Jesus as a model for the baptism of disciples commanded in Matthew 28:19. Like John’s baptism, Christian baptism enacts a fresh start for people who have decided to repent of their sins and join in God’s mission. The command in 28:19 makes baptism inseparable from instruction in the demands, costs, and joys of discipleship. Matthew is a curriculum for this instruction, which focuses on the commands of Jesus together with his example. New disciples need instruction both before and after baptism, to understand more of the commitment they are making.

These considerations have led Anabaptists to witness against infant baptism as premature at best and coercive at worst. Parents can and should raise their children to follow Jesus, but parents can neither repent on behalf of their children nor force them to become true disciples. When rulers required all their subjects to be baptized as infants, the result in Anabaptist eyes was churches full of people with only nominal commitments.

One advantage of infant baptism is that it testifies to God’s gracious welcome of all people from birth. Anabaptists have found other ways to affirm that God’s grace includes children while they grow toward an understanding that makes baptism appropriate. Jesus’ welcome for children in Matthew 19:13-15 provides a basis for the prayerful blessing of children and parents in worship.

In some ways Anabaptist perspectives on discipleship have prevailed even among denominations that were formerly state churches. Regardless of when and how churches baptize, most individuals now choose their own faith commitments. Since we cannot coerce our children and grandchildren to be Christians, how can we persuade them? Matthew does not give easy answers to that question, but it suggests at the very least that we need to practice the best of what we preach.

Peacemaking

The beatitudes that introduce the Sermon on the Mount include a blessing on “peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (5:9). Peacemaking here connotes more than living quietly or nonviolently; it is actively working for shalom, which includes peace, justice, and many other aspects of wellbeing.

The Beatitudes in 5:1-12 are promises not commands, but Jesus’ subsequent commands also emphasize peacemaking as an essential task of those who would participate in God’s reign. Reconciliation with a sister or brother heals out-of-control anger and is more urgent than other acts of worship (5:21-26). Rather than engaging in legally permitted retaliation, disciples must take the initiative in witnessing for God’s shalom by responding to evil with good (5:38-42). Matthew 5:39 prohibits forms of resistance that mirror the actions of an oppressor, but it does not exclude prophetic witnessing, as Jesus shows by example in the rest of the narrative. Surprising initiatives like turning the other cheek when slapped, handing all one’s clothes to a debt collector, or carrying a Roman soldier’s load for a second mile can create opportunities to witness. In situations of conflict, reproof can be an aspect of love, as the law Jesus quotes from Leviticus 19:17-18 makes clear. By expanding the scope of the Levitical love-command to include enemies, Jesus calls for a love as complete as God’s, who mercifully cares for all people regardless of how good they are (5:43-48; cf. 13:24-30, 36-43). This teaching does not promise that enemies will change in response to the disciples’ witness. Instead, Matthew 5:45 gives a motive that echoes the beatitude for peacemakers: “so that you may be children of your Father in heaven.”

These commands are obviously hard to follow in a world with far too much violence. Even disciples who could sacrifice their own lives to love an enemy might act differently when an attack is directed against a family member or an innocent neighbor. Such considerations lead many Christians to limit the contexts where Matthew 5:38-48 applies. Perhaps it is a counsel of perfection for clergy and members of religious orders; ordinary Christians must be prepared to fight if necessary. Perhaps it applies to all Christians’ personal relationships but not to their duties as citizens of a state.

In contrast, Anabaptists have affirmed that Jesus requires obedience from all disciples all the time. The literal actions named in Matthew 5:39-42 might not fit every context, but they illustrate the surprising and sometimes risky choices that Christian peacemakers are called to make. Love for enemies is not an impossible ideal but a divine gift that can be nurtured through the prayer that Jesus commands and models. Because of these stances, many Anabaptists have refused to participate in war, and there has been much courageous work for peace.

Another possible limit to the application of the Sermon on the Mount is debatable in Anabaptist circles. An Anabaptist two-kingdom theory can allow for different ethical standards in the world than in the church. According to some, sword-bearing should be expected in the kingdoms of the world since God uses sinners to restrain other sinners. Disciples of Jesus must not defend themselves violently, but they may legitimately benefit from the defenses that governments provide. Other Anabaptists have understood that the Sermon on the Mount expresses God’s will for everyone, and they have been more inclined to urge their governments to act peacefully.

Anabaptists agree that we cannot obey the Sermon on the Mount without help. God’s strength and wisdom are essential, and the Sermon’s plural pronouns suggest the need for a collective human effort. It is easier to make sacrifices for peace when we know that a loving community stands ready to help with the cost. Survivors of abuse especially need communal support for their safety and emotional recovery. Expecting them to keep turning the other cheek without help would be a serious misreading of Matthew.

Communal Discipline and Discernment

The work of forming and sustaining supportive communities is rarely easy due to the persistent reality of human sinfulness. For example, a congregation may want to support survivors of abuse, but what if an abuser is also a member? The author of Matthew was aware of such concerns and included instructions for correcting sin in the church. Anabaptists have taken those instructions seriously.

Matthew 18:15-17 calls for a minimum of three attempts to seek repentance from a sinful disciple. An initial one-on-one visit allows for communication about the situation without gossip or public shaming. If that attempt does not resolve the situation, one or two others come along to add their perspective and buttress the call for repentance. If that attempt fails, the whole congregation hears about the situation and adds its call for repentance. If there is still no resolution, the congregation can decide to treat the offender as “a gentile and a tax collector.”

The meaning of “a Gentile and a tax collector” is debatable. Some groups have read it in conjunction with 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and taken it to mean “have nothing to do with the unrepentant person.” Others have observed that in Matthew Jesus calls a tax collector to discipleship, heals Gentiles, and includes them in God’s mission after the resurrection. In this reading, “a Gentile and a tax collector” is not someone to avoid but one who still needs to heed the gospel.

There are other ways in which the literary context of Matthew 18:15-17 can inform efforts to correct sin. The parable of the stray sheep comes immediately before those verses and has a similar grammatical pattern involving “if” and “then.” This connection suggests that 18:15-17 is an example of how to carry out the shepherd’s concern within a community of disciples. Rejoicing, not punishment, is the response when the shepherd finds an endangered sheep. Especially when we compare Matthew 18:10-17 to other ancient disciplinary codes, we see that its goal is to restore offenders, not punish or exclude them.

Matthew 18 elaborates on the paradox that people with the low status of children are the greatest in the reign of heaven. Humility and prior self-correction are thus essential for anyone who would carry out church discipline in the spirit that Jesus teaches (18:1-9; cf. 7:3-5). The term “little ones” describes people of any age who have low social status and thus greater need for protection. The disciples’ question about greatness and Jesus’ concern for little ones invite critical reflection on the power dynamics involved in a disciplinary process. Is the process reenforcing control by people with more power in the community, or is it protecting people with less power? Concerns about power differences and basic safety should warn against any expectation that survivors of abuse confront their abusers alone. Repentance by an abuser also requires the acceptance of strong measures to protect against abuse happening again. Easy, private pardons of abusive church leaders must be a thing of the past.

Shortly after 18:15-17 come a pronouncement and parable requiring disciples to forgive one another without limits out of gratitude for God’s forgiveness. The combination shows that anyone who attempts to confront a sinful brother or sister must be eager to forgive. Discipline without forgiveness can be oppressive, but a requirement of unlimited forgiveness can also add to oppression caused by sins like racism, sexism, and domestic abuse where there is no repentance or accountability. Forgiveness is possible in such cases, but reconciliation depends on repentance that includes truth-telling, long-term change, and restitution. The accountability of Matthew 18:15-17 and the forgiveness of 18:21-35 belong together.

Finally, three promises in Matthew 18:18-20 undergird the work of communal discipline and discernment. In 18:18 Jesus authorizes the community of disciples “to bind” and “to loose,” which are rabbinic terms for deciding which actions are forbidden or allowed. Jesus does not authorize disciples to make whatever decisions they like, since he has taught them to pray for the doing of God’s will (6:9-13; cf. 12:46-50). The authority to bind and to loose does, however, open space for disciples to gain improved understandings of God’s will over time.

The next two promises each provide a foundation for the previous one. The authority to bind and to loose is a specific instance of the broader promise that God will answer prayers from disciples who agree in Jesus’ name (18:19). This promise, in turn, is based on Jesus’ covenant to be present with even the smallest communities that gather in his name (18:20). His presence gives hope even now for better discernment around divisive issues. As we struggle to discern the mind of Christ, we do well to remember that Jesus identifies with the least powerful members of a community (18:5; 25:31-46). We should not be surprised when he also speaks through them.

Conclusion

In about a generation after the war in 66-73 CE, an anonymous author expanded the gospel of Mark using stories and sayings from other sources. The revised narrative encouraged communities of Jesus’ followers who were oppressed by Rome and in conflict with nearby synagogues. These communities experienced the presence of the risen Jesus in their midst. They learned from Jesus’ teaching and example how to participate in God’s saving work, which they called the reign of heaven. The gospel of Matthew has been an essential resource for teaching communities of disciples ever since. It has taught Anabaptists to engage in such practices as believers baptism, peacemaking, and communal discipline and discernment. Because Jesus remains present wherever disciples gather in his name, there is potential for all Christians to improve our discernment and practice of God’s will.

Recommended Essays in the Commentary

Anti-Semitism
Christ/Christology
Jewish Groups and Parties
Jewish Writings
Matthew's Distinctive Themes
Matthew, Literary Characteristics
Matthew’s Sources

The sections on “The Text in the Life of the Church” feature many Anabaptist interpretations.

Bibliography

• Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000.
• Case-Winters, Anna. Matthew. Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2015.
• Culpepper, R. Alan. Matthew: A Commentary. New Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2021.
• Crosby, Michael H. House of Disciples: Church, Economics, and Justice in Matthew. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988.
• Duran, Nicole Wilkinson, and James Grimshaw, eds. Matthew. Texts@Contexts. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2013.
• Gardner, Richard B. Matthew. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1991.
• Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
• Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
• Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1-7. Matthew 8-20. Matthew 21-28. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2007, 2001, 2005.
• Powell, Mark Allan. “Binding and Loosing: A Paradigm for Ethical Discernment from the Gospel of Matthew.” Currents in Theology and Mission 30, no. 6 (December 2003): 438–45.
• Ramshaw, Elaine. “Power and Forgiveness in Matthew 18.” Word & World 18, no. 4 (Fall 1998): 397–404.
• Swartley, Willard M. “Matthew: Emmanuel, Power for Peacemaking.” In Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics, 53-91. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
• Ulrich, Daniel W. “The Missional Audience of the Gospel of Matthew.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 69, no. 1 (January 2007): 64–83.
• Ulrich, Daniel, and Janice Fairchild. Caring Like Jesus: The Matthew 18 Project. Elgin, IL: Brethren, 2002.
• Weaver, Dorothy Jean. The Irony of Power: The Politics of God within Matthew's Narrative. Studies in Peace and Scripture: Institute of Mennonite Studies. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017.

Invitation to Comment

To recommend improvements to this article, click here.

—Daniel W. Ulrich

—Published BCBC commentary by Richard B. Gardner