A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Matthew
W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison
International Critical Commentary,
Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark (1988-97)
3 volumes

The Gospel According to Matthew
Leon Morris
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1992)

The new edition of The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (ICC) quite evidently has set for itself a very high standard. The first installment was C. E. B. Cranfield's magisterial volumes on Romans, and now we have the three volumes on Matthew by the capable team of the late New Testament scholar, W. D. Davies, and his protégé, Dale C. Allison. Inasmuch as this renewed version of the ICC seeks to continue the tradition of meticulous philological and historical research set by its predecessor, the commentary of Davies/Allison is certainly no disappointment.

For the user of the commentary, the most important consideration is the methodological-hermeneutical approach of its authors. One of the phenomena of modern biblical study has been the trend to dismiss the factor of context and concentrate on "the text in itself." For the practitioners of such disciplines as the "new hermeneutic," "structuralism," and the various brands of "post-structuralism," the historical study of the Bible has been assigned only a preliminary role in interpretation, the primary assumption being that any author (biblical or otherwise) creates a literary world of his own, an art for art's sake, upon which extraneous factors must not be allowed to obtrude. The result has been that traditional introductory matters such as date, authorship, readers, as well as the consultation of parallel literature falling within the milieu of the document in question, have been replaced by a concentration on the "deep structures" of a writing, i.e., the underlying features which form the basis of all narratives: the functions, motives and interactions of the main characters (and objects), and--most notably--the types of oppositions and their resolutions which develop as the text unfolds. In short, the thrust of the literary critical method is its disavowal of an "intended meaning" of an author within a historical cultural context, an intention which addresses issues contemporary with the author.

It is against such a hermeneutic that Davies/Allison react. In their words, "We cannot gather grapes from briars nor figs from thistles: our expectation of the fruit to be harvested depends on the nature of the plant" (1.2). This being the case, what can we expect Matthew to yield? And the answer to the question, for the authors, does indeed depend on an assessment of the kind of document (genre) the First Gospel actually is, an assessment contingent on the necessity of historical research. For this reason, the commentary follows the "historical-critical" method. Although negative connotations are frequently attached to this phrase, it means only the procedure of interpreting each New Testament book in light of its first-century Palestinian or Hellenistic context in order to uncover its intended sense (see 1.3-4).

Perhaps a more fundamental reason for the concentration on the historical-critical method, they say, is that Matthew assumes that standing behind his Gospel is an actual person, the historical Jesus of Nazareth. As the other Gospels, Matthew is not art for art's sake. Indeed, the aim of the Gospels is not primarily literary at all, which is why they do not fall into any ready-made genre of ancient literature: "rather do they intend to point to the manifold significance of Jesus of Nazareth for the communities within which they wrote and for humankind and his mysterium tremendum" (1.4-5).

In view of such considerations, the authors clarify that their task is to uncover the "plain sense" of Matthew's text. As they explain, this is not the "literal" or "original" sense, which varies in different parts of the Gospel. It is, rather, the sense which the sentences, paragraphs, and the longer unity, the structure, shape and flow of the Gospel as a totality present (see 1.5).

At this juncture, an important methodological factor of the commentary is introduced, viz., the citation of extra-biblical parallels to Matthew. By way of justification of the procedure, three comments are offered. One is that the Evangelist, like his readers, did not live in an "extra-textual" world; and in as far as possible, his Gospel should not be isolated from his world, "lest we, inhabitants of another place and a very different time, lose too much understanding of Matthew's meaning." "Context defines meaning; and if our gospel text is the foreground, then it cannot be placed in perspective without its background" (1.6). Second is the conviction that ancient Jewish sources are the most important tool in the interpreter's hands for fathoming the First Gospel. While the Jewish materials are not to be rigidly isolated from the Hellenistic sources, the authors are convinced that Matthew was a Jew whose mind was first of all steeped in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. Third, Davies/Allison clarify their frequent reference to rabbinic literature in the elucidation of Matthew. They are aware that because of the problem of dating, caution must be exercised in the way one draws on these later texts. Even so, they discern that the rabbinic mentality shows strong elements of conservatism, and the antiquity of some of the rabbinic traditions is accepted by all. However, in a nuanced statement, the authors admit that their citations from the Mishnah, Talmud, etc., assume only what might be of historical-critical or interpretive significance.

The authorship of the First Gospel is a matter of lengthy discussion (1.7-58), which in itself contains a wealth of historical and linguistic/stylistic information, along with an account of the theological tendencies of the Gospel and its patterns of Old Testament quotations (the charts comprising pages 34-57 are an amazingly detailed source of ready information). While Davies/Allison prefer not to commit themselves to the apostle Matthew as the author of this Gospel, they do conclude that he was a Jew writing for Jews, for two reasons. One is that much of Matthew's special material contains a distinctively Jewish flavor; another is that his use of the Old Testament strongly implies that he could read Hebrew.

When we turn to the exposition itself, we find that the authors are admirably consistent with their methodological presuppositions. At point after point, they are able to bring an encyclopedic knowledge of the ancient world and of Matthew's theology to bear on individual passages. For example, their treatment of the temptation narrative invokes the context of the insurgent Zealot movement at the time of Jesus' manifestation to Israel. In point of fact, we come to learn that Jesus is represented as saying "no" to the solicitations of the Devil, whereas the Zealots said "yes" to his enticements to embrace a worldly kingdom.

Another instance is the Beatitudes. Modern evangelicalism tends to look upon the Beatitudes as the "entrance requirements" of the kingdom. However, Davies/Allison demonstrate clearly that instead of being "entrance requirements," the Beatitudes are the pronouncement of eschatological blessing on the new people of God. The practical effect of this observation is that the beatitudes do not make demands so much as offer comfort and promise to the poor in spirit, etc. Before hearing Jesus' hard imperatives of the remainder of the Sermon on the Mount, the Christian reader is first built up, encouraged, and consoled. To my mind, if preachers come to the realization of the true intent of the Beatitudes, as clarified by Davies/Allison, it will make a world of difference in their handling of them.

A final example is the exegesis of Matthew's transfiguration account. By a meticulous reconstruction of the Old Testament and Jewish background, the authors show that Matthew's intention is to set forth Jesus as the one who displaces the institutions--most notably the Torah--and the revered personages of Israel. He is the new law giver, and the advent of his Word has now rendered all previous forms of revelation obsolete.

The commentary of Leon Morris on the same Gospel is something of a study in contrast. For one thing, the exposition is confined to one volume, as opposed to the projected three volumes of Davies/Allison, the first two of which are mammoth in proportion. (See, however, Allison's defense of the size of the work in his The New Moses: A Matthean Typology [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], xi.) This means that one might be tempted to turn to Morris first in order to get to the heart of the text. For another, Morris' presuppositions are thoroughly evangelical, with the result that he assumes the authenticity of all the sayings and doings of Jesus in the First Gospel. Therefore, the reader is not burdened with extended discussions of such points. By the same token, Morris's introduction to the Gospel is far less technical and detailed (should I say, less instructive?) than Davies/Allison. As one would expect, Morris thinks the apostle Matthew is the most likely candidate for the authorship of the Gospel.

However, it is the very predictability of Morris' book which is its shortcoming. I sensed that despite the bulk of this volume, it really does not advance our understanding of Matthew beyond that of the commentaries, say, of Hendriksen, Lenski, and Carson. Conspicuously absent is the lack of sensitivity to both the historical context of the First Gospel and the salvation history propounded by its author. The result is that Morris tends to explain the text in broad, generic (moralistic) terms, rather than in keeping with the specific salvation-historical (biblical-theological) agenda of Matthew himself. The treatment of the Beatitudes is a conspicuous example, especially as contrasted with Davies/Allison. The methodology also extends to bite-size portions of the Gospel, such as Matthew 3:7. In calling the Pharisees a "brood of vipers," John the Baptist, according to Morris, has in mind the "venomous nature" of their opposition to the kingdom of God (58, 321). What Morris fails to perceive is that the words of the Baptist go beyond such a generalization and serve pointedly to identify the Pharisees as the "seed of the serpent," as opposed to the "seed of the woman"! Needless to say, it is such a charge that infuriated the Pharisees to the extent that they could not tolerate the Jesus movement. It is just the frontal assault of Christianity on the Jewish establishment, as exemplified by Matthew 3:7, which provides the rationale of the crucifixion. It is in this and many other instances that the Gospel assails Jewish nationalistic self-identification and promotes the messiahship of Jesus. Yet the real impact of much of Matthew's theological agenda and polemic goes unnoticed by Morris.

In fairness, it is true that the reader will find in Morris a good deal of helpful information at a considerably lower price than Davies/Allison. The commentary is certainly not a waste, and this review does not intend to place it in such a light. In addition, Evangelicals naturally will want to turn to one of their own in order to understand and teach the New Testament. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of this reviewer that preachers in particular need to wrestle with the treasury of biblical, historical, and philological information provided by a commentary such as Davies/Allison in order to grasp the text in its original intention as articulated within its own proper context. It is only thereby that the power of this and the other Gospels will be released and become applicable in ways hitherto unimagined.