Matthew and anti-Judaism

Discussion of whether or not Matthew's Gospel is anti-Jewish flounders on such intractable questions as how to define "anti-Jewish," who gets to make the determination, and on what criteria the judgment can be made. (1) Yet regardless of whether the Gospel was initially anti-Jewish, however defined, it has certainly been interpreted in ways that convey anti-Jewish messages. Our task is to prevent this abuse of the text.

Most homilists realize the dangers of passages such as John 8:44, "You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires," and 1 Thess 2:15, "[the Jews], who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets...." Most recognize that congregations may associate the Pharisees with "the Jews," and so appropriately defuse this impression by reading Matthew 23, for example, as instructing the church: those who exalt themselves (23:12), neglect justice and mercy (23:23), and ignore the prophets (23:34) are the people in the pulpit and the pews. Yet even ministers who consciously avoid anti-Jewish sermons may convey anti-Jewish messages nonetheless. While completely preventing such slippage between what we intend and what others hear is impossible, being forewarned of potential problems helps eliminate numerous problems.

The following examples of anti-Jewish ideas come from student papers, sermons, and comments made by clergy and laity in numerous workshops.

Matthew 1

Following the Greek translation of Isaiah 7, Matthew 1:22-23 proclaims the fulfillment of "what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 'Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel.'" Although the Hebrew text of Isaiah says nothing about a virgin--it presumes a normal conception--the Greek does. Matthew has, like other readers of Scripture then and now, understood the text to speak to his own situation.

Problems arise when congregants conclude that "the Jews" misread deliberately, a conclusion reinforced by 2 Cor 3:14, "to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there...."

All texts have multiple meanings. In secular terms, we bring to texts our own questions, and we filter that text through our own experiences. In religious terms, new meanings can be the work of the Holy Spirit. Isaiah has multiple meanings: for his original audience, for the church, for the synagogue, for any who hold his words sacred. Religious educators should explain how Jewish and Christian readings, although diverse, both point to Isaiah's meaning, fulfilled and unfulfilled. (2)

Matthew 2

Sermons highlighting the fact that the Gentile Magi anticipate the Gentile mission sometimes convey a countermessage: If the Magi represent the Gentiles, "Herod and all Jerusalem" represent the "Jews." Matthew does not divide the world into "good Gentiles" and "bad Jews." Joseph and Mary, along with slaughtered children and the grieving parents, are also "Jews." The principal division is not between Jew and Gentile but between those who bear good fruit and those who corrupt.

Matthew 3

Congregants may see Judaism as ethnocentric or xenophobic whereas Jesus represents "universalistic" Christianity. Matthew 3:7, 9, John's polemic against the Pharisees and Sadducees, can reinforce this impression: "You brood of vipers!... Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our ancestor.'"

While some Jews thought that only they were in God's good graces, others recognized the righteous among the nations (for example, the centurion in Luke 7 or Cornelius in Acts 15). Judaism welcomed converts (such as Nicolaus, the proselyte from Antioch of Acts 6:5), and the Jerusalem Temple's "Court of the Gentiles" was open to all. Jews did not engage in formalized proselytizing efforts because they did not believe Gentiles needed to convert to be in a right relationship with God. When Zechariah 8:23 envisions "ten men from the nations of every language" ... saying [to Jews], 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you,'" he does not foresee them adding, "and please circumcise us when we get there." Christian educators might want to problematize the notions of "particularism" and "universalism" further by querying whether the church, with its proclamation of salvation only through the Christ, represented "particularism."

Matthew 5

The so-called "antitheses" (Matt 5:21-47) are poorly named. To those who heard "You shall not swear falsely" (5:33) Jesus does not say "but I say to you, lie all you want." The point is not antithesis but intensification: "Don't swear at all." It is what rabbinic sources call "building a fence about the law" (Mishnah, Avot 1:1) to insure that divine will is followed. To call these passages antitheses suggests that Jesus is against Mosaic Law, and, because congregants will associate Mosaic Law with "the Jews," the impression is doubly problematic.