Israel and the Individual in Matthew and Midrash: Reassessing “True Israel”

Nicholas J Schaser

doi:10.3390/rel12060425

Abstract

Since the Holocaust, New Testament scholarship has become increasingly sensitive to issues of Christian anti-Judaism. While many Matthean specialists have acknowledged the problems with polemical interpretations of the Gospel, the idea that Matthew presents Jesus and/or the church is the “true Israel” continues to enjoy broad acceptance. The scholarly conflation of Jesus and Israel recycles the Christian polemic against a comparatively inauthentic or inadequate Judaism. This article argues that Matthew does not present Jesus or his church as the true Israel, and that the Jesus-as-Israel interpretation could be refined by comparing the Gospel with later rabbinic discussion that connects Israel with biblical individuals. Genesis Rabbah 40:6 juxtaposes verses about Abraham and Israel to reveal a comprehensive scriptural relationship between the nation and the patriarch without devaluing either party. The rabbis’ theological thesis is predicated on both similarity and separation between Abraham and his offspring. Insofar as both Matthew and Midrash present similar biblical content and exegesis, a comparative analysis can provide Gospel commentators with a view of the Jesus-Israel paradigm that avoids the Christianization of “true Israel.”

Highlights

As‐Israel interpretation could be refined by comparing the Gospel with later rabbinic discussion that connects Israel with biblical individuals
When Joseph takes his family to Egypt, Matthew notes, “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’” The latter portion of this verse includes a partial quotation of Hosea 11:1, the whole of which reads, “When Israel was a child I
The midrash argues that Israel exists because of the Abrahamic covenant; Matthew opens with the assertion that Jesus’ lineage orig‐

Summary

Jesus‐as‐Israel in Christian Interpretation

The assertion that Jesus and his followers are the “true Israel” appears very early in Christian interpretation. In 160 CE, Justin Martyr provides the first explicit formulation:. One of these traditional claims, according to Holwerda, is that Matthew presents Jesus and the church as the true Israel: Religions 2021, 12, 425. Nicholas Piotrowski contends that Matthew presents Jesus and the church as Israel (Piotrowski 2016). John for baptism (Matt 3:13), Piotrowski sees Matthew equating Jesus with Isaiah’s Israel in its exodus from Babylon He contends, “Jesus is the only true Israelite. Perrin suggests that the book might nuance the notion that “the church had radically supplanted Israel as the people of God.”. In his introduction, Piotrowski states, “Matthew introduces his dramatis personae in startling terms: as a newly defined peo‐. Matthew never uses “new” or “true” Israel language for the church, so scholars can (and should) retire the terminology

Israel and the Church in Matthew

Individuals and Israel in Matthew and Midrash

Conclusions