New Testament Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Literary Evidences of a Fivefold Structure in the

Gospel of Matthew

Christopher R. Smith

New Testament Studies / Volume 43 / Issue 04 / October 1997, pp 540 - 551

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500023377, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500023377

How to cite this article:

Christopher R. Smith (1997). Literary Evidences of a Fivefold Structure in the Gospel of
Matthew. New Testament Studies, 43, pp 540-551 doi:10.1017/S0028688500023377

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 129.93.16.3 on 03 Apr 2015

New Test. Stud. vol. 43,1997, pp. 540-551

LITERARY EVIDENCES OF A FIVEFOLD STRUCTURE

IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHRISTOPHER R. SMITH
(19 School Street, Williamstown MA 01267, USA)

The current shift in emphasis in gospel studies from redaction

criticism to literary criticism has called into question a longstand-
ing belief about the structure of Matthew's gospel. Mark Allan
Powell has described this shift and its effects succinctly in a recent
article. Redaction criticism, he writes, has operated with premises
which imply that 'the changes an evangelist makes in the organiz-
ation of source materials are especially significant for the determi-
nation of structure'. Redaction critics, therefore, having observed
that 'Matthew has added a large quantity of discourse material to
what was taken over from Mark and has organized this material
into five great blocks', have favoured structural outlines that
'organize the Gospel around these five prominent blocks of dis-
course'.1
But literary critics, Powell writes, specifically those who practise
the 'eclectic literary-critical methodology called "narrative criti-
cism"' , are interested instead in 'how the story that Matthew tells
unfolds for the reader'. As a result, 'they have been less inclined
than redaction critics to grant primary structural significance to
the five discourses'.2
It would be premature, however, to abandon a conception of
Matthew's gospel as built around five major discourses. Narrative
criticism has already greatly enriched our understanding of this
gospel, and it will undoubtedly continue to do so. But it will prob-
ably not contribute significantly to the question of structure if, as
Powell asserts, its essential service has been to allow this gospel
to be recognized for 'what it most obviously is: a story'.3 This is

1
Mark Allan Powell, 'Toward a Narrative-Critical Understanding of Matthew', CBQ 46
(1992) 344. Powell defines these blocks as Matt 5.1-7.29; 9.36-11.1; 13.1-53; 17.22-19.1 and
23.1-26.2. He acknowledges the work of B. W. Bacon, discussed below, in which they were
first identified.
2
Powell, 'Narrative', 341, 344. But narrative critics themselves 'do not always agree as to
how the major blocks of material should be defined'; Powell cites several proposals that have
been made to date (344, 346 n. 19). Regarding a narrative-critical approach to Matthew, see
also Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Plot of Matthew's Story', Int 46 (1992) 347-56, and David R.
Bauer, 'The Major Characteristics of Matthew's Story', Int 46 (1992) 357-67.
3
Powell, 'Narrative', 345.

Copyright© 1997 Cambridge University Press

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3

 FIVEFOLD STRUCTURE IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 541

because if Matthew is 'most obviously' a story, it is a rather dull

one for several long stretches, where the disciples basically sit
around while Jesus talks. In other words, if we attempt to analyze
Matthew as a story, and therefore approach it with an 'emphasis
on the arrangement of episodes as the basis of a plot', as narrative
critic Warren Carter argues we should,4 we are repeatedly frus-
trated by the gospel's failure to present any episodes, or 'incidents'
(as Carter also calls them), a great deal of the time.
It is better to recognize that the Gospel of Matthew alternates
between narrative and discourse, and that while narrative criti-
cism, therefore, can offer many significant insights into its mean-
ing, it is not the discipline best suited to identify the gospel's
overall structure. But this does not mean we must return to
redaction criticism, either. We may still work within the broad
scope of literary criticism and view the 'text of Matthew's Gospel as
a unified and coherent document rather than a compilation of
loosely related pericopes'; we may still focus on 'the finished form
of the Gospel rather than on the compositional processes through
which the text came into being'.5 But in our attempt to determine
the gospel's structure in its finished form, we must rely not on our
potentially subjective sense of which episodes truly 'advance the
plot', and which other ones are grouped around these for support.6
Rather, we must rely on objective evidences in the text, and these
are to be found in the stylized literary boundary markers the
evangelist himself provides as he makes structurally significant
transitions as his work progresses. Such markers are commonplace
in ancient writings and may be observed in other biblical books.7
(The examination of such authorial cues may sound at first as if it
is still an inquiry into the compositional process, but it should be
recognized that it is actually an investigation of the compositional
product.)
Ever since B. W. Bacon's seminal studies early in this century,8 it
has been recognized that the ends of five Matthean discourses are
4
Warren Carter, 'Kernels and Narrative Blocks: The Structure of Matthew's Gospel', CBQ
54 (1992) 466. Carter offers an illustrative narrative-critical structural analysis of the gospel
as well as a comprehensive survey of the debate over Matthew's structure.
5
Powell, 'Narrative', 341.
6
'Kernels' and 'satellites', respectively, in Carter's analysis ('Structure', 467).
7
It is widely recognized, for example, that the book of Genesis is divided into ten major
sections by the repetition of the phrase 'these are the generations of (Gen 2.4; 5.1; 6.9, etc.);
the transitions between each of the five 'books' into which the Psalms are now divided are
marked by benedictions that are variations on the formula, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of
Israel, from everlasting to everlasting1 (Ps 41.13; 72.18-19; 89.52; 106.48).
8
B. W. Bacon, 'The "Five Books" of Matthew Against the Jews', Expositor 15 (1918) 56-66
and Studies in Matthew (New York: Holt, 1930).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3

542 CHRISTOPHER R. SMITH
demarcated by the repetition of a standardized formula: iced eyevexo
bxe exeXeaev 6 'Iriaouq rove, ^.oyoix; xcmxcnx; (Matt 7.28; 11.1; 13.53;
19.1 and 26.1 ).9 The two other lengthy discourses in the gospel
(11.7-30 and 23.1-39) lack this formulaic conclusion. The identifi-
cation of this formula, however, has basically been the extent of
the application of literary-critical criteria in establishing a fivefold
structure for the gospel as a whole. Interpreters following Bacon
have defended such a structure instead by appeal to redactional
considerations such as Matthew's presumed desire to emulate the
Pentateuch in creating five *books', thus presenting the teaching of
Jesus in such a way as to cast him as the 'new Moses'. But the text
of the gospel itself provides much more literary evidence for a
fivefold structure than this simple discourse-ending formula.
While Cope, for example, has argued that 'there is no distinct
and uniform formula for beginning a discourse in Matthew's Gos-
pel',10 each of the five discourses that ends with a standardized
formula actually also begins with another one. Keegan has argued
that 'an array of distinctive terminology' can be found in Matthew
'at the beginning of each of the five discourses [that end with the
recognized concluding formula], at a few other critical passages,
notably the loaves miracles and the last supper, but in none of the
other sections which some have included among the discourses
[11.7-30 and 23.1-39]'.11 This 'array of terminology5 includes verbs
for sitting (Ka0{£co, K&9r||a.ca, Koc0e£o|iai) that 'present Jesus as a
teacher by having him sit as Jewish teachers did' (verbs employed,
notably, at the beginning of the first, middle, and last discourses),
the use of 7tpoo£pxo|ica to describe the disciples' approach to Jesus,
and references to 'crowds' (6%ko\.) following him, or to him seeing
such crowds.12
The evidence Keegan marshals is compelling, and we can have
no quarrel with his conclusion that the identification of recur-
ring introductory terminology 'confirms the view that Matthew
intended his five discourses to be major structural elements in his
Gospel'.13 We should be somewhat concerned, however, that much

9
The formula is varied slightly from time to time: iced iyivtxo ate ETEXECEV 6 'ITICOUI; 8UX-
T&OCCOV TOU; 8CO8EK(X |xot8T|Tai(; autou (11.1); Koci iyivExo OTE ETEXECJEV 6 'ITICOUI; ta<; TtapapoXai; tatitaq
(13.53); 26.1 adds n&vrai;.
10
0. L. Cope, Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (Washington: Catholic
Biblical Association, 1976) 15, quoted in David R. Bauer, The Structure of Matthew's Gospel: A
Study in Literary Design (Sheffield: Almond, 1988) 129.
11
Terence J. Keegan, 'Introductory Formulae for Matthean Discourses', CBQ 44 (1982) 428.
12
Keegan, 'Introductory', 418-19, 420^1, 425-8.
13
Keegan, 'Introductory', 429.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3

 FIVEFOLD STRUCTURE IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 543

of his case is built on redaction-critical, rather than literary-

critical, grounds. For example, he argues that Matthew's use of
K&0T||iai in 13.1 is deliberate and structurally significant, but he
dismisses the use of the same verb in the next verse as insig-
nificant, insisting it was taken over unreflectingly from Mark: 'The
second occurrence of kathemai is left as it was in the traditional
material which is retained by Matthew almost as a parenthesis.'14
Similarly, while he claims that the use of oxXoc, in the plural
helps signal the beginning of a discourse, he does not explore the
potential significance of the term in the singular because '[e]very
use of the singular is either found in traditional material and
lacking special significance for Matthew or is used by Matthew in a
clearly non-technical sense', that is, to refer to a generic crowd (as
before Pilate) rather than to 'the object of Jesus' (and the disciples')
ministry'. 15 A consistent literary-critical approach, on the other
hand, would consider all of the material in the completed version of
Matthew's gospel, no matter what its putative source, to be of
potentially equal utility in signalling transitions.
Indeed, Keegan's redaction-critical commitments appear to cause
him to dismiss too hastily the simpler possibility that a single
recurring formula, rather than an 'array of terminology', signals
the beginning of each of the structurally significant discourses in
Matthew. He cites the arguments of Barr and Bornkamm that the
phrase npoar\XQav ol (AOIGTITOU is discourse-introductory at 5.1; 13.10;
18.1 and 24.1,16 but objects that the inclusion of 13.10, where
an aorist participle is used instead of the aorist indicative, yields
'a formula that is not uniquely Matthean', since the disciples are
also the subjects of TtpooeX-Govxeg in Mark 6.35 and Luke 8.24 and
9.12.
We may counter this objection even on redaction-critical grounds,
since these three references are not found in passages parallel

14
Keegan, 'Introductory', 420.
1
^ Keegan, 'Introductory', 426. Carter, however, terms the distinction between technical
(plural) and non-technical (singular) use 'not convincing1, citing places such as Matt 13.2
where oxKoc, and o%Xoi are both used in the same sentence to describe the same audience.
Warren Carter, 'The Crowds in Matthew's Gospel', CBQ 55 (1993) 54 n. 1. More generally,
Carter demonstrates that the crowds have a complex function in Matthew's gospel; it is
therefore not valid to argue that their portrayal is 'lacking special significance' whenever they
are not 'the object of Jesus' (and the disciples') ministry1.
16
David Barr, The Drama of Matthew's Gospel', TD 24 (1976) 351, 358 n. 14 and Gunther
Bornkamm, 'End Expectation and Church in Matthew', Tradition and Interpretation in
Matthew (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 21, quoted in Keegan, 'Introductory', 421. The
phrase is varied slightly each time it is used: Ttpooii^Sav auxw oi (xaGtiial autoS (5.1);
npooeXGoviE? oi naGrixai (13.10); npoafjXGav oi na8r|Tai xa> 'IT)<JOU (18.1); jtpoafjXGav oi |ia0Tixai
autou (24.1).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3

544 CHRISTOPHER R. SMITH
to the beginnings of Matthean discourses (they rather concern the
stilling of the storm and the multiplication of the loaves), and
therefore should not be considered 'traditional material which is
retained by Matthew'. (For that matter, only Mark 6.35 has npoa-
e^Govieq oi naGrixou; Luke 9.12 reads npooe^Govxei;. . . oi SCOSEKOC,
while Luke 8.24 has simply npoae^Govxei;, with the subject under-
stood.) But our essential response, on literary-critical grounds,
must be that it is completely insignificant whether the formula we
are examining is 'uniquely Matthean'. We are interested only in
how this formula appears to function within the gospel itself in its
finished form, not how the other evangelists may use it. And we
must find it significant that it appears at the beginning of four of
the five discourses that end with another recurring formula.
We may, in fact, accept Keegan's own reasonable explanation for
why some variation on the phrase npoafj^Gav ol |xa0T|Ta{ does not
introduce the remaining discourse: 'In the only one in which it does
not appear, the Mission Discourse, it would be inappropriate since
there, as part of the discourse, Jesus calls the disciples to himself
(Matt 10:l).'17 But why, then, does this 'introductory' formula also
appear in the middle of the third discourse (13.36)? Again, Keegan
provides a satisfying explanation. He observes that '[i]n the first
two and a half discourses Jesus is speaking before an assembly
including both disciples and the crowds' (compare 5.2 with 4.25
and 7.28, 10.1 with 9.36, and 13.2 with 13.10), but '[a]t the center
of the Gospel, in the middle of the parable discourse (13:36)
Matthew has Jesus change locations, symbolically entering the
house. The disciples come to Jesus signalling a new beginning and
from that point forward Jesus addresses his major discourses to
the disciples alone.'18 Narrative critics should observe, in other
words, that it is not just 'episodes' or 'incidents' that 'advance the
plot' in Matthew; the use and placement of standard formulae
govern not just the book's structure, which is built around the five
discourses that are marked at beginning and end, but even its
development.
Knowing, as we now do, where the Gospel of Matthew itself
marks breaks between narrative and structurally significant dis-
course (by 'tagging' these discourses at beginning and end) enables
us to address the larger question with which we began. If we can
determine the relationship between these discourses and the
materials in the rest of the gospel, this should reveal the structure

17
Keegan, 'Introductory', 422.
18
Keegan, 'Introductory', 423-4.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3

 FIVEFOLD STRUCTURE IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 545

of the gospel as a whole. And when we compare each formulaically-

demarcated discourse with the narrative that precedes, we see that
each narrative introduces a theme on which the following discourse
then expounds. The core of Matthew's gospel thus consists of five
consecutive narrative-discourse pairs.
There is further literary-critical evidence confirming this design.
In the narrative preceding the second discourse, to begin with what
is perhaps the clearest example, we see Jesus carry on a ministry
of healing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing lepers, and casting
out demons; in the second discourse itself, he gives the disciples
specific instructions on how they are to do the same (10.8). In fact,
having already demonstrated his 'authority' (e^oixna) for such a
mission (8.9; 9.6; 9.8), Jesus now confers similar authority on his
disciples (10.1). The authority theme is actually introduced in the
transition to the mission narrative at the end of the first discourse,
where Matthew describes how the crowds marvelled at the e^o-ocnoc
Jesus had demonstrated (7.29). The only other uses of this term in
the gospel are in a controversy with the Pharisees recounted in the
fifth narrative (21.23-7), on which we will comment below, and in
the triumphant declaration of the risen Christ with which the
gospel climaxes (28.18-20). We see that the shared theme of a
narrative and its following discourse can be captured by a key word
or phrase whose use is concentrated in them, alerting us to their
complementary relationship.
This pattern similarly characterizes the other four major blocks
in the gospel. The Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5-7), its opening dis-
course, develops the notion of the kingdom of heaven being founded
on an inward 'righteousness' (5iKoaocr6vr|): 'Unless your Sucouoawri
exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the
kingdom of heaven' (5.20); 'Beware of practising your 5iicaiocnjvr|
before others, in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no
reward from your Father in heaven' (6.1); 'Seek first the kingdom
and its 5iKoaocnjvr|' (6.33; cf. 5.6; 5.10). The only use of this term
outside the first narrative and discourse is in a reference to John
the Baptist at 21.32. But within the first narrative itself, there
is a very prominent use. The baptism of Jesus takes place only
when Jesus convinces John it is necessary to 'fulfil all 8iiccaocnjvT|'
(3.15).19

19
By this analysis the baptism would be marked as the most significant episode in Matt
1.18-4.25. This is contrary to Carter's narrative-critical analysis, in which 1.18-25, which
relates 'God's initiating action whereby Mary conceives Jesus by the Holy Spirit', is the
'kernel' of an opening section running from 1.1-4.16 (Carter, 'Kernels', 473). A lively and
fruitful dialogue thus seems possible between various literary-critical approaches.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3

546 CHRISTOPHER R. SMITH
This phrase alerts us to another link between the first narrative
and the first discourse, the notion of 'fulfilment'. Fulfilment
citations are found throughout Matthew's gospel, but they are
particularly concentrated here (1.22; 2.15; 2.17; 2.23; 4.14; 5.17; cf.
3.3). In Matthew's first narrative, we learn how statements
originally spoken of Old Testament events take on a fuller and a
deeper meaning when seen in light of the life of Jesus; in its
complementary discourse, we discover how the commandments of
the law find such a meaning themselves in the inner life of
righteousness.
(This continuing close concern with 'fulfilment', we should note,
bridges the long time gap between 2.23 and 3.1, which might other-
wise suggest the association of 1.18-2.23 with the genealogy,
despite the change in genre, as an 'infancy prologue'.20 Hafner has
confirmed the continuity between 2.23 and 3.1 in a recent article,
in which he argues forcefully that no major transition occurs
between these verses by establishing that the formula ev 8e talc,
Tyiepaic, exewan; functions as a "Verkniipfung von fur den Evange-
listen zeitlich zusammengehorenden Ereignissen'.21)
In the narrative preceding the third discourse, successive charac-
ters (John the Baptist, the crowds, the Pharisees, and Jesus' own
family) discover that the kingdom of God does not look like what
they were expecting. Indeed, as Jesus observes, God has hidden
these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them
to babes (11.25). The discourse that follows consists of parables
and, in some cases, their interpretation; in it, the disciples are
'given to know the mystery of the kingdom of heaven' (13.11),
which does not conform to human expectations. Indeed, John the
Baptist is said to have been offended or 'scandalized' by the suffer-
ing he unexpectedly experienced for the kingdom. While the term
OKccvSaXi^co is not so concentrated in this third section as some of
the terms characteristic of other blocks, continuity is nevertheless
achieved by its repetition in 13.21 and, in the transition to the
fourth section, at 13.57.
The fourth discourse, for its part, describes how relationships
in the kingdom of heaven are not to be hierarchical, as in the

20
As in Benoit's outline, summarized by M. Trimaille in 'Citations d'accomplissement et
architecture de l'Evangile selon S. Matthieu', EstBib 47 (1990) 48, which is otherwise very
much like the one proposed here.
21
Gerd Hafner, '"Jene Tage" (Mt 3,1) und der Umfang des matthaischen "Prologs'", BZ 37
(1993) 51. His overall understanding of Matthew's structure is more akin to Kingsbur/s (see
below, n. 25) than Bacon's, however, and so he envisions Matthew's 'prologue' as running from
1.1 well into chapter 4.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3

 FIVEFOLD STRUCTURE IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 547

kingdoms of the world, but rather like those in a family. Fellow

disciples are to be recognized as brothers and sisters because all
are children of one heavenly Father. This notion, too, is introduced
in the preceding narrative. This narrative culminates, we should
note, in Jesus' conversation with Peter about whether to pay the
two-drachma temple tax. Jesus turns the question into an object
lesson: the 'kings of the earth' take tribute not from their own sons,
but from others, and analogously, since they are God's 'sons', they
should relate to God (and thus to the temple) in freedom; they are
not under obligation. In the end they pay the tax anyway, to avoid
offence, but this does not obviate or obscure Jesus' bestowment of
divine sonship on his followers, nor the implications of that shared
sonship and daughterhood for their communal relations.
It might be objected, however, that both the fourth discourse and
its preceding narrative portray Peter in a position of prominence,
suggesting that the kingdom of Jesus proclaimed may have more
of a hierarchy than our analysis here would allow. Peter often
speaks on behalf of all of the disciples, for example (15.15; 18.21;
19.27; 26.33-5).22 And he is accorded a special privilege even in the
temple-tax incident: Jesus directs him to a fish that has miracu-
lously swallowed a coin sufficient to pay the tax for the two of
them; the other disciples would presumably be bound to follow
their example of paying, but would have to find the money on their
own.
However, if we examine the appearances of Peter in the fourth
narrative (where they are especially concentrated; Peter's appear-
ances, in fact, are the unifying device in this fourth block),23 we
see that Matthew is more interested in undercutting notions of
Petrine supremacy than in establishing a hierarchy within the
kingdom of heaven. In 14.28-31, we discover that, no differently
from any other disciple, Peter must 'sink or swim' (so to speak) on
the basis of his faith. In 15.15 Jesus acknowledges Peter as a
spokesman for the rest of the group, since he replies in the plural
when Peter asks him to explain a parable, but this reply, directed
to Peter, is anything but complimentary: 'Are you also still without
22
More generally, see Rafael Aguirre's discussion of how Peter often stands in as a 'type' of
all the disciples: 'Pedro en el evangelio de Mateo', EstBib 47 (1989) 347.
23
Peter has some prominence in the concluding Passion Narrative because of his denial of
Jesus, but other than that, the only place in the gospel outside the fourth narrative and
discourse where he acts or speaks is 19.27. From a redaction-critical perspective, but working
with the same understanding of Matthew's structure defended here, Aguirre has made the
complementary observation that all of the Petrine texts exclusive to Matthew are to be found
in 'la seccidn narrativa de 13,53-17,27' which is preparatory to 'el gran discurso eclesial del
capitulo 18'. Aguirre, 'Pedro', 346.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3

548 CHRISTOPHER R. SMITH
understanding?' (15.16). Even though Jesus promises to 'build his
church' on Peter's confession of him as the Christ (16.18), the
authority 'given to Peter in 16:19 to "bind and loose" is made a
community responsibility in 18:18', as Carter notes.24 And when
Peter proposes building three tabernacles on the Mount of Trans-
figuration, whereby Jesus could take his place alongside Moses and
Elijah as a great leader of Israel, a voice from heaven directs him
instead to contemplate the meaning of Jesus' divine sonship (17.5).
In this light, it seems clear that Matthew wants us to place our
emphasis on the way believers are encouraged to relate to God as
Father, rather than on the way Peter's half-shekel was miracu-
lously provided, when we read the temple-tax episode.
Some other episodes in the fourth narrative, besides those
qualifying Peter's prominence within the community, also seem to
relate to the 'family' theme. Matt 13.53-8, the opening episode,
raises the question of who Jesus' family is; 14.1-12 provides a foil
for the true 'family of the kingdom' by portraying the violent
intrigues in King Herod's family. The best narrative introduction
to this discourse, however, is actually found just before the pre-
ceding one: in Matt 12.46-50, Jesus defines his family as 'whoever
does the will of my Father in heaven'. This pericope is not out of
place, however, since it is just as relevant to the 'mystery' theme.
But it may also constitute a deliberate, anticipatory introduction of
the 'family' theme.
The Olivet Discourse (chs. 24-5), finally, discloses the destiny of
the kingdom. Its citizens must no longer identify with Jewish
national fortunes, which are about to be ruined; rather, they are to
become dispossessed wanderers among the nations, and yet
heralds of the kingdom at the same time. Ultimately their Lord
will return to reward those who have remained loyal and to punish
both the unfaithful and those who have mistreated the faithful.
This theme is captured precisely in Jesus' lament over Jerusalem
at the very end of the preceding narrative (23.37-9). But it is
broached earlier in such parts of the narrative as the proleptic
Triumphal Entry (21.1-11) and the parables of the tenants in the
vineyard (21.33-43) and the wedding feast (22.1-14). It seems
likely that the destiny of the kingdom - its followers are to be
detached from the nation's destiny - is also in view in the episode
of the withered fig tree (21.18-22), in which Jesus demonstrates
24
Carter, 'Kernels', 472. Carter's discussion of why Matt 16.13-20 should not be considered
a narrative "kernel' - that is, why we should not recognize any exaltation of Peter constituting
a 'significant development' in the gospel - provides confirmation from a narrative-critical
perspective that Matthew subordinates the leading apostle to the community.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3

 FIVEFOLD STRUCTURE IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 549
that true authority comes from faith, rather than from the national
leaders' imprimatur (compare 21.23-7). The fig tree reappears in a
mini-parable in the Olivet Discourse (24.32), providing continuity
with the preceding narrative.
By this analysis, the gospel would indeed consist of five "books',
each beginning with a narrative and concluding with a complemen-
tary discourse, and each one developing a specific theme related to
the meaning of the kingdom. If we recognize the genealogy as a
prologue or introduction and the passion narrative as an epilogue
or conclusion (not merely an afterthought, however, but a lengthy
culmination), we arrive at the structure for the gospel as a whole
summarized in the following diagram.
Literary Outline of Matthew's Gospel
INTRODUCTION Genealogy (1.1-17)

THE FOUNDATIONS First Narrative First Discourse

OFTHE KINGDOM (1.18-4.25) (5.1-7.29)
THE MISSION Second Narrative Second Discourse
OF THE KINGDOM (8.1-9.38) (1
THE MYSTERY Third Narrative Third Discourse
OFTHE KINGDOM (11.1-13.9) (13.10-53)
THE FAMILY Fourth Narrative Fourth Discourse
OFTHE KINGDOM (13.54-17.27) (18.1-35)

THE DESTINY Fifth Narrative Fifth Discourse

OFTHE KINGDOM (19.1-23.39) (24.1-25.46)
CONCLUSION Passion Narrative
(26.1-28.20)

Because it is structured around five themes that unfold the charac-

ter of the kingdom of heaven, Matthew may be aptly described, in
its own phrase, as 'this gospel of the kingdom' (14.14; cf. 4.23,
9.35).
We may confirm our analysis of the thematic and literary
divisions within Matthew by observing the transitions that occur
at its 'seams'. The first narrative episode after a discourse often
serves both to recapitulate its theme and to introduce a new one.
Just as the 'mission' discourse ends and the 'mystery' narrative
begins, for example, the mysterious nature of the kingdom is dis-
closed to John the Baptist by a review of the activities Jesus
and his disciples have performed on their mission (11.2-6). The

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3

550 CHRISTOPHER R. SMITH
cleansing of the leper in Matt 8.1-4 not only begins the mission
narrative, but also invites continuing reflection on the dominant
concern of the 'foundations' discourse - 'fulfilling' the law - since
the leper is told to 'offer the gift that Moses commanded'. The
question of who belongs to Jesus' family is raised in 13.53-8, just
as the mystery discourse is ending and the family narrative
beginning, in an attempt to solve the mystery of his identity. And
so forth. Even in the first episode of the first narrative, the
reference to Joseph as the 'Son of David' recalls the immediately
preceding genealogy.
This analysis, we may note in conclusion, is able to account
for the presence of yet another repeated formula in the gospel of
Matthew. This one occurs twice, and many literary-critical inter-
preters believe it demarcates a three-fold, rather than a five-fold,
structure for the gospel as a whole.25 Bauer, for example, appealing
to literary criticism over against redaction criticism, identifies
'certain rhetorical features of the text by which we will be able to
discern the structure of the Gospel in its final form'.26 Prominent
among these is the repetition of the phrase 'from that time on,
Jesus began to' at 4.17 and 16.21. This, Bauer argues, testifies to
a threefold structure, while evidences for a fivefold structure,
he insists, are not similarly discernible through literary-critical
investigation.27
But we have already shown, by contrast, that such evidences are
extensive, and so we need only account at this point for the two
uses of the formula now in question. Simply stated, these con-
stitute transitions in the narrative, taken as a whole, rather than
in the gospel as a whole. The first marks the point at which Jesus
enters his public ministry, picking up the fallen standard of the
imprisoned John the Baptist (his preaching is summarized in
exactly the same terms as John's, cf. 3.2 and 4.17). The second
marks a transition after which Jesus' ultimate object becomes
to suffer and die, rather than to teach and heal. The gospel of
Matthew may not be 'most obviously' a story, but it does contain
and relate a story, the story of Jesus, and Matthew has marked the
inception of his ministry and the most significant point of inflection

25 For a good survey of the debate between proponents of a five-fold structure and a three-
fold structure, see the literature cited by Carter, 'Kernels', 464 n. 5. Especially notable among
advocates of a three-fold structure is Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology,
Kingdom (London: SPCK, 1976) 7-37.
26
Bauer, Structure, 34-5.
27
Bauer, Structure, 129-30.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3

 FIVEFOLD STRUCTURE IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 551

within it in the same way he has marked the structural transitions

within the gospel as a whole - by using a literary formula.
Bauer's analysis, on the other hand, is not able to account, by
literary-critical means, for the presence of the discourses that
keep interrupting this three-stage narrative. In the end, he must
abandon his commitment to literary criticism and return to
redaction-critical criteria to account for it: 'The explanation for the
existence of these large discourses is found in Matthew's general
tendency to group like material . . .\28 Therefore, while we would
agree with him that a literary-critical analysis may indeed resolve
the question of the structure of Matthew's gospel, we would insist
that when such an analysis is carried out consistently, it demon-
strates the gospel's structure to be five-fold. It thereby confirms
what redaction criticism has traditionally maintained and what
narrative criticism has more recently questioned.

28
Bauer, Structure, 131-2.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 03 Apr 2015 IP address: 129.93.16.3