Matthew 18.15-20 map onto Torah and Talmudic instruction; why it matters

Substack recently released a feature to incentivize subscriber referrals to friends, check it out to spread the good news! 😉

Introduction: Christian Texts, Jewish Context

A professor I had in grad school wrote the following in a journal article to introduce an objection, I’m paraphrasing, “This objection is obvious but its obviousness does not detract from its seriousness.”

I always loved that line. It’s an especially brutal critique. How did the original author miss a critical point that is both obvious and important? In another way, the objection, or its introduction, reminds us that even obvious things are worth pointing out.

Often I experience a similar sense when writing for this newsletter: When I am introducing obvious things that are important, despite their obviousness. That Jesus was Jewish is one of those things. “So was J.C. You’re in good company.”

But what I hope readers who have been around this newsletter realize is that my point in these posts is not to state the obvious thing that Jesus was Jewish but to capture the richness of this identity for the historical Jesus and the complexity involved when disentangling the early-first century Jewish Jesus from the late-first century texts written about him.

The Jesus Movement—if we ascribe careful and measured historical veracity to the gospel accounts—treated the Temple in Jerusalem as a key setting for the plot points of the general gospel narratives. Sure, the synoptics and John place certain Temple scenes in different orders in their reconstruction, and each gospel account, in varying degrees of sharpness, places the Temple authorities as a foil to Jesus’ conduct and instruction, but after we treat with principled commentary the historical setting and rhetorical aims for the gospels as a whole, the Temple and its political sects, cannot be cleaved from the background against which the Jesus narratives advance.

In today’s assigned gospel reading from the Revised Common Lectionary, we are faced, as we often are, with confronting this complexity head on. In the English translation of the text, we read Christian1 words and phrases, or words and phrases that many would most obviously associate with the Christian tradition, including “church,” “my Father in heaven,” and “gathered in my name,” but we cannot move too quickly with our evaluation.

We can tell a story about translation into the English to address part of the Christian reading off the text, for example, when we read “church” in the English, we see that the Greek beneath the word is the common, and potentially confusing, ekklēsias, or assembly or gathering. The word and its reference, ekklesia, is common parlance in Greek society: the word signals a gathering of many types, and it would be anachronistic to read “church” into the first century Matthean text, for example, to associate church, meaning an assembly of Christians in worship, is inappropriate to impose on the Matthean text—especially when applied to narrative reconstructions about Jesus.

The Hebrew qahal indicates a congregation, and Jesus is reported to be teaching in synagogues, for example, in Mark 1.21, Jesus enters a synagōgēn, a Jewish congregation. At any rate, my point here is to caution against imposing our modern perspective onto the text. Whether it’s ekklesia (Gr.), qahal (Heb.), or synagōgē (Gr.), each evoke assemblies, but church in the first century is not church in the 21st—and neither is the synagogue, but here the rabbinic tradition may offer greater continuity of reference for rabbinic judaism than church offers to Christian communities, owing only to historical development.

To state my own limitations, I am not claiming to have a better translation than the editors of the NRSVue, the academic standard. Rather, I’m reminding us that without care, we may read something into the text that isn’t there by dint of our own contemporary concepts. Put in more academic terms: There is no such thing as a value-neutral observation.

What does all this have to do with the point I’m driving toward?

The situation with respect to the gospel reading is not resolved only by attention paid to the syntactic matters of fact and our semantic relation to them. In other words, it is not good enough to point out the words and consider their dynamic meaning over time. The concern is deeper still: What is to be done with a “Christian text” that is best described as an enumeration of Jewish legal interpretation. Today’s Matthean text could be easily set within the rabbinic writings of the Talmud, we we’ll see, and this should give us pause.

Matthew 18:15-20

New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue):

¹⁵ If your brother or sister sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If you are listened to, you have regained that one. ¹⁶ But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. ¹⁷ If that person refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church, and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a gentile and a tax collector. ¹⁸ Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. ¹⁹ Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. ²⁰ For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.

Let me state this in as clear as terms as possible: These verses in Matthew are recapitulating Jewish legal interpretation. There is nothing within these few verses that distinguishes the gospel from other Jewish writing; indeed, as I’ve said, the gospels are Jewish literature! Christianity diverges, ultimately, from Judaism after the movement is co-opted by Rome. That is to render judgment for modern Christians who find origin for their tradition in Origen—that was a pun by design. Maybe you chuckled. But the point is, when Rome adopted Christianity, then we see clear boundary maintenance to exclude Judaism, but that we see Matthew’s author repeating Jewish law for his late-first century audience that included both Jews and gentiles should not surprise us, and modern Christians should discern, with good faith, how the affirmation of a Jewish Jesus speaks to their practice.

Matthew’s Legal Interpretation

What are the blocks of instruction we find in this week’s assigned reading?

• Something wrong? Rebuke privately

• Bringing charges? Produce witnesses

• What is bound on earth? Also bound in heaven

• Gathering for study? The shekinah, God? The Spirit? The Divine Nature? is present

Rebuke Privately

Let’s repeat both Matthew and introduce its synoptic partner, Luke:

Matthew 18.15, “If your brother or sister sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone.”

Luke 17.3, “Be on your guard! If a brother or sister sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive.”

We have several Torah commentaries and rabbinic discussions that both command rebuking, or reproofing as its also translated, and when commanded, mandate that this rebuking must occur privately. Interestingly, this has long been part of the instruction for Jewish leaders and priests in training. Consider the Sifra, a second century instruction manual for priests, or a Book of Education (Sefer HaChinuch), published in the 13th century, from Spain, reporting similar instruction, and even today, well 2019, the International Center for Ethno-Religious Mediation discusses rebuke, or tokhaḥah (Heb.) as a tool for conflict mediation. From the command in Leviticus (ca. Persian Period, 6th-4th centuries BCE), priestly instruction (ca. 2nd century CE), to the rabbinic discussion (4th century CE), and yes, here in Matthew (late 1st century), we see a long, stable interpretation on this legal requirement. Let’s review some of these references.

Referencing the origin of the Jewish idea to rebuke, see this article from the Jewish Virtual Library), discussing Leviticus 19.17:

“You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself.

Interpreting this command, the Jewish Virtual Library offers this:

The duty to chastise sinners and wrongdoers stems from the view that everyone is charged with the responsibility of bringing about the correction of the sins of his [fellow-person]. Failure to discharge this responsibility is tantamount to bearing the same sins and faults

While the Jewish Virtual Library is a modern knowledge base, it is repeating the standard view. Look to the Talmudic writing Beresheit Rabbah 54, ca. 4th-5th centuries, that expands on the Scriptures of Israel:

And Abraham rebuked Abimelech: R. Yosi ben R. Hanina said: Rebuke leads to love, as it says, rebuke a wise man and he will love you. Such indeed is R. Yosi ben Hanina’s view, for he said: Love unaccompanied by rebuke is not love. Resh Lakish said: Rebuke leads to peace; hence, ‘And Abraham reproved Abimelech’. Such is his view, for he said: Peace unaccompanied by rebuke is not peace.

Even earlier, Sifra, from the end of the 2nd century CE is a temple guide for young priests:

As we study the Sifra that is before us now, we encounter passages which clearly seem to reflect their origin in a work composed by priests and addressed to young priests. There are other passages in it to which material has been added which clearly originated in the rabbinical schools. When we identify these passages we find at their core the original Sifra of the priests (emphasis in original; source).

And here, from the same source:

It is obvious on reading these texts that the Sadducees were actually quoting the Sifra in their argument. This can only mean that the Sifra text was already in existence and was a recognized Temple code when the dispute between the Sadducees and the Pharisees took place.

That Sifra was already known and offered guidance for rebuke is also argued in this paper, that also argues on the side of connecting gospel accounts and early rabbinic writing:

By reading these early Christian sources in light of this later rabbinic work I advance our understanding of the formation of these well-known passages and illustrate the advantages of cautiously employing rabbinic material for reading earlier Christian works.

And here, in the much later Sefer HaChinuch, the Book of Education, a 13th century commentary on the Torah that examines each of the 613 mitzvot, or commandments, maybe better, duties, we read this expansion on Leviticus:

To rebuke an Israelite who does not behave properly — whether about things that are between a man and his fellow or between a man and the Omnipresent – as it is stated (Leviticus 19:17), “you shall surely rebuke your compatriot, and you shall not bear a sin because of him.” And they said in Sifra, Kedoshim 4:8, “From where [do we know] that if you rebuked him four or five times and he did not return, that you are obligated to go back and rebuke [him again]? [Hence] we learn to say, ‘you shall surely rebuke.’” And they, may their memory be blessed, also said in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 31a), “‘You shall surely rebuke’ — even a hundred times.” And they said in the Sifra, “Perhaps, he should rebuke and his face change [color]? [Hence] we learn to say, ‘and you shall not bear a sin for him.’” And this teaches that at the beginning of the rebuke it is fitting for a person to rebuke privately, with soft expressions and calm words, so that he not be embarrassed. But there is no doubt that if he does not return with this, that we shame the sinner in public and publicize his sin and insult him, until he returns to the better.

Produce Witnesses

Take this instruction, from today’s reading, Matthew 15.16, “But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.”

Producing witnesses when bringing charges is a long-standing Torah command. Review these verses from Deuteronomy. First, 17:6-7:

⁶ On the evidence of two or three witnesses the death sentence shall be executed; a person must not be put to death on the evidence of only one witness. ⁷ The hands of the witnesses shall be the first raised against the person to execute the death penalty and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

And Deuteronomy 19:15:

¹⁵ “A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained.

The Matthean author is placing this widely accepted Torah command in Jesus’ mouth. Here, like in the instruction to rebuke, Jesus is characterized as offering instruction directly aligned with Torah. To reinforce my earlier point, it is not only that Jesus was Jewish, but that Jesus’ Torah observance was made so explicit either by his own conduct or the impression of his teaching left to his followers, in this gospel account composed decades after Jesus’ death, Jesus’ commitment to the law shows up.

Bound on Earth

Continuing to discuss the law, we see more explicitly the assertion that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven (Matthew 15.19). The Jewish Annotated New Testament (JANT) interprets this verse to be referencing Isaiah 22:22:

²² I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open.

The subject of whose shoulder on which the keys of the house of David are placed is Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, whose name means God will Raise Up, and who is trusted by God with authority, like a tent peg, on which many things hang. Here we see the Matthean author transferring by literary analogy this connection to another leader raised up and trusted with the covenant of David, from where the idea of a messiah is central.

When Two Are Gathered

What about those gathered, “in my name,” as attributed to Jesus in Matthew 15.20? Is this a novel expression from Jesus? Again, we turn to the scriptures of Israel.

Pirkei Avot (The Ethics of the Ancestors), a Talmudic writing that we’ve discussed several times before—an extremely influential extra biblical text of oral interpretation that guides halachic (Jewish law) practice still today, reports in 3.2:

Rabbi Halafta of Kefar Hanania said: when ten sit together and occupy themselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: “God stands in the congregation of God” (Psalm 82:1). How do we know that the same is true even of five? As it is said: “This band of His He has established on earth” (Amos 9:6). How do we know that the same is true even of three? As it is said: “In the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalm 82:1) How do we know that the same is true even of two? As it is said: “Then they that fear the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard” (Malachi 3:16). How do we know that the same is true even of one? As it is said: “In every place where I cause my name to be mentioned I will come unto you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21).

Conclusion: Jewish Jesus, Why it Matters

One of the questions that drives inquiry is “So what?” A new observation? So what? A similarity in the text? So what?

The Bible does not have a single point of view. It’s a “multi-vocal” text. There are multiple voices; multiple authors; multiple points of view. We cannot take a single verse and say that it speaks for the whole, neither can we pull several verses taken from multiple places merely to reinforce the speaker’s conclusion. those techniques misunderstand a central belief about the multi-vocal text: A single verse doesn’t speak for the whole, and verses from different places may be similar, but evidence for the argument cannot be imposed on the text. There must be a reason for connecting the text beyond a similarity or the utility for backing up the speaker’s point.

In other words, we’ve connected Torah to the gospels and Talmudic writings to a manual for priests. Two questions are in the offing: First, what, if anything, connects these verses beyond their prima facie similarities, and second, so what?

To take these each in turn, to the former, I hope my analysis of Matthew 18.15-20 in light of Torah and Talmudic writings shows more than mere similarities but that the Matthean author is establishing legal guidance consistent with Torah and with other texts composed during the same period. Matthew, in my lay understanding, is interpreting well-known Jewish legal guidance for a non-Jewish audience, as the mission to the gentiles continues.

To the latter, so what? This is your question to answer for yourself. My aim is not to state the obvious thing that Jesus was Jewish but to capture the richness of this identity for the historical Jesus and the complexity involved when disentangling the early-first century Jewish Jesus from the late-first century texts written about him. This week, the Matthean author committed to the following:

• Rebuking privately; consistent with Leviticus and rabbinic practice

• Producing witnesses; consistent with Deuteronomy

• Binding on earth; Jesus is like Eliakim, trusted with the keys of the house of David

• Gathering for study in my name; Talmudic writings affirm the shekinah is present when two or more are gathered

For me, the richness of Jesus’ Jewish identity simply cannot be ignored. Matthew’s author is not like, “Yeah, J.C. was a Jew”; rather, Jesus’ commitment to Torah was so significant that writing about Jesus fifty years after his death, Matthew’s evangelist was careful to include a Jewish legal interpretation in his proclamation about Jesus.

What will people report after your death? For Jesus, Matthew reports his intimate connection to the Scriptures of Israel. These are Christian texts that benefit from Jewish context, and it’s in light of that context that modern readers must appreciate the character of the historical Jesus.