"Even the dogs": Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 2002 by Smillie, Gene R

(ProQuest Information and Learning: Foreign text omitted.)

For all its traditional reputation as the Gospel written for Jews, Matthew has surprisingly numerous references to Gentiles.1 At times these references are harmonious with conventional Jewish stereotypes of the goyim as archetypes of unrighteous behavior, as when Jesus warns against long prating meaningless prayers "as the Gentiles do: don't be like them" (6:7), or against "lording it over others, as the Gentile rulers do: it is not to be so among you" (20:25-26). In such cases Matthew resembles the near-equation of Gentiles with sinners that one typically finds in sectarian Palestinian Jewish literature like Psalms of Solomon, 1 Enoch, or Jubilees. Thus, in a recent monograph purporting to depict the Sitz im Leben of the redaction, Sims concludes from such data that the author of Matthew is basically anti-- Gentile.2 At other, equally frequent, intervals, however, Matthew portrays Gentiles in a much more positive light. They are often found manifesting belief, or at least approbation, in regard to Jesus-e.g. the centurion at the foot of the cross (27:54), Pilate's wife (21:17-24), or, in more detail, the story of another centurion's faith in 8:5-13. Senior posits that Matthew deliberately places "Gentiles who respond favorably to Jesus and thus become harbingers of Gentile participation in the Christian community in the role of exemplars."3

Noting these contrasting phenomena, this study attempts to explain the apparent divergences in attitude towards Gentiles in Matthew as congruent with and in fact parallel to Matthew's characteristic literary contrasts between the demanding rigor-the almost harsh severity of expectations for would-be disciples-in the cognitive discourse material and the much warmer, compassionate praxis of Jesus towards the needy and helpless-or, more specifically, towards those who manifest faith in him-found in the narrative materials which follow or interpolate the discourses. This countervalence of severity and mercy, of righteous works and humble faith, of stringent demands and generous benefits, walks on two legs all through Matthew, and must be held together to do justice to the interpretation of the book.

I. THE MULTIPLE NUANCES OF TA EONH

The full range of valuations which adhere to the polyvalent term gOvil must be appreciated, and Matthew's varying use of the term or the concept at different points noted, in order to avoid painting his attitude towards the Gentiles with too broad a brush. The linguistic range of the term ... ... is quite broad. In koine Greek, meanings for ... ... range from the political "nations," through the more or less neutral socio-anthropological term "people," or "ethnic groups," to the Jewish-specific "Gentiles" and, at the extreme end of the valuation spectrum, the equally Jewish-specific "pagans." Uses of the latter term may be broken down even further into the merely descriptive ("pagan," meaning outside the purview of biblically revealed religion) and the pejorative ("pagan," with all the contempt and disdain with which a practitioner of monotheistic Torah religion could fill the word, implying, sometimes, those who deliberately reject or ignore the way of righteousness). Matthew appears to show examples of each and all of these uses, with differing significances, as the varied terms supplied at different places in his text by translators into English (as well as French: nations, peuples, paiens; and German: Volker, Nichtjuden, Heiden) indicate. Whether the translators have caught the right nuance in each case is, of course, up for debate.

A precise hermeneutic of Matthew' literary use of Gentiles must start from a recognition of this wide diversity of valuations implicit in the term, yet also take into account the overall theological attitude towards ... ... that emerges from the book as a whole. The interpreter is obliged to weigh individual appearances of the word in order to better decide which nuanced aspect of the term Matthew is leaning on more heavily in a given case. For example, the translation "pagans" is perfectly valid for 6:7, but might be less apt than "nations" at 24:14 or 28:19. Unfortunately, space does not permit a comprehensive cataloguing of such differentiated translations in this article.

It appears that Matthew deliberately "works the angles." That is, as part of his heuristic method, he uses the term ... in such varied fashion as to subtly contribute to making the cumulative theological point that God's plan for the salvation of humanity includes the Gentiles. Even if some of his original Jewish readers may invest every instance of the word ... with the most pejorative connotations, collapsing the whole semantic range of gOvil down into synonymity with "pagans," they are forced by the narrative to reconsider.

While it cannot be explored in this paper, one could also posit with Hummel and Bonnard that "sinners" in Matthew, when it appears on the lips of Jewish leaders, may be in implied proverbial apposition with "Gentiles," as it often is in the Jewish literature of the period (e.g. Jubilees).4 Even Paul, apostle to the Gentiles and advocate of full Gentile participation in the redemptive plan of God, uses it that way (Gal 2:15; Eph 4:17-19). So we should not be surprised to find that in Matthew the combination "tax gatherers and sinners" alternates, and may be syntagmatically equivalent to, "tax gatherers and Gentiles." In a sort of syllogistic linguistic logic, if a = b and b = c, then a = c.