Factionalism within a congregation is no strange phenomenon. One faction, for example, may promote a theology (or ecclesiology) as rooted in biblical teachings, and too often offer proof texts to support this or that point of view. However, when the Gospel of Matthew was written, the Old Testament was available but access to Jesus’ words and deeds depended upon oral tradition and some written texts (mostly collections of sayings). Today, we have an even larger pool from which to draw our proof texts: both the Old and New Testaments. Just as today’s factional leaders use selected proof texts that support their position, ancient parties in the same community would appeal to some of Jesus’ sayings and parables to foster the legitimacy of their own points of view.
How do we approach the problem of such sectarian impulses? Matthew provides us with a strategy. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Gospel of Matthew groups various sayings of Jesus to help us appreciate how different (sometimes apparently contrasting) statements were, in fact, to be understood in the wider context of the teaching of Jesus. By doing so, Matthew acknowledges the different points of view, and instead of refuting them, tries to give each party’s arguments a role, making them converge towards a fuller understanding of Jesus’ point of view.
To discipline or not to discipline?
Consider passages such as Matthew 7:15, 21 and 10:17.1 They clearly evidence a strong suspicion against the “ ‘false prophets’ ” who constitute a threat to the Matthean community. In contrast, striking is the omission of the exorcism (Mark 9:38; Luke 9:49) performed by an outsider and the rephrasing of Mark 9:40 (cf. Luke 9:50) in Matthew 12:30. Apparently, Matthew made no acknowledgment of outsider Christians.
Nevertheless, Matthew 12:49 is especially addressed to the members of his own community, rather than to people in general as in Mark 3:34 and Luke 8:21.2 Moreover, the strong group identity is not paired with a fierce sharpness in dealing with those who disqualify themselves from being members of the community.
Matthew surrounded his disciplinary instructions (Matt. 18:15–18) with the parable of the lost sheep (vv. 12–14), an injunction about unlimited forgiveness (vv. 21, 22), and the parable of the unmerciful steward (vv. 23–35). William G. Thompson points out that Matthew “distinguished between the sheep going astray and one that was lost (Mt 18,12-14 = Lk 15,4-7) and separated the sayings about fraternal correction and unlimited forgiveness in order to expand and develop each theme (Mt 18,15a.21-22 = Lk 17,3-4).”3 In doing so, Matthew was strongly mitigating the attempt of the community to hysterically purge itself.4
Matthew 18 also has an appeal to the disciples to become like children and humble themselves (vv. 3, 4), and to receive others in the name of Jesus (v. 5). At the same time, they were exhorted to avoid despising or causing “ ‘little ones’ ” to stumble (vv. 6, 10), even though they might be considered lost (v. 11).
If the Matthean community was struggling to maintain internal order, expelling some members would have been an inevitable choice in some instances. But, as J. Andrew Overman argues, Matthew “may have included this disciplinary process reluctantly,”5 while inviting the community to exert forgiveness and to “if at all possible, hold off until the eschaton or, big time, when all will be judged, gathered, or destroyed.”6
According to Matthew 5:22 and the parables of the virgins and the talents (Matt. 25:1–30), punishment is the wage of the unfaithful insiders. Interestingly enough, Matthew 25:31–46 (the Son of man judging all nations) does not differentiate between this or that group, but between those who have or have not followed the will of God as revealed in Christ.7 By creating this shift, Matthew shook the very foundation of the bold sectarian attitude he perceived within his community.
Matthew’s developing community
The Matthean community started under the influence of missionary Christian Jews coming from rural Palestine. After a couple of decades, the group evolved into an urban, economically stable, “comparatively wealthy” community.8
Robert Hann remarks that the “ ‘poor’ ” and those who “ ‘hunger now’ ” in Luke 6:20, 21 are changed into “ ‘those who hunger and thirst for righteousness’ ” in Matthew 5:6, and the injunction “ ‘Sell your possessions’ ” of Luke 12:33 becomes “ ‘[d]o not store up for yourselves treasures on earth’ ” in Matthew 6:19.9
The Matthean group probably experienced change and growth as the years passed. The letter of Ignatius seems to show that the Matthean community had to face the influence of the Pharisees fleeing Palestine as well as a new generation of Gentile Christian leaders.10 On the one hand, there were internal issues as Gentiles joined the ranks, and maybe a rural mind-set clashed with a more urban one; on the other hand, there were external frictions with other Jewish communities in the public arena.
Matthew, to counteract sectarian impulses coming from within his community, accounted for different (and probably incompatible) ideologies and attitudes in order to reorganize them into the more comprehensive picture given by Jesus’ historical teaching and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What Matthew wrote is not a monolithic theological treatise,11 but something that has more of the character of messages of instruction. In doing so, Matthew’s purpose was to facilitate a difficult, though vital and necessary, transition.
The parable of the tares and its explanation
To support this hypothesis, we move to the study of the parable of the tares and the tension between the parable and its explanation (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43).12
Other than the parable of the sower (Matt. 13:1–9; Mark 4:1–9; Luke 8:4–15), the parable of the tares among the wheat is the only parable in the Gospels with a developed interpretation (Matt. 13:24–30, 36–43). Though Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the parable of the sower and its explanation, only Matthew contains the parable of the tares and its explanation.
Matthew 13:40, which claims to reveal the true meaning of the parable, omits the exhortation to patience and tolerance that characterizes the parable (cf. Matt 13:30, “ ‘ “Let both grow together” ’ ”). The explanation emphasizing the destiny of the tares (v. 36, “ ‘Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field’ ”) clearly indicates a change of perspective.
From a narrative point of view, the climax of the parable occurs in the interaction between the servants and their master. The master utterly discards the servants’ proposal (anticipated collection of the tares). The master’s order is an invitation to consider the present time’s tolerance as necessary and useful for the resolution of the problem: “ ‘ “Let both grow together” ’ ” refers to the present time while maintaining the validity of a solution in the future. Although the future’s resolution does not belong to the servants, it is naturally rendered possible by their patience and required attitude to let grow.
Notice that the actions of the sower and the enemy in the parable are performed only once, and they are limited to the past.13 In the explanation, however, we witness a change in perspective: the Sower, now identified as the Son of man (v. 37), is the One who “soweth” (v. 37, KJV, which gives to His action a status of mixed prolepses), while the enemy (the devil) is the one who “sowed” (v. 39, KJV). The enemy/ devil’s action is situated in the past (analepses) but is, by now, revealed.
The most interesting shift between the point the parable is trying to make and the perspective of its explanation occurs in the second part of the explanation: here the parable’s emphasis on the servants’ action (the passive action of letting the seeds grow) is totally ignored, and instead replaced by a long description of what will happen at the end of the time. In other words, the temporal elements found in the parable are resumed in the explanation but with a displaced accent.
The center of the narrative structure in the parable is identified by mixed prolepses. The explanation, however, drops the exhortation to be patient and emphasizes only one aspect of the wheat-tares coexistence: the lengthy and detailed “little apocalypse” (vv. 41–43). Most of the narrative focuses on the bad seed/ sons of the devil.
Interestingly, the explanation (vv. 41–43a) introduces an apocalyptic element totally absent in the parable. In this “little apocalypse,” what is surprising is the fact that the lawless are found within the kingdom of the Son of man; the kingdom of the Son of man is therefore described as a body that has both wheat and tares (a corpus mixtum). The concluding appeal (v. 43b) of the parable is to comprehend the meaning of the explanation.
Tolerance and excommunication
Tolerance and excommunication seem to coexist within the same gospel: Matthew 13:30 and 18:15–17. We believe that Matthew’s strategy is to reorganize his sources to convey a more accurate and complete legacy of Jesus. In other words, Matthew uses the same argument of those who want to enforce a strict discipline within the community (namely Matt. 18:18) with a twist in favor of Jesus’ own view. The eschatological element (excommunication equals deprivation of salvation: Matt. 18:18; cf. 16:19b),14 which for some justifies excommunication, becomes for Matthew the very reason for which the community members should not be so quick in purging and condemning (cf. Matt. 13:41, “ ‘The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil’ ”).
Matthew presents the parable of the tares according to his inspired theological and ecclesiological perspective as expressed in the entire of chapter 18 of his Gospel. Those who are going astray need, first of all, to be accepted as still being a part of the community; secondly, to be forgiven; thirdly, to be looked after and patiently rescued and encouraged; and, only as a last and drastic measure, to be disciplined.
Matthew presents the parable of the tares in such a way as to highlight that the tares are found in the midst of the wheat and that the bad seed had been sowed upon and among the good seed; the servants are surprised by the presence of the tares in the field; the “fruit” (works) will indicate the difference between the two plants; the danger of pulling out the good plants along with the tares is because of their intermingled roots; and the master asks the servants to wait (aphiêmi), a word which can be also translated as to forgive or to permit.15
To this interpretation, if we add the fact that the word oikodespotês (“master of the house”) may refer to Jesus as well as to the Christians,16 it is natural to conclude that Jesus’ parable was, in fact, encouraging the community to accept and deal with its status of corpus mixtum (mixed body composed of good and evil).
The servants in the parable do not receive any allegorical counterpart in the explanation. Matthew does not censure the radical dualism which sees the children of God as opposed to the children of the evil one, but reframes it into the correct original context: the kingdom of the Son of man (13:41).
In the “little apocalypse” (vv. 40–43), the kingdom of the Son of man is inhabited by the righteous (who will eventually enter into the kingdom of the Father) as well as by the scandalous and the unrighteous. The difficulty of the text rests in the understanding of the nature of the kingdom of the Son of man (v. 41); is it the church, the world, or an eschatological entity? 17
Regardless of which position one may stand for, it is logical to see the church’s specific responsibility: the action of “sowing” performed by the Son of man is not limited to His past earthly life but continues in the present time. Matthew 13:37 clearly reads a present tense (“the one sowing the good seed is the Son of Man”)18 whereas the parable reads the aorist “ ‘sowed’ ” (v. 24). The very fact that Matthew puts the scandals and “ ‘all who do evil’ ” (v. 41) within the kingdom of the Son of man might be an attack against a form of soteriological security common in contemporary Palestinian Judaism.
Matthew 13:24–30 (the parable of the tares) and 36–43 (its explanation) refuse any anticipation of the eschatological judgment. Matthew makes the kingdom of the Son of man the theater of this judgement. By doing so, Matthew follows a tradition already found in Ezekiel 9:6 (“ ‘Begin at my sanctuary’ ”) and 12:2 (cf. also Matt. 13:13–16; Isa. 6:9, 10). It is precisely the people of God, as Israel, but also as the kingdom of Christ, that the Judge will sift.19 The final judgment will surely run over “ ‘his [of the Son of man] kingdom’ ” (Matt. 13:41), and this should be enough to discourage any illusion of soteriological security and to foster in the community a new self-understanding that would lead its members away from excessive and fierce sectarian attitudes.
Conclusion
The Gospel of Matthew might not stem from a monolithic community, but from one in which conflicting views uncomfortably coexisted. Matthew counters sectarian impulses coming from within his community by undermining soteriological security and discouraging his people from any utopian attempts to constitute themselves into a community free of any impurity. Self-understanding, community discipline, and relationships with other Jewish groups are all intimately related in the Gospel of Mathew.
Such an ecclesiological approach might prove useful in today’s congregations struggling with internal tensions. As with Matthew, we need a wholehearted pastoral attitude, a keen knowledge of the different claims, and an inspired understanding of Jesus’ teaching and ministry as a whole.
1. All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are
taken from the New International Version.
2. J. Andrew Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative
Judaism: A Study of the Social World of the Matthean
Community (Boston: University of Boston, 1989), 111,
126–130.
3. William G. Thompson, Matthew’s Advice to a Divided
Community: Mt 17,22-18,35, Analecta Biblica 44 (Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 262.
4. See also G. Bornkamm, “End-Expectation and Church in
Matthew 15-51,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew
(London: SCM Press, 1963), 20; Overman, Matthew’s
Gospel, 101; Douglas R. A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish
Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St.
Matthew, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph
Series 6 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1967),
48–51.
5. Overman, Matthew’s Gospel, 103, 113.
6. Overman, Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel
According to Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press
International, 1996), 199.
7. Bornkamm, “End-Expectation,” 23, 24.
8. D. C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew,
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 88
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 181; Dean
Jack Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1986), 152, 153; M. H. Crosby, House of Disciples:
Church, Economics, and Justice in Matthew (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books, 1988), 39–43.
9. Robert Hann, “Judaism and Jewish Christianity in Antioch:
Charisma and Conflict in the First Century,” Journal of
Religion and Health 14 (1987): 341–360, 349.
10. Ibid., 352, 353.
11. K. Tagawa, “People and Community in the Gospel of
Matthew,” New Testament Studies 16 (1970): 149–162.
12. The narrative study that follows is taken from Luca Marulli,
“The Parable of the Tares and Its Explanation (Mt 13:24-30,
36-43): A Narrative Criticism Study,” Adventus 18 (2008):
55–64.
13. A. J. Kerr, “Matthew 13:25. sowing Zizania Among
Another’s Wheat: Realistic or Artificial?” Journal of
Theological Studies 48 (1997): 108. Kerr notes that in the
Digest (D.9.2.27.14, published in a.d. 533 in Justinian’s
Corpus Iuris Civilis): “Celsus asks, if you sow tares [lolium]
or wild oats in another man’s crops and spoil them, not only
can the owner bring the interdict against damage caused
secretly or by force, but he can proceed in factum under the
lex Aquilia” (emphasis in original). Celsus was consul in a.d.
129.
14. Cf. (“The Community Rule,” of the Dead Sea Scrolls) 1QS
2:25–3:12; 6:24–7:25; 8:16–9:2; (“The Damascus Rule”) CD
9:2–4, 16–23; 19:32–20:13. Daniel Marguerat, Le jugement
dans l’évangile de Matthieu, 2nd ed., Le Monde de la Bible
6 (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1995), 427.
15. See Matthew 13:30. The imperative form of aphiêmi means
“leave, permit, leave in place” but also “forgive” (e.g., Matt.
6:14).
16. In Matthew, the word oikodespotês is used as referring to
Jesus (10:25), God (20:1, 11; 21:33) and even every Christian
(13:52; 24:43).
17. See Jacques Dupont, “Le point de vue de Matthieu dans
le chapitre des paraboles,” in L’Evangile selon Matthieu:
Rédaction et Théologie, ed. M. Didier, Bibliotheca
Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 29 (Leeuven,
Belgium: Peeters, 1992), 221–259; Robert McIver, “The
Parable of the Weeds Among the Wheat (Matt 13:24-30,
36-43) and the Relationship Between the Kingdom and the
Church as Portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew,” Journal of
Biblical Literature 114 (1995): 643–659.
18. The NIV disregards the present tense and translates as if it
were an aorist: “ ‘The one who sowed’ ” (Matt. 13:37).
19. Marguerat, Le jugement dans l’évangile, 129.
