Category: Kingsbury 1975

Matthew's Gospel as the Gospel of the Kingdom

9/18/2025

Thursday Scholarly Notes
9/18/25

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. (1975). "Recapitulation." in Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. (pp. 161-167). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. (Personal Library)
   Kingsbury concludes this brief book with a summary of his various theses. He takes Matthew's Gospel to be divided into three portions, with signal statements at 1:1, 4:17, and 16:21. The main themes for each segment then may be seen as the person; the proclamation; and the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus (Kingsbury 1975, p. 161). He sees a consistent movement throughout of salvation history as the narrative shifts the reader's focus from the time of Israel to the time of Jesus. Kingsbury considers that Matthew "is primarily a christological document and has as its central purpose to inform the members of Matthew's community, against their present situation, of Jesus Messiah and of his relationship to the Father and of what it means to be his disciple" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 162).
   Matthew's primary understanding of Jesus, as evidenced by his use of titles, is that he is the Son of God, specifically the one who reveals God's saving presence in human terms (Kingsbury 1975, p. 162). His work is to establish the kingdom of heaven, which, in his death and resurrection, he has done as both a present and a future reality (Kingsbury 1975, p. 164).
   As partakers of God's kingdom, those who believe Jesus are seen by Matthew as having an ethical change (Kingsbury 1975, p. 164). There is an expected understanding of some spiritual concepts. These set the disciples' behavior apart from the behavior of those who are partakers of Satan's kingdom, which is characterized as "lawless" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 165). The lawful teaching and preaching of the kingdom of God should set all Israel apart. However, Matthew shows much of Israel as rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. For this reason, God transfers the work of his kingdom to the church as a new people of God. Though the church remains a community in which strife may arise, it is unified as a body of partakers of the Gospel (Kingsbury 1975, p. 166).

0 Comments

The Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew's Gospel

9/11/2025

0 Comments

Thursday Scholarly Notes
9/11/25

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. (1975). Chapter 4: Matthew's View of the Son of God and the Kingdom of Heaven." in Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. (pp. 128-160). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. (Personal Library)
   Acknowledging the central role of Jesus as Son of God in Matthew's Gospel, Kingsbury here explores the relationship between the Son of God and the kingdom of heaven, the central concept he finds in the first Gospel (Kingsbury 1975, p. 128). The entire message of the good news, in Matthew, may be related to the preaching of the kingdom. Kingsbury finds it significant that in Matthew there is no distinction made between the gospel message before and after the resurrection (Kingsbury 1975, p. 130). Further, the gospel itself is not defined. While the overall content of the written account is a possible definition, at times within the document an event exalting Jesus is indicated as "gospel' (Kingsbury 1975, p. 130).
   Because of the potential for confusion based on terms, Kingsbury evaluates the terms "gospel" and "kingdom" in thru. He ties the word "gospel" to Isaiah 52:7 and asserts Matthew's use of Mark and Q, taking the word to bear christological significance, always being modified with the idea of "the kingdom" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 133). As to Matthew's use of "kingdom," Kingsbury notes that Matthew modifies the word with "of heaven" or "of God," using the two terms synonymously (Kingsbury 1975, p. 1234). In the time of Matthew, Jewish thought has largely concluded that the work of prophets and teachers centered around the kingdom of God, looking to some form of an eschatological kingdom (Kingsbury 1975, p. 136). The messianic hope found in Jesus therefore seems a reasonable theme of teaching and preaching.
   God's kingdom, as described in Matthew, has significant complexity. In its salvation-historical dimension, it shows a strongly temporal orientation (Kingsbury 1975, p. 138). Just the same, Kingsbury does not rule out the instances of the kingdom being viewed spatially, drawing near. This is especially associated with the physical proximity of Jesus. However, the temporal context of an eschaton remains prominent. "The present is to be viewed in the light of the future and everything seen as moving toward the consummation of the age" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 138). The age to come is drawing near, and is a time of blessing. Matthew regularly uses "blessed" to describe the kingdom to come (Kingsbury 1975, p. 141). The blessed age to come features the destruction of Satan's rule (Matthew 12:28). The kingdom may be given and taken away by God (21:43) (Kingsbury 1975, p. 142). And in 11:12, "violent ones" have attempted to plunder God's kingdom. Kingsbury's suggestion is that we take the violent ones to be the devil and those who falsely claim an allegiance to God. The work of the kingdom, on the other hand, is to bring people to confess the Son of God and live as his disciples (Kingsbury 1975, p. 143).
   In addition to the concept of salvation history, Kingsbury notes an important element of the kingdom of God is its cosmic dimension. He considers the idea of a growing spiritual force to be foreign to Matthew's mind (Kingsbury 1975, p. 146). It has always been present, as God has always been present. However, the acknowledgement of God's kingdom does grow among people in cultural groups (Kingsbury 1975, p. 147). In the end, all will see it as it is. In the meantime, in some ways, it seems hidden or insignificant.
   Thirdly, Kingsbury notes the ethical facet of God's kingdom (Kingsbury 1975, p. 148). This is normally seen in personal convictions and actions. The decision is presented to readers, whether to enter into the way of life or the way of death (Kingsbury 1975, p. 149).
   An important element in Matthew's portrayal of the kingdom of heaven is its adversarial counterpart, the kingdom of Satan (Kingsbury 1975, p. 149). The devil is depicted as the enemy whose power is only exceeded by God. He is the ruler over demons, or unclean spirits, and uses them in his encouragement to humans that they should engage in lawless behavior. In Matthew's Gospel Jesus serves as the primary target for Satan (Kingsbury 1975, p. 150). When Matthew describes the post-resurrection Church, he shows it under attack by Satan though Satan is depicted as a defeated enemy (Kingsbury 1975, p. 151). In his broader role in the world in general, his work is to raise up followers to deceive others. At the end of the world, he, his angels, and his followers will be relegated to punishment (Kingsbury 1975, p. 152).
   With the level of dualism shown in other areas within Matthew's Gospel, Kingsbury evaluates whether there is a different relation of Israel or of the Gentiles to the kingdom of heaven (Kingsbury 1975, p. 152). Israel is definitively described in Matthew's Gospel as rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. Kingsbury documents this concept with numerous biblical passages (Kingsbury 1975, p. 153). By the time of the composition of the Gospel, Kingsbury sees no change in this rejection. This he bases on the third person descriptions in the Gospel, for instance, "their synagogues" and "their leaders," as of a different and hostile culture (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 153-154). This indicates the hostility as an ongoing feature of the relationship between Israel and the Church. With Israel's rejection of the Messiah, the proclamation of the Gospel has been directed to other nations (Kingsbury 1975, p. 156). While the nations also are, at least at times, hostile toward Christ and His people, the Gospel goes to all nations. They are all, in a sense, equal before God.
   Kingsbury concludes that the Church serves as the dwelling place of God with His people. However, Matthew does not consider the Church to be the Kingdom of Heaven (Kingsbury 1975, p. 157). While the Church lives under the rule of God, the people who follow Jesus have been instructed in the things of the Kingdom and live under its sway. It can expect trials and troubles from inside and outside (Kingsbury 1975, p. 158). There are false prophets. People sin against each other. Some lose their faith. In short, this is a community that is tainted by sin, though it has been redeemed. The final coming of the kingdom is still in the future.

0 Comments

Jesus Has Many Titles. Which One Is Greatest?

9/4/2025

0 Comments

Thursday Scholarly Notes
9/4/25

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. (1975). Chapter 3: The Christology of Matthew: Other Titles." in Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. (pp. 84-127). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. (Personal Library)
   In this chapter Kingsbury attempts to demonstrate that "Son of God" is the central title of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel and to do so by comparing it with other titles used for Christ (Kingsbury 1975, p. 84). He addresses twelve different titles, essentially in order from least to most important from a christological point of view.
   The name "Jesus," essentially meaning "Savior," appears 150 times (Kingsbury 1975, p. 84). Matthew's use of the name strikes Kingsbury as pointing not to Jesus' majesty but to a definition of his mission. Of course, it does double duty as it is also his personal name (Kingsbury 1975, p. 85). The name is predominantly used simply as an identifier, rather than as a title.
   Matthew uses "son of Abraham" once to describe Jesus. The significance of this as a designation of the heir of God's promises to Abraham would be hard to miss (Kingsbury 1975, p. 85). He is thus designated as the true Israelite as well as the one through whom the Gentiles are blessed. Kingsbury notes that, as Jesus is also designated as the Son of God, and as he directs his disciples to carry the gospel to the Gentiles, he is taking on divine authority to fulfill the promise made to Abraham (Kingsbury 1975, p. 86). This indicates to Kingsbury that the "Son of God" title is more important than that of "Son of Abraham."
   Four times Jesus is referred to as "the Coming One" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 86). This title bears Messianic overtones, also suggesting that the "Coming One" performs divine actions. Due to the Messianic context, then, Kingsbury considers the title to point to the greater title, "Son of God." The title "Coming One" urges an understanding of the authority and divinity of the one expected.
   Jesus is three times described as the "Shepherd." It is fair to add to these references the one use of a verb for herding and the eleven references to his sheep (Kingsbury 1975, p. 87). The Old Testament frequently identifies God as the shepherd of Israel, and the Messiah is the coming one who will actually engage in the work of the shepherd (Kingsbury 1975, p. 87). The Messianic symbolism thus appears strong. While Matthew frequently refers to Israel as a flock, he does not push the term of shepherd upon Jesus frequently. Rather, the term used frequently for Jesus the shepherd is "Son of God." When Jesus uses the term of himself it is in the context of his impending death, which Kingsbury notes is particularly as the "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 88). Thus Kingsbury concludes that the term "shepherd" is of less centrality than "Son of God."
   Kingsbury observes that the title 'prophet," while applied to Jesus in Matthew's Gospel, is applied broadly to others including the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist (Kingsbury 1975, p. 88). Jesus' positive mentions of the prophets suggests that, as portrayed in Matthew, the term does not bear nearly the same importance as "Son of God." Kingsbury notes that even unbelieving crowds recognized Jesus as a prophet (Kingsbury 1975, p. 89). Kingsbury makes extensive comments regarding the comparisons made between Jesus and Moses (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 89-92). In all, while the similarities certainly exist, when Jesus does signs reminiscent of Moses, he is routinely referred to, or refers to himself, not as a prophet but as the "Son of God."
   Jesus is addressed on occasions as "Rabbi" or "teacher," terms which Kingsbury takes to be used synonymously and to often be applied to any respected scribe or teacher (Kingsbury 1975, p. 92). It strikes Kingsbury as significant that Jesus' disciples do not use this term for him. Once again, we see that when Jesus is engaged in his teaching work, the important title for him is not "teacher" but "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 93).
   Kingsbury next addresses the term he translates as "servant" (παῖς), used once in Matthew, freely adapted from Isaiah 42 (Kingsbury 1975, p. 93). While I question the wisdom of woodenly using the term as "servant" I free grant that here it is the most appropriate understanding of the passage in Isaiah. Kingsbury observes that while the use of Isaiah in Matthew 12:18-21 speaks to actions and characteristics of Jesus, all are described elsewhere in Matthew in more detail and while identifying Jesus as "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 94). He thus concludes that, as before, the primary christological title is "Son of God."
   In the passage about the origin of Jesus, the term "Emmanuel" is used of him (Kingsbury 1975, p. 95). Though the significance of Jesus as "God with us" is enormous, the word is not even used as his actual proper name. The role of the person Jesus is certainly that of "God with us." However, it is played out under the different christological title, "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 96).
   The remaining titles Kingsbury discusses he considers major christological terms (Kingsbury 1975, p. 96). He first deals with "Messiah" ("Christ"), which can also be interpreted as "King." Kingsbury observes that the Messiah is Jesus, who brings history to a head, making either salvation or damnation available (Kingsbury 1975, p. 97). The title can be qualified to indicate the "King of the Jews" or the 'Son of God." In Matthew 16:16 and 26:63, Jesus ties the term directly to the "King of the Jews" and the 'Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 97-98). Kingsbury is inclined to see the title used at times to distance Jesus from the association of the suffering servant idea (Kingsbury 1975, p. 98).
   Related to the concept of Jesus as a king is that of him as the "Son of David" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 99). While the term is important, Kingsbury does not take it to have as great a significance as "Son of God." In terms of conceptual categories, "Son of David" belongs with "Son of Abraham" and likely serves to direct attention to Jesus as the king who provides blessing to the nations (Kingsbury 1975, p. 100). These titles are used with a narrow scope, involving some healings and Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Kingsbury takes the people healed by Jesus as an indication that Jesus' role is as a humble king (Kingsbury 1975, p. 101). This further advances his theory that the "Son of David" title is less important than "Son of God."
   The title "Κύριος" ("Lord") is frequently held forth as the primary title for Jesus (Kingsbury 1975, p. 103). The work of G. Bornkamm has played a leading role in these conclusions. Kingsbury reviews Bornkamm's work in some detail. He identifies three levels of usage of the term in Matthew. First, it is frequently used in a "conventional fashion" as a title of respect, such as "sir" in English (Kingsbury 1975, p. 105). In many instances, it is also used as a denotation of "God." The third use, and the one most closely related to Kingsbury's argument, is the use with christological significance (Kingsbury 1975, p. 106). For this analysis, Kingsbury looks at the use of "Lord" in the parables. Within the parables, the word is used, normally in the vocative case, in an interpersonal manner (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 106-107). In effect, we see Jesus as "Lord" but the term does not normally bear the weight used for "Son of God." Kingsbury considers the relationship of "Lord" to other titles, finding that proximity and use in apposition tie it most closely to "Son of David" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 110). Ties to other christological terms are not as strong.
   The references to Jesus as "Son of Man" are the final ones used for examination in this chapter. Kingsbury observes that "Son of Man" is related, in Matthew, to Jesus' "public ministry; to his suffering, death, and resurrection; and to his parousia" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 113). He considers Matthew to have actively increased the use of "Son of Man" references "available to him from the tradition" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 114). He further considers the references to be associated with reference to 'Son of God" and, further, to have a "public" character in which anyone would feel free to refer to Jesus as the "Son of Man" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 115). Despite the public nature of the title, it is used, especially by Jesus, as bearing authority. Kingsbury briefly entertains the theory that, especially in what he considers redactional passages, uses of "Son of Man" are simply to be understood as a personal pronoun (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 118 ff). In his estimation, they are stronger and more laden with christological significance than if they were intended as personal pronouns. He concludes that "Son of Man" is a public title equivalent to "Son of God," which is a private title (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 121-122).
   Kingsbury briefly concludes that in Matthew Jesus is presented, above all, as the Son of God. All other titles are subservient to that one (Kingsbury 1975, p. 126).

0 Comments

"Son of God" as Jesus' Official Title in Matthew

8/28/2025

0 Comments

Thursday Scholarly Notes
8/28/25

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. (1975). Chapter 2: The Christology of Matthew: The Title Son of God." in Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. (pp. 40-83). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. (Personal Library)
   Because Kingsbury maintains that Matthew's Gospel is primarily christological in nature, he proceeds to approach the various topics found in Matthew in christological terms, with each shedding light on some aspect of the nature of Christ. In this chapter, he argues "that 'Son of God' is the central christological title of Matthew" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 41). This differs from much of the contemporary scholarship cited by Kingsbury, which has considerable diversity in terms of the central title used to describe Jesus' identity.
   Kingsbury considers the title "Son of God" as introduced in 1:1-4:16 to be represented also by parallel terms such as "the Son" or "my/his Son" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 42). In the birth narratives, while Jesus is identified as the Son of David, he is also identified as the Son of God, having been conceived by special means of the Father through Mary (Kingsbury 1975, p. 43).
   In the narrative of the Magi, Kingsbury notes the frequent use of regal language around Jesus (Kingsbury 1975, p. 45). The newborn is considered by Herod and the Magi as some sort of divine figure. In the narrative Jesus is regularly referenced as "the child" in such a way as to reject any conclusions that he is the son of Joseph. Kingsbury further notes the eschatological language used about Jesus. The divine promise made to Abraham is presented as coming to all humans through Jesus. This is something only God's representative could do (Kingsbury 1975, p. 46).
   In the account of Jesus' baptism, temptation, and relocation (3:13-4:16) Kingsbury notes a central theme of Jesus as the perfectly obedient one (Kingsbury 1975, p. 48). The sign of the Holy Spirit in 4:17 demonstrates that Jesus is divinely empowered for his work. He is openly endorsed by the Father and the Spirit (Kingsbury 1975, p. 49). The baptism thus declares Jesus to be the one and only Son of God. As with the baptism, so the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness (4:1-11) portrays Jesus as the perfectly obedient Son of God (Kingsbury 1975, p. 51).
   In 4:17-10:42, the title "Son of God" or its equivalent does not appear. For this reason, Kingsbury seeks out a convincing argument that the title "Son of God" remains central to the concept held in Matthew (Kingsbury 1975, p. 53). This reason, Kingsbury considers, is that the title is not a "public" title. It is not used by outsiders to refer to Jesus except in mocking him. Even the disciples refer to Jesus as κύριε rather than υἱὲ θεοῦ (Kingsbury 1975, p. 54). Within Matthew 4:17-10:42, Jesus is engaged in dealing with the outsiders who would not be privy to the term "Son of God." Kingsbury further notes that, in other passages in Matthew, both κύριος and Messiah are used as synonyms for "Son of God." Within this section, those terms are still used to address Jesus. A further piece of evidence Kingsbury notes is that within this passage, Jesus describes his disciples who believe in him as sons of God, the heavenly Father. This strongly suggests Jesus is applying to them the status of sonship before God which he had applied to himself (Kingsbury 1975, p. 55). Additionally, Jesus continues to show divine authority in his teaching. His frequent choice of a mountain as a setting points to the many times God has revealed himself on a mountain (Kingsbury 1975, p. 57).
   A note on the organization of the chapter is in order. Though Kingsbury began by breaking Matthew 4:17-28:20 into smaller parts, he departed from that organizational plan, here adducing passages throughout the second portion of Matthew (Kingsbury 1975, p. 56ff).
   While Kingsbury observes the importance of the title "Son of God" in Matthew, he also considers the displayed authority of Jesus as his central characteristic (Kingsbury 1975, p. 58). It is as the one who possesses authority that Jesus teaches and preaches. Kingsbury discusses in some detail the signs of authority in Jesus' teaching (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 60-61) and in his works of healing (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 61-63). Kingsbury concludes that the ongoing moves of Matthew to portray Jesus as the authoritative Son of God in 4:17-10:42, though without using the descriptor specifically, assert him as the Son of God (Kingsbury 1975, p. 63).
   In Matthew 11-12, though Israel has not recognized Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus is still portrayed as God who has come to dwell with His people (Kingsbury 1975, p. 63). He thanks the Father for revealing him to the "infants" even though he has not been understood in general (Kingsbury 1975, p. 64). Yet it is the Father's will to reveal the Son. Due to Israel's continued rejection of Jesus, he turns to teaching in parables. Yet his disciples continue to see his acts showing divine sovereignty, such as his walking on water in 14:22-33 (Kingsbury 1975, p. 66). Matthew continues to portray the confusion about Jesus' proper identity as we continue reading.
   Kingsbury sees the next high point in the discussion with Peter in chapter 16. Counter to other people, Peter, as spokesperson for the Twelve, has come to know that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (Kingsbury 1975, p. 67). The text continues with a move to the Transfiguration, where Matthew presents Jesus as the one who can overcome the fear of the disciples who have been confronted with God's glory (Kingsbury 1975, p. 68). Jesus is presented as the one in whom God's presence resides and as the one to be listened to. As parabolic actions and teaching continue, Jesus presents himself as the Son, the one who is with Israel (Kingsbury 1975, p. 71).
   Kingsbury moves on to the passion narrative. As Jesus prays in the garden it is significant that he specifically addresses God as "my Father" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 73). The motif of Jesus as the Son of God is continued in the trial of Jesus, where he agrees with the High Priest's question about being the Son of God, then immediately equates that term with the Son of Man (26:62-64). It is the assertion that Jesus is the Son of God which serves as his condemnation to receive the death penalty (Kingsbury 1975, p. 74). The remainder of Matthew's account of the suffering of Jesus is infused with language affirming Jesus' identity as the Son of God. The events of the cross leave no doubt that Matthew portrays Jesus as the perfect Son of God (Kingsbury 1975, p. 76). The culmination of the Gospel, in Matthew 28:16-20, completes the theme, which Kingsbury has argued exists throughout Matthew, of Jesus as the Son of God. Here, rather than being the suffering Son, he is the risen and glorified one (Kingsbury 1975, p. 77).

0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel - Structural Concepts

8/21/2025

0 Comments

Thursday Scholarly Notes
8/21/25

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. (1975). Chapter 1: The Structure of Matthew's Gospel and His Concept of Salvation-History." in Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. (pp. 1-39). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. (Personal Library)
   Kingsbury asserts a lack of consensus about both the structure of Matthew's Gospel and about the history of salvation (Kingsbury 1975, p. 1). For this reason, he proposes his view of each.
   From a structural standpoint, Kingsbury finds that some commentators have essentially assumed and described a topical structure in which there is no purposeful overall goal in the progression of topics (Kingsbury 1975, p. 2). A second type of topical structural outline leans toward Matthew structuring his writing in five parts, with some sort of connection to the Pentateuch (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 2ff). This perspective has gained much influence, though different interpreters approach the purpose of the parts in various ways. Because of the lack of overall agreement on the purposes of the portions of Matthew, while the divisions are reasonably easy to identify, the interpretive framework as a whole remains unstable.
   Kingsbury notes that from a structural standpoint it may be fruitful to consider the formula "from that time Jesus began" found at 4:17 and at 16:21 (Kingsbury 1975, p. 7). The two passages serve as pivotal instances in the narrative, in Kingsbury's view (Kingsbury 1975, p. 9). He therefore attempts to demonstrate that this is the appropriate transitional cue which Matthew uses to arrange his narrative. The passage 1:1-4:16 he takes to be a first section, introduced as the background information about Jesus' lineage, birth, and preparation to begin his tasks which consume the remaining two parts of the book (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 10-11). He makes extensive comments on chapter three, which could easily be seen as an independent sense unit. Kingsbury considers it to be closely tied to the earlier and later materials from a standpoint of language usage (Kingsbury 1975, p. 15). Kingsbury's overall conclusion is that 1:1-4:16 introduce the person of Jesus.
   Kingsbury takes Matthew 4:17-16:20 as focused on Jesus' public proclamation of himself as Messiah (Kingsbury 1975, p. 17). It is in this portion of the text tha Jesus performs miracles which accompany his teaching, attracting crowds. He commissions twelve disciples whose ministry resembles his. It is in this portion of the text that his popularity grows and shrinks (Kingsbury 1975, p. 18).
   The third and final portion of Matthew's Gospel may then be seen as 16:21-28:20, which describes Jesus' suffering, his death, and his resurrection (Kingsbury 1975, p. 21). In this section Jesus and the public come into greater tension as he is being rejected. He still heals people, but his teaching is primarily focused on his disciples (Kingsbury 1975, p. 22).
   Kingsbury, considering his structural thesis as proven fact, moves on to discuss Matthew in terms of salvation-history (Kingsbury 1975, p. 25) He notes there has been increasing interest in the conceptual framework in recent years. Much of the scholarship he considers has evaluated the conceptual structure in terms of salvation history. Kingsbury notes authors who take as central the concept of Christians serving as the true and new people of God, others as a shift from the call of Israel to a call of the Gentiles. The temporal shift and a shift in the way salvation is understood work together (Kingsbury 1975, p. 26). Patterns of analysis have typically divided salvation history itno three parts. Yet Kingsbury does not think that a three period view is a foregone conclusion (Kingsbury 1975, p. 27).
   There is no contest to the fact that Matthew uses temporal terms more frequently than Mark (Kingsbury 1975, p. 27). While some of his usages are relatively vague, many are used in the context of vivid descriptions of a time to come. Matthew tends to give eschatological significance to his temporal markers (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 28-29).
   Of more importance to Kingsbury is his understanding tha Matthew considers history to be divided into only two periods, rather than the conventionally assumed three (Kingsbury 1975, p. 31). The "time of Jesus" takes over from the "time of Israel." Matthew would seem to consider himself as living in the "time of Jesus," which includes all the age of the Church (Kingsbury 1975, p. 32). Kingsbury finds that within Matthew the distinction is made between Jesus and his disciples, but there is not such a temporal distinction that would show a difference between a time of Jesus and a time of the church. This leads Kingsbury to conclude that "the christology of Matthew, not his ecclesiology, more than anything else has molded his concept of the history of salvation" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 36).
   In sum, Kingsbury understands Matthew to be topical, rather than chronological, in nature. The topical development he takes to be governed by matthew's Christology (Kingsbury 1975, p. 36). What chronology does exist in Matthew is a division of history into prophecy and its fulfillment in Christ (Kingsbury 1975, p. 37).
   Kingsbury ends the chapter with some comments on a study of Matthew by H. Frankemölle, released shortly before publication of this book. The study appears to take a covenant theology point of view, with a strong element of continuity rather than changes in era (Kingsbury 1975, p. 37). While Kingsbury does agree with Frankemölle on one level, he rejects the view of covenant theology which is used. The level of continuity which matthew shows between Old and New Testament is not as great, in Kingsbury's opinion, as Frankemölle would allege (Kingsbury 1975, p. 38).

0 Comments

Matthew's Gospel as the Gospel of the Kingdom

The Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew's Gospel

Jesus Has Many Titles. Which One Is Greatest?

"Son of God" as Jesus' Official Title in Matthew

Matthew's Gospel - Structural Concepts

Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

About Throwing Inkwells

Blog Feeds

Categories

Matthew's Gospel as the Gospel of the Kingdom

The Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew's Gospel

Jesus Has Many Titles. Which One Is Greatest?

"Son of God" as Jesus' Official Title in Matthew

Matthew's Gospel - Structural Concepts

​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

About Throwing Inkwells

Blog Feeds

Categories

Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!