McCall Response to Kingsbury’s Matthew
I was dismayed at the onset of reading Kingsbury’s book, I must admit. His first conclusion, nearly, alarmed me. It is argued by Kingsbury (15) that Matthew was written in between A.D. 85-90. It is argued as such because Matthew includes an explicit reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (22:7). Therefore this Gospel must have been written after that, but that conclusion is much too hasty. Even those who deny that Jesus could foretell the future concede that Mark predicts the Fall of Jerusalem (Matt 24:15), arguing that if Mark wrote about A.D. 65, he was so close to the events that he could see how political circumstances were shaping up. However, on this reasoning Matthew could have done the same thing in A.D. 66. And on what ground must we state that Jesus could not foretell the future? That conclusion derives, not from the evidence, but from an antisupernatural presupposition. Moreover, the language of 22:7 derives from OT categories of judgment, and not from the description of an observer. One could almost say that the lack of more detailed description of the events of A.D. 70 argues for an earlier date, as the verse is incredibly marked by brevity. In any event, if it is legitimate to deduce from 22:7 a post-70 date, it must surely be no less legitimate to deduce from 5:23-24, 12:5-7; 23:16-22; and 26:60-61 a pre-70 date, when the temple was still standing. The near absurdity of this conflicting conclusion must warn us against the risks of basing the date of composition on passages that allow other interpretations.
Second, recent studies have tended to argue that the conditions presupposed by the theological stance of the Gospel best fits the conditions of A.D. 80-100. However, it is more difficult to reconstruct conditions than is commonly recognized. Explicit references to “church” (16:18; 18:17-18) are taken to reflect an interest in later church order. Matthew 18:17-18 says nothing about the details of order (e.g., elders or deacons are not mentioned), but only of broad principles appropriate to the earliest stages of Christianity. Persecution (24:9) and false prophets (24:11) are often taken to reflect circumstances of 80-100, yet these circumstances appear as prophecies in Matthew and did not need to wait for 80, as Acts and the early Pauline Epistles make clear.
Significantly Matthew records more warnings against the Sadducees than all other NT writers combined; and after A.D. 70 the Sadducees no longer existed as a center of authority. These small items seem to show a definite break with Judaism had not yet occurred. Further, Matthew’s christology is not very reliable indices of Matthew’s date. They might easily allow a range from 40-100. Gundry believes Luke depends on Matthew, and also that Luke-Acts was completed not later than 63, so Matthew must be earlier (Matthew, pp. 599ff.). While little in the Gospel points to a firm date, perhaps the sixties are the most likely decade for its composition. So then, I disagree with Kingsbury in regard to the date of composition of Matthew, in spite of his insistence to the contrary.
I also disagree with his conclusion, from page 20, that Matthew the apostle was not, apparently, the author of this text. He questions why, for example, if an eyewitness actually wrote this account, he would use a non-eyewitness (i.e. Mark) to form the basis of his gospel. However, I respond back that consistency in the accounts were needed by the early church, and that Matthew merely “spun” his account to fit the needs of his growing church (i.e. “Lord”, majesty, etc, 21). Matthew indeed expanded the gospel of Mark, I concede, but did so as to further the truth, not to change it.
However, I do delight in reading that Kingsbury affirms no distinction between kingdom of “God” and kingdom of “Heaven”, as I see none either (again despite contrary assertions from people in this class). He states the two terms are essentially synonmous (28).
Furthermore do I delight in Kingsvury assertion that the advent of Jesus “inaugurated” the eschatological age os salvation (33). This adds credence to my entire interpretive motiff for the Bible- that of Already/Not Yet. The Kingdom of God is Already present on the earth, but Not Yet fully completed. I am Already declared a Saint by calling, but Not Yet made one practically (Wesley would say entire sanctification, or Christian Perfection). God Already reigns over the forces of evil, but Not Yet has displayed fully His reign. The examples of this could go on infinitely, but for brevity they shall remain at the number here provided.
To end this review on a negative note, however, I must state that I disagree with Kingsbury’s assertion that Jesus’ titling of Himself as the “Son of Man” was merely a “public designation”. In response, I declare that it was prophetically significant instead. Jesus was filling the role of Israel’s prophet at the time, and drew the terminology of “Son of Man”, from Ezekiel. The Jewish leaders would have known this at the time of Jesus’ usage, and it would have added more “force” to Jesus’ statements.