We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 March 2009
L'article analyse la tension, repérable dans quelques passages du premier Évangile, entre l'obéissance aux commandements se situant à l'intérieur du cadre donné par la Loi, et la radicalisation à laquelle invite le Jésus matthéen. L'enquête débute par une exégèse détaillée de Mt 5, 17–20. Dans un second temps, elle s'intéresse à trois épisodes où la tension entre obéissance et radicalisation est apparente: les antithèses du Sermon sur la Montagne (5, 17–48); la controverse sur le divorce (19, 1–9); l’épisode du jeune homme riche (19, 16–22). Dans une troisième partie, l'interrogation porte sur la cohérence des passages analysés avec la déclaration de Jésus en Mt 23, 2–3. Il résulte de l'enquête le constat que le référent du premier Évangile s'est déplacé: la colonne vertébrale structurant la théologie de Matthieu—et donc son identité religieuse—n'est plus prioritairement la Loi et l'obéissance aux commandements, mais le Messie et son enseignement.
1 Rigaux, B., Témoignage de l’Évangile de Matthieu (Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967) 40Google Scholar.
2 An issue much commented upon. See, for example, Luz, U., ‘Le problème historique et théologique de l'anti-judaïsme dans l’Évangile de Matthieu’, Le déchirement. Juifs et chrétiens au premier siècle (ed. Marguerat, Daniel; Genève: Labor et Fides, 1996) 127–50Google Scholar; Cuvillier, Élian, ‘Matthieu et le judaïsme: chronique d'une rupture annoncée’, Foi et Vie 92 (1993) 41–54Google Scholar.
3 Matt 9.9–17; 12.1–14, 22–32, 38–42; 15.1–20; 16.1–4; 19.1–9; 21.23–27; 22.15–22, 23–33, 41–45.
4 See, for example, Matt 13.14–15; 15.8–9; 23.38; 27.9–10.
5 See, for example, Matt 27.24–25 and 28.11–15.
6 See a rather complete treatment of this issue in Carter, Warren, ‘Matthew's Gospel: Jewish Christianity, Christian Judaism, or Neither?’, Jewish Christianity Reconsidered. Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (ed. Jackson-McCabe, M.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007) 155–79Google Scholar. Carter holds that Matthew belongs to Judaism, along with Saldarini, A. J., Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994)Google Scholar, and Overman, J. A., Church and Community in Crisis. The Gospel According to Matthew (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996)Google Scholar. The more classical stance is taken by Luz, U., évangéliste Matthieu: un judéo-chrétien à la croisée des chemins’, La mémoire et le temps. Mélanges offerts à Pierre Bonnard (ed. Marguerat, D. and Zumstein, J.; Genève: Labor et Fides, 1991) 77–92Google Scholar; Stanton, G. N., A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992)Google Scholar; Hagner, D. A., ‘Matthew: Apostate, Reformer, Revolutionary?’, NTS 49 (2003) 193–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Concerning the tension between particularism and universalism which is evident in Matthew and can be linked to this issue, see Cuvillier, Élian, ‘Particularisme et universalisme chez Matthieu: quelques hypothèses à l’ épreuve du texte’, Biblica 78 (1997) 481–502Google Scholar; see also idem, ‘Mission vers Israël ou mission vers les païens? À propos d'une tension féconde dans le premier Évangile’, Analyse narrative et Bible. Deuxième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain-La-Neuve, avril 2004 (ed. A. Wénin and C. Focant; Leuven: University Press, 2005) 251–8. These two contributions have been reprinted in Cuvillier, Élian, Naissance et enfance d'un Dieu. Jésus-Christ dans l’Évangile de Matthieu (Paris: Bayard, 2005) 165–78Google Scholar.
7 Among numerous authors dealing with this subject – apart from commentaries on the First Gospel of course—see Barth, G., ‘Das Gesetzesverständnis des Evangelisten Matthaüs’, Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium (ed. Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J.; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1960) 54–154Google Scholar (English translation: ‘Matthew's Understanding of the Law’, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew [London, SCM, 2nd ed. 1983] 58–164); Schweizer, E., ‘Matt 5.17–20. Anmerkungen zum Gesetzverständnis des Matthaüs’, Neotestamentica (Zürich: Zwingli, 1963) 399–406Google Scholar; idem, ‘Noch einmal Mt 5,17–20’, Matthaüs und seine Gemeinde (Stuttgart: KBW, 1974) 75–85; Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Matthäus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd ed. 1966) 143–54Google Scholar; Corsani, B., ‘La posizione di Gesù di fronte alla legge seconde il Vangelo di Matteo e l'interpretazione di Mt 5,17–20’, Ricerche Bibliche e Religiose 3 (1968) 193–230Google Scholar; Hamerton-Kelly, R. G., ‘Attitudes to the Law in Matthew's Gospel: A Discussion of Matthew 5.18’, Biblical Research 17 (1972) 19–32Google Scholar; Banks, R., ‘Matthew's Understanding of the Law: Authenticity and Interpretation in Matthew 5.17–20’, JBL 93 (1974) 226–42Google Scholar; idem, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975) 204–26; Meier, J. P., Law and History in Matthew's Gospel. A Redactional Study of Matt. 5.17–48 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976)Google Scholar; Zumstein, J., La condition du croyant dans l’Évangile selon Matthieu (Fribourg/Göttingen: Éditions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 107–27Google Scholar; Zumstein, J., ‘Loi et Évangile dans le témoignage de Matthieu’, Miettes exégétiques (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1992) 131–50Google Scholar; Sabourin, L., ‘Mathieu 5, 17–20 et le rôle prophétique de la Loi (cf. Mt 11, 13)’, Science et Esprit 30 (1978) 303–11Google Scholar; Luz, U., ‘Die Erfüllung des Gesetzes bei Matthäus (Mt 5,17–20)’, ZThK 75 (1978) 398–435Google Scholar; Wenham, D., ‘Jesus and the Law: An Exegesis on Matthew 5.17–20’, Themelios 4 (1979) 92–6Google Scholar; McEleney, N. J., ‘The Principles of the Sermon on the Mount’, CBQ 41 (1979) 552–70Google Scholar; Marguerat, D., Le jugement dans l’Évangile de Matthieu (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1st ed. 1981, 2nd ed. 1995) 110–41Google Scholar; idem, ‘”Pas un iota ne passera de la Loi…” (Mt 5, 18). La Loi dans l’Évangile de Matthieu’, La Loi dans l'un et l'autre Testament (ed. C. Focant; Paris: Cerf, 1997) 140–74; Betz, H.-D., ‘Die hermeneutischen Prinzipen in der Bergpredigt (Mt 5.17–20)’, Synoptischen Studien (Tübingen: Mohr, 1992) 111–26Google Scholar (1st ed. 1982; English trans., ‘The Hermeneutical Principles of the Sermon on the Mount’, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 37–54); idem, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5.3–7.27 and Luke 6.20–49) (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 166–97; Beauchamp, P., ‘L’ Évangile de Matthieu et l'héritage d'Israël’, RSR 76 (1988), 5–38Google Scholar; Vouga, F., Jésus et la Loi selon la tradition synoptique (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1988), 189–301Google Scholar; Stiewe, M. and Vouga, F., Le Sermon sur la Montagne. Un abrégé de l’Évangile dans le miroitement de ses interprétations (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2002), esp. 59–71Google Scholar; Dumais, M., Le Sermon sur la Montagne. État de la recherche. Interprétation. Bibliographie (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1995), esp. 171–80Google Scholar: ‘L'accomplissement de la Loi (Mt 5, 17–20)’; Snodgrass, R. K., ‘Matthew and the Law’, Treasures New and Old. Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies (ed. Bauer, David R. and Powell, Mark Allan; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 99–127Google Scholar; Hagner, D. A., ‘Balancing the Old and the New: The Law of Moses in Matthew and Paul’, Interpretation 51 (1997) 20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cuvillier, Élian, ‘La Loi comme réalité avant-dernière: Mt 5, 17–20 et son déploiement narratif dans l’ Évangile de Matthieu’, Raconter, interpréter, annoncer. Parcours de Nouveau Testament (ed. Bourquin, Y. and Steffek, E.; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2003), 81–91Google Scholar; Foster, P., Community, Law and Mission in Matthew's Gospel (WUNT 2.177; Tübingen: Mohr, 2004)Google Scholar; Deines, R., Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias. Mt 5, 13–20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie (WUNT 177; Tübingen: Mohr, 2004)Google Scholar; Focant, C., ‘“D'une montagne à l'autre”. L'accomplissement de la loi et des prophètes dans le Sermon sur la montagne’, L'unité de l'un et l'autre Testament dans l’œuvre de Paul Beauchamp (Paris: Facultés jésuites de Paris, 2005) 119–40Google Scholar; Reinbold, W., ‘Das Matthäusevangelium, die Pharisäer und die Tora’, BZ 50 (2006) 51–73Google Scholar; Konradt, M., ‘Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium’, Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament. Festschrift für Christoph Burchard zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. Sänger, D. and Konradt, M.; Göttingen/Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006) 129–52Google Scholar. For a helpful summary of the question, see Stanton, G. N. ‘The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945–1980’, ANRW II.25.4 (1985) 1889–951Google Scholar; Senior, D., What Are They Saying about Matthew? A Revised and Expanded Edition (Mahwah: Paulist, 1996) 62–73Google Scholar. For a more complete bibliography (up to 1992), see M. Dumais, Le Sermon sur la Montagne, 171–3.
8 On this, see the now classic Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977Google Scholar; German trans., Paulus und das palästinische Judentum. Ein Vergleich zweier Religionsstrukturen [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985]). Sanders’ theses are questioned today, and the fact that ‘covenantal nomism’ cannot account for the diversity of first-century Jewish trends is particularly stressed; cf. Quarles, C. L., ‘The Soteriology of R. Akiba and E. P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism’, NTS 42 (1996) 185–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O'Brien and M. A. Seifrid; Tübingen: Mohr, 2001); also, Steinmetz, D., ‘Justification by Deed: The Conclusion of the Sanhedrin-Makkot and Paul's Rejection of Law’, HUCA 76 (2005) 133–87Google Scholar (on Sanders in particular, see 173–5). For a wider study of the law in Second Temple Judaism, see Denis, A.-M., ‘La place de la loi de Moïse à Qumrân et dans le judaïsme du deuxième Temple’, Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac. Part 2. The Teacher of Righteousness: Literary Studies (ed. Kapera, J. Z.; Kraków: Enigma, 1991) 149–75Google Scholar; Lichtenberger, H., ‘Das Tora-Verständnis im Judentum zur Zeit des Paulus. Eine Skizze’, Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. Dunn, J. D. G.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1996) 7–23Google Scholar; Hoffmann, H., Das Gesetz in der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999)Google Scholar; Burkes, S., ‘“Life” Redefined: Wisdom and Law in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch’, CBQ 63 (2001) 55–71Google Scholar.
9 I do not discuss here the accuracy of Matthew's presentation of the Pharisaic understanding of the law—a highly controversial debate which is beyond the scope of this study.
10 My choice is to interpret the text in its final redaction. For the traditions used by Matthew and his redactional activity, see Meier, Law and History. It is generally held that Matthew altered the traditional form of vv. 18–19, wrote v. 17 and entirely composed v. 20. Of course, scholarship has discussed at length the details of this consensus.
11 In the remainder of the narrative, Jesus pronounces three declarations, all starting with ἦλθον: they stress an important element of the Matthean reflection on the work of the Messiah. Besides 5.17 (Jesus fulfils the law), see 9.13 (Jesus calls the sinners), 10.34 (Jesus is the cause of discord), and 20.18 (Jesus as servant). According to Zumstein (La condition du croyant, 117), ‘les paroles en ἦλθον décrivent […] de manière rétrospective et synthétique le sens de la mission du Christ’.
12 Jesus is the ‘didascale eschatologique’, as Daniel Marguerat puts it (‘Pas un iota’, 146).
13 Focant, C., ‘Eschatologie et questionnement éthique dans l’Évangile de Matthieu’ (to be published in Actes du Colloque ‘Eschatologie et Morale’, Paris 15–17 mars 2008 [Paris: Desclée] 7)Google Scholar, aptly notes that the disciples are ‘invités à produire (ποιεȋν) du fruit (3, 8.10; 21, 43), à pratiquer (ποιεȋν) les commandements (5, 19), leur justice (6, 1) ou la volonté de Dieu (7, 21; 12, 50; voir aussi 7, 12.24.26; 23, 3; 24, 40.45), à chercher (ζητεȋν) la justice du Royaume (6, 33) et enfin à garder (τηρεȋν) les commandements (19, 17; 23, 3) ou tout ce que Jésus a prescrit’. I am very grateful to the author for having made his text available to me.
14 This is a rather compressed way of dealing with a more complex debate. On the various interpretations of the verb (nine in total), see Davies, W. D. and Allison, D. C., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, I–VII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) 485–6Google Scholar.
15 On this see Miler, J., Les citations d'accomplissement dans l’Évangile de Matthieu. Quand Dieu se rend présent en toute humanité (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1999)Google Scholar.
16 The phrase ‘the law and the prophets’ can be found in Matt 7.12, which results in a long inclusion starting with 5.17. So the Sermon on the Mount is indeed an illustration of the way Matthew's Jesus fulfils them. And as we shall see, this fulfilling goes beyond simple legal obedience.
17 So also Dumais, Le Sermon sur la Montagne, 175: ‘Jésus est venu accomplir l’Écriture, cela veut dire qu'il la porte à son achèvement, à sa perfection, à la signification complète; il la réalise, non pas en “exécutant” ses demandes telles quelles, mais en la dépassant, en lui faisant porter un sens nouveau’; Focant, ‘D'une montagne à l'autre’, 139: ‘Jésus ne se présente ni comme un transgresseur de la loi dans son action concrète, ni comme un strict observant toujours prêt à étendre le champ de la loi. Son interprétation de la Torah d'Israël ne vise certes pas à l'annuler. Il veut plutôt la conduire à sa plénitude’; also Zumstein, La condition du croyant, 119–20; Meier, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel, 224–6; Davies and Allison, Matthew, I–VII, 486–7. For the opposite viewpoint (i.e. by obeying its commandments Jesus ‘fulfils’ the law), see Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 179: the verb πληρόω ‘describe[s] a process of legal interpretation’.
18 Cf. Bar. 4.1: ‘This is the book of the commandments of God, and the law, that is for ever (ὁ νόμος ὁ ὑπάρχων εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα); all they that keep it, shall come to life: but they that have forsaken it, to death’; Wis. 18.4: ‘the incorruptible light of the law (τὸ ἄφθαρτον νόμου φῶς)’; 2 Bar. 77.15: ‘And though we depart, yet the law remains’; Pseudo-Philo, LAB 11.2: ‘an everlasting law’; Josephus, Apion 2.277: ‘for though we be deprived of our wealth, of our cities, or of the other advantages we have, our law continues immortal (ὁ νόμος ἡμȋν ἀθάνατος διαμένει)’; 4 Ezra 9.36–7: ‘For we who have received the law and sinned will perish, as well as our heart which received it; the law, however, does not perish but remains in its glory’.
19 Dumais, Le Sermon sur la Montagne, 177: ‘[Qui] viennent nuancer […] le caractère absolu de l'affirmation’. Cf. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 183: ‘The authority of Scripture is temporally limited’.
20 Luz, U., Matthew 1–7 (Philadelphia: Augsburg Fortress, 1989) 266Google Scholar.
21 Meier, Law and History, 164; Zumstein, La condition du croyant, 121.
22 Zumstein, La condition du croyant, 122; Marguerat, Le jugement dans l’Évangile de Matthieu, 130.
23 Meier, Law and History, 61–5; Banks, Jesus and the Law, 213–18.
24 Davies and Allison, Matthew, I–VII, 495.
25 Matt 24.34–35 as a whole is indeed close to Matt 5.18 as far as vocabulary and phrasing are concerned. This can be clearly seen in the synoptic table below:
Matt 24.34–5
ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμȋν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ
αὕτη ἕως ἂν πάντα ταῦτα γένηται.
ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆπαρελεύσεται, οἱ δὲ
λόγοι μου οὐ μὴπαρέλθωσιν
This might point to a Matthean rewriting of 5.18 (// Luke 16.17) on the pattern of Matt 24.34–35 (// Mark 13.30–1). Furthermore, it should be noted that in 24.34 Mathew uses ἓως ἄν instead of Mark's μέχρις.
26 ‘But the enactments of this lawgiver are firm, not shaken by commotions, not liable to alteration, but stamped as it were with the seal of nature herself, and they remain firm and lasting from the day on which they were first promulgated to the present one, and there may well be a hope that they will remain to all future time, as being immortal, as long as the sun and the moon, and the whole heaven and the whole world shall endure ὥσπερ ἀθάνατα, ἕως ἂν ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ ὁ σύμπας οὐρανός τε καὶ κόσμος ᾖ (Vita Mosis 2.14).
27 On this point, the stance of Luz, U. (Matthew 21–28 [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005] 208Google Scholar) is rather surprising: ‘Many readers probably will also have seen here a (perhaps intentional) reference back to 5.18. As in the case with the words of the Torah, Jesus’ words […] are eternally valid.’ Also n. 15: ‘Since “until heaven and earth pass away” most likely means “never” […], we hardly have here the case that the words of Jesus surpass the Torah’. This is in contrast with Davies and Allison's commentary on Matt 24.35 (Matthew, XIX–XXVIII [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997] 368): ‘That the world will pass away—already stated in 5.18…was common conviction…and ours is not the only text to contrast the passing of heaven and earth with something of greater endurance (cf. Isa 51.6). But here that something is Jesus’ speech, which therefore sets him above Torah…and makes his words like God's words (cf. Ps 119.89; Isa 40.8): they possess eternal authority’. In the same way, cf. Sim, D. C. (‘The Meaning of παλινγγενεσία in Matthew 19.28’, JSNT 50 [1993] 3–12)Google Scholar: ‘If we take together Matt 24.35 and 5.18, and the similarity in wording suggests that we should, then the Evangelist makes the overall point that while the Law is not eternal, the words of Jesus are. One set of teachings will survive the eschatological destruction of the cosmos and the other will not’ (9); on 8–9 n. 12, Sim points out that Luz had initially defended the view of Matt 5.18 meaning that the law remains valid until the end of the world (cf. Luz, ‘Die Erfüllung der Gesetzes’, 417–18). Sim adds: ‘Luz has since rejected this exegesis and now holds the alternative view that the passing of heaven and earth is a roundabout way of saying “never”; the law thus remains valid forever… This understanding of the expression runs against its normal apocalyptic meaning in Matthew's day…and makes nonsense of the contrast in 24.35.’
28 This verse is a typically casuistical formula that belongs to the vocabulary of sacred law (Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 184).
29 An idea that can be found in rabbinic literature, in which a difference is made between ‘light’ (gallîn) and ‘heavy’ (hamarîn) commandments, and grades in the kingdom defined according to obedience (see Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch [6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 2 unveränderte Auflage, 1954–56] 1.249–50Google Scholar).
30 ‘Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’.
31 ‘So the last shall be first, and the first last’.
32 Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 186–7; Dumais, Le Sermon sur la Montagne, 178–80.
33 Davies and Allison, Matthew, I–VII, 496.
34 The fact that this righteousness is identified as the disciples’ righteousness (‘your righteousness’; see also 6.1) does not contradict the sense of the word δικαιοσύνη, where it points to what the Matthean Jesus has come to accomplish. Indeed, because of Matt 3.15 it appears that for Matthew, the ‘superior righteousness’ originates from Jesus’ practice. Quite different is the issue of whether the righteousness required is given to the disciples by God, a point that is widely disputed by scholarship.
35 According to Luz (Matthew 1–7, 270), Matthew ‘does not sense’ this tension, and members of his community ‘were not able to see’ it.
36 Obviously, the fact that for Matthew Torah observance guarantees good relationships within the community underlies the evolution of the narrative when Jesus affirms: ‘And because iniquity (τὴν ἀνομίαν) shall abound, the love of many shall grow cold’ (Matt 24.12).
37 This is close to what Ricœur, P. (Lectures III. Aux frontières de la philosophie [Paris: Seuil, 1994] esp. 277ff.)Google Scholar calls the ethics of ‘surabondance’, which for him is ‘supra-éthique’ or even ‘méta-éthique’, namely, beyond ethics. Indeed, we can talk of an ethics close to what could be called common morality, i.e., the law. It is ruled by the golden rule (Matt 7.12): be concerned by the other as another self. On the other hand, there is what could be called an ethics of the subject, which is always singular and which diverts the logic of reciprocity only to replace it by a different principle—Ricœur's logic of overabundance – which implies giving for the sake of giving, and which then seems to surpass ethics. For Ricœur, loving one's enemies (Matt 5.44) is a good example since that kind of love can never be normalized by ethics; it can only be a suspension of ethics due to excess or overabundance. In other words, loving enemies can never become common law; it can only be a possible possibility for the subject to break up the logic of reciprocity to let another logic take place. For Ricœur, there is no question of choosing or mixing up the two fields – ethics or supra-ethics—but rather of articulating them or keeping them in a permanent dialectic tension which must never be settled. In a similar way, cf. also Causse, J.-D., ‘Le Sermon sur la Montagne: critique freudienne et redéploiement éthique’, Revue d’éthique et de théologie morale 250 (2008) 9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar (21): ‘On se tromperait à…lire [le Sermon sur la Montagne] comme un nouveau code moral, même une morale plus haute ou supérieure, faisant appel au surpassement de soi-même. La performativité du récit, pour parler le langage de la pragmatique de la communication, réside dans la naissance d'une subjectivité qui donne forme à un être et à un agir.’
38 The use of hyperbolic rhetoric indicates that Matthew's Jesus’ speech does not aim at a precise depiction of practices, except to render excess reasonable and to bring superior righteousness (5.20) back into strict obedience to commandments which would be those of the Messiah. As Focant notes (‘Eschatologie’, 8) a radicalizing tendency ‘est certes à l’œuvre dans les divers courants du bas-judaïsme. Toutefois, la radicalisation juive de la Loi à cette époque est plutôt quantitative et elle se développe de manière extensive dans la halakah, tandis que celle du Jésus de Matthieu s’éloigne de la casuistique et est plutôt qualitative.’ On this, see Braun, H., Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus. Jesus von Nazareth und die essenische Qumransekte (Tübingen: Mohr, 2nd ed., 1969)Google Scholar; also Theissen, G., Le mouvement de Jésus. Histoire sociale d'une révolution des valeurs (Paris: Cerf, 2006)Google Scholar.
39 In keeping with 5.31–32, Matthew undoubtedly limits the radicalization: see the use of πορνεία (19.9). However, the Matthean Jesus does part from Moses’ more liberal rule. Allison, D. C. (‘Divorce, Celibacy and Joseph’, JSNT 49 [1993] 3–10)Google Scholar interpreted this double restriction in connection with the figure of Joseph the ‘righteous’ who, suspecting adultery, chooses to leave Mary (Matt 1.18–25).
40 See also Carter, W., Households and Discipleship. A Study of Matthew 19–20 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 63Google Scholar: ‘Against a patriarchal understanding of marriage concerned with what a man may do to end the marriage, Jesus asserts the original divine purpose for marriage of unity and permanence’. Later, he adds that Jesus in fact limits ‘the use of male power’ (71).
41 The viewpoint of Davies, and Allison, (Matthew, XIX–XXVIII [Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1997] 62–3)Google Scholar is completely different. Having stressed the various parallels between the story of the rich young man and the Sermon on the Mount, they conclude (63): ‘In sum, both the SM and Matt 19.16–30, affirm the Torah’. On the contrary, it seems to me that the pericope 19.16–30 and the Antitheses alike go beyond the Torah, at least in their traditional interpretation. In both cases Jesus’ speech carries out a kind of radicalization.
42 What I have in mind here are all the controversies which must be taken into account to sharpen or modulate the matter. Moreover, a passage such as 11.18–20 seems to lead in a direction opposite to that of radicalization.
43 Powell, M. A., ‘Do and Keep What Moses Says (Matthew 23.2–7)’, JBL 114 (1995) 419–35Google Scholar.
44 The different identity of the opponents (‘scribes and Pharisees’ in Matt 23, ‘Pharisees and Sadducees’ in 16.5–12) is minor and insignificant in this case.
45 On this, one may follow Marguerat who contends (‘Pas un iota’, 166) that in Matthew's Gospel, ‘de bout en bout, la Loi est pensée à partir de la christologie’.
46 G. N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People, 122. The expression is usually attributed to Stendahl, K., The School of Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament (Lund: Gleerup, 1954 [Philadelphia, Fortress, 2nd ed., 1968]Google Scholar).
47 See, for example, Martin Luther. In a sermon on the fifth commandment as it is interpreted by Jesus in the Antitheses, he wonders about the significance of such a radicalization and answers: ‘Il [Jésus] place le but si haut que personne ne l'atteint’. From that he infers: ‘Où y a-t-il quelqu'un qui ne se met jamais en colère? Le cinquième commandement est interprété là de façon à mener à la mort et dans le feu infernal et à ne laisser monter personne au ciel.’ Indeed, this commandment cannot be observed but ‘sous l'ombre de la grâce’ (cited from Stiewe and Vouga, Le Sermon sur la Montagne, 151).
