Not the Righteous but Sinners

Bakhtin's Theory of Aesthetics and the Problem of Reader-Character Interaction in Matthew's Gospel

John Barnet

• Publisher: Continuum
• Year: 2003
• Print ISBN: 9780826466556
• eBook ISBN: 9781441152596
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

When critics study reader-character interaction in Matthew's Gospel, they tend to reach similar conclusions. The disciples are viewed as the link between Jesus and the readers. The supplicants and Pharisees serve as foils complementing the true meaning of discipleship.This study reconceptualizes the readers' role on the basis of M.M. Bakhtin's analysis of the author-hero relationship. The outcome of this reading strategy is that the readers must also interact with Jesus through the limited perspective of the major character groups, momentarily suspending the post-resurrection knowledge that all authority is g ranted to him. By encouraging the readers to identify with the Pharisees, the Gospel is able to constitute the readers as sinners, thereby establishing them in the supplicants' condition of need, and thus as the potential recipients of good news.This is volume 246 in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

When the Pharisees in Matthew’s Gospel see Jesus and his disciples at table with tax collectors and sinners, they confront the disciples with their teacher’s apparent violation of the rules governing table fellowship. But it is Jesus himself who responds: ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice”. For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners’ (9.12-13). The immediate addressees of this scene are, of course, the Pharisees. Also present are the disciples, and presumably, the tax collectors and sinners. Therefore, these words of Jesus could be construed as words intended in some way for each one of these character groups. Ultimately, however, these words are intended for the readers of Matthew’s Gospel. But because the readers are not included among the addressees of the narrative world, they must somehow interact with the narrative’s character groups in order to be engaged as addressees.

This raises a number of questions. Do the readers participate in the table scene as the omniscient observers of the characters’ interaction with one another, or are they encouraged to assume the more limited role of one or more of the characters? When Jesus tells the Pharisees to learn what it means that God desires mercy and not sacrifice, what are the readers expected to do? Are they to understand Jesus’ words as a call to hear his words and imitate his behavior? When Jesus says that he calls not the righteous but sinners, how are the readers to understand their own status? Are they the righteous, or are they the sinners? If they are the righteous, is the Gospel still addressed to them? If they are the sinners, how are they to respond?

Scenes of character interaction similar to the table scene are repeated throughout the narrative sections of Matthew’s Gospel. The purpose of this study, broadly speaking, is to examine the interaction of the readers of Matthew’s Gospel and the narrative’s major character groups: the Pharisees, the disciples and the supplicants.

Pharisees, Disciples, Supplicants and Readers

The major character groups of Matthew’s Gospel have been defined differently. Janice Capel Anderson, for example, defines five major groups: the Jewish leaders, the disciples, the crowds, the supplicants and the Gentiles.¹ Although Anderson acknowledges that there is some overlap between the supplicants and the Gentiles, she distinguishes the Gentiles ‘because of the important role they play in the development of the theme of the justification of mission to the Gentiles’.² Jack Dean Kingsbury adopts a similar classification— the disciples, the religious leaders and the crowds— but groups the supplicants and the Gentiles together in a fourth category, which he calls the minor characters.³ Paul S. Minear, on the other hand, identifies only three major groups: the disciples, the crowds and the Pharisees, who remain throughout the Gospel the core opponents of Jesus.⁴ Minear’s classification serves his purpose of correlating the character groups in the Gospel’s narrative world with historical groups in Matthew’s community:

The twelve disciples correspond to the prophets, wise men, and scribes who were leaders in the churches of the second generation. The crowds of followers match the lay members of these churches. In bitter conflict with both these groups are the Pharisaic leaders of the rival synagogues.⁵

Finally, David R. Bauer identifies only two major groups: the disciples and Israel, which is comprised of the crowds and the religious leaders.⁶

The differences between the various classification schemes suggest that character groupings other than the Gospel’s most explicit definitions are determined to a considerable extent by the interpreter’s perspective. If Anderson distinguishes the Gentiles from the supplicants, it is because she considers Matthew’s theme of mission to the Gentiles to be sufficiently important to warrant the distinction. Minear, on the other hand, because he views Matthew’s Gospel primarily as a teacher’s handbook in the form of a narrative, apparently makes his most basic distinction between those who teach and those who are taught, subsequently fitting his historical correlations into this division.

Essentially, I have adopted Minear’s classification of the Pharisees, the disciples and the crowds, emphasizing the role of the supplicants, who would otherwise be part of the crowds. Unlike Minear, however, I do not define the character groupings on the basis of a hypothetical historical reconstruction of Matthew’s community; rather, my scheme corresponds to the three types of response that are occasioned by the preaching of the word throughout Matthew’s Gospel, which responses are figuratively depicted in the parable of the sower: rejection, unfruitful reception and fruitful comprehension (13.18-23).⁷ The Pharisees, indeed the Jewish leadership as a whole, are clearly depicted as those who reject Jesus (12.14) and his teaching (12.2). The disciples, despite their immediate acceptance of Jesus (4.20, 22; 9.9) and the (eventual) comprehension of his teaching (13.51; 16.12), are portrayed as those of little faith (8.26; 14.31; 17.20), who doubt even in the presence of the risen Lord (28.17). In other words, they remain until the end of the Gospel unfruitful receivers of the word. It is only the supplicants, in particular the Gentile supplicants, who represent Matthew’s fruitful receivers: they alone are commended by Jesus for their great faith (8.10; 15.28), and they alone do not subsequently stumble. Indeed, the very absence of the Gentile supplicants from the subsequent narrative ensures that they remain the narrative’s exemplars of great faith. Consequently, when their brief stories are compared to the lengthy narrative of the disciples, which narrative is essentially commensurate with the public ministry of Jesus, an important question is raised: Is fruitful reception possible in the ongoing life of discipleship? Or is it possible only if one somehow repeatedly adopts the posture of the Gentile supplicants, who are portrayed as outsiders and not as members of the character group the disciples?

While this classification of Matthew’s characters can be said to correspond to the three types of response that are depicted throughout Matthew’s Gospel, it is less clear how this scheme corresponds to the character groupings that are present in the table scene with Jesus. In the first place, the tax collectors and sinners are not themselves portrayed as supplicants: they are simply presented ‘at table’ with Jesus. Secondly, none of these character groups is depicted in the table scene as responding to the words of Jesus. Nevertheless, it will be argued that the three groups in the table scene not only correspond to the three types of response, but that, more importantly, the interpretation of the table scene is essential for understanding how the readers ultimately are engaged as the addressees of Matthew’s Gospel: for if it is correct that Jesus only calls sinners, then it follows that the readers of Matthew’s Gospel, who interact with these characters, are themselves addressed as sinners, regardless of their own self-understanding. The interpretation of the table scene, therefore, constitutes one of the main presuppositions of this study.

Jesus Calls Sinners

Jesus sits at table with the tax collectors and sinners (9.10). Presumably he calls them (11.28-30).⁸ Certainly, he comes for them (1.22; 26.28). Jesus calls disciples to follow him (4.18-22; 9.9). Does this mean that they are sinners?

It is a commonplace of contemporary gospel criticism to treat the story of Jesus at table with the tax collectors and sinners (9.10-13) as the thematic conclusion of the preceding verse— the call of Matthew (9.9)— despite a change of scene and a shift in interest from Matthew, one particular tax collector, to the tax collectors and sinners in general. Indeed, most scholars do not see the need to explain why these scenes should be read together; they simply accept the division of 9.9-13 as conventional, sometimes even referring to 9.9-13 in its entirety as ‘The Call of Levi’,⁹ more often simply citing it without a title.¹⁰

Although these scholars implicitly agree that the table scene completes the call of the tax collector Matthew, the fact that Matthew is also one of the Twelve (10.3), a group that is frequently set apart from the crowd for special instruction, does not play a role in their interpretation of the scene.¹¹ Generally, they conclude that the purpose of the scene is to provide the disciples of Jesus with an example of the merciful behavior that they are expected to follow.¹² And, indeed, there is much to commend in this interpretation: Jesus is clearly portrayed as the central figure of the table scene, not the tax collectors and sinners, nor the disciple Matthew, who is not mentioned. Furthermore, a plausible explanation for Matthew’s use of Hos. 6.6— ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice’— is that it is intended to instruct others to perform similar acts of mercy.¹³

Daniel Patte, on the other hand, is one scholar who has noticed a tension when these scenes are read together: in the former scene Jesus demonstrates his authority to deal with the tax collectors and sinners at a distance— by means of his word; in the latter scene he sits at table with them.¹⁴ Nevertheless, Patte argues that the two scenes are indeed directly linked, because 9.13 not only echoes the call of Matthew but explains it: ‘When Jesus calls Matthew to discipleship he calls a sinner.’¹⁵ Patte’s interpretation— that these scenes form a unified pericope concerning discipleship— suggests an alternative reading: the evangelist does not so much provide an example for others to follow as affirm that those who are with Jesus, including his disciples, are sinners. For if the disciple Matthew is a sinner, and if Jesus does not (apparently) call the righteous, then it follows that all of Jesus’ disciples must be sinners. If this interpretation of the table scene is correct, then one should be able to find evidence in Matthew’s Gospel that the rest of the disciples are also characterized as sinners.

The earliest call of the disciples (4.18-22) reports nothing of their status; it simply narrates the disciples’ immediate obedience to the command of Jesus. The context of the call narrative, on the other hand, records that Jesus begins his ministry in the disciples’ home region of Galilee, the region of darkness and death, the region to which Jesus brings his great light (4.12-16). For Matthew to depict the (prospective) disciples as dwelling in the region of darkness and death is implicitly to characterize them as sinners in need of mercy. This interpretation is confirmed by the repeated citation of Hos. 6.6 (Mt. 9.13; 12.7), which implies that the tax collectors and sinners, on the one hand, and the disciples, on the other, truly are in need of mercy.

Although there is indeed some evidence that the disciples are sinners, such a description, however, does not appear to be the foremost trait of their characterization. In the first place, when the disciples pluck grain on the sabbath (12.1-8), in violation of an apparent Sabbath prohibition, Jesus nevertheless declares them to be guiltless (12.7). Secondly, by questioning the disciples about Jesus’ fellowship in the table scene, the Pharisees implicitly acknowledge that they do not consider the disciples to be members of the character group the tax collectors and sinners. This does not mean, however, that the disciples should be considered the righteous. Rather, it suggests that the Gospel’s characterization of the disciples is intended to emphasize for the readers a different trait than that of the tax collectors and sinners, both of which traits are necessary if the readers are to be fully engaged by the narrative.

The question then becomes, Is it possible to acknowledge sin as an aspect of the disciples’ characterization while at the same time preserving it as the defining trait of the character group the tax collectors and sinners? By analyzing the roles of these character groups with respect to the groups’ proximity to the narrative’s centers of auth...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Methodology
• Chapter 3: Jesus of Nazareth
• Chapter 4: The Disciples
• Chapter 5: The Supplicants
• Chapter 6: The Pharisees
• Chapter 7: Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index of References
• Index of Authors