¹ What I call the ‘theological point of view’ is otherwise known in literary theory as the ‘ideological (evaluative) point of view’. The ideological point of view of a narrative is the system of beliefs, values, and ideas that are normative in its ‘world’; it is the angle of vision from which the world of the narrative is perceived, evaluated, and judged. See, e.g., Uspensky, B., A Poetics of Composition: The Structure of the Artistic Text and Typology of a Compositional Form (Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1973) chap. 1.Google Scholar

² See also Rhoads, D. (‘Losing Life for Others in the Face of Death: Mark's Standards of Judgment’, Interpretation 47 [1993] 358).Google Scholar

³ In formulating Matthew's rhetoric of comprehension, I am indebted to Darr's, J. work on Luke (On Building Character: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts [Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992] esp. 53–8)Google Scholar. As one reads Darr's book, it becomes apparent that the rhetorical strategy he claims for Luke (the rhetoric of recognition and response) is one that is used in all four canonical Gospels. The pertinent question, therefore, becomes this: what form does this rhetorical strategy assume in each Gospel and exactly how does each author apply it? As we proceed, my reasons for terming Matthew's variation of this strategy the ‘rhetoric of comprehension’ will become clear.

⁴ E.g., in Matt 2.1–12, the Magi interact with Herod; in 9.10–11, the Pharisees with the disciples; in 27.3–10, Judas with the chief priests and elders; and in 27.57–61, Joseph of Arimathea with Pilate.

⁵ In Matt 17.5–6, e.g., God interacts with Peter, James, and John atop the Mount of Transfiguration.

⁶ On interaction with John the Baptist, see Matt 3.5–6, 7–10; on interaction with angels, see Matt 1.20; 2.13, 19; 28.2, 5; note also the ‘interaction’ of the Magi with the miraculous star (Matt 2.2, 10).

⁷ See Darr, On Building Character, chap. 2.

⁸ This is also true of John the Baptist (see Matt 3.1–12; 21.32). At 11.2–5, however, Jesus must correct John's insufficient perception of him.

⁹ On this point, see Culpepper, R. A. (Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design [Foundations and Facets: New Testament; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983] 103–4).Google Scholar

¹⁰ On this, note Darr's discussion (On Building Character, esp. 56).

¹¹ To ‘see’: βλέπω (20x), διαβλέπω (1x), όράω (13x), είδον (58x), θεάομαι (4x), θεωρέω (2x). To ‘keep watch over’: τηρέω (27.36, 54; 28.4). To ‘hear’: ὰκούω (63x). ‘Behold’: ίδού (62x). ‘See’: ίςε (4x). These statistics are from Morgenthaler, R., Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wort-schatzes (Zürich: Gotthelf, 1958).Google Scholar

¹² To ‘know’: γινώσκω (20x); ἐπιγινώσκω (6x); οίδα (25x). To ‘perceive’, ‘understand’, ‘comprehend’: νοέω (4x). To ‘reveal’: ὰποκαλύπτω (11.25, 27; 16.7). To ‘understand’, ‘comprehend’, ‘gain insight into’: συνίημι (9x).

¹³ To ‘receive’: δέχομαι (10.40); see also λαμβάνω (13.20; 21.35, 39). To ‘worship’: προσκυνέω (2.2, 8, 11; 8.2; 9.18; 14.33; 15.25; 20.20; 28.9; 28.17; see also 4.9–10; 18.26). To ‘respect’: ἐντρέπομαι (21.37). To ‘confess’: όμολογέω (10.32). To ‘repent’: μετανοέω (4.17; 11.20–1; 12.41; see also 3.2). To ‘regret’: μεταμέλομαι (27.3–4; see also 21.30, 32). To ‘believe in [or] on’: πιστεύω είς (18.6); πιστεύω ἐπί; see also to ‘believe him’ (concerning John the Baptist): πιστεύω + dat. (21.25, 32). (See also to ‘do for me’: ἐμοὶ ποιέω [25.40, 45].) To ‘baptize’: βαπτίζω (28.19).

¹⁴ To ‘take offence at someone [Jesus]’: σκανδαλίζομαι έν τινι (11.6; 13.57; 26.31, 33). To ‘betray’ or to ‘deliver up’: παραδίδωμι (10.4; 20.18; 26.15–16, 21, 23–5, 46, 48; 27.3–4; 17.22; 20.19; 26.2, 45; 27.2, 18, 26; see also 4.12). To ‘put to the test’: πειράζω (16.1; 19.3; 22.18, 35). To ‘deny’: ἀρνέομαι (10.33; see also 26.69–70, 71–2, 73–4); ἀπαρνέομαι (26.34–5, 75). To ‘abandon’: ἀφίημι (26.56). To ‘spit at’: ἐμπτύω (26.67; 27.30). To ‘strike’: τύπτω (27.30). To ‘flog’: μαστιγόω or φραγελλόω (20.19; 27.26). To ‘blaspheme’: βλασφημέω (9.3; 27.39). To ‘mock’: ἐμπαίζω (20.19; 27.29, 31, 41). To ‘revile’: òνειδίζω (27.44). To ‘crucify’: σταυρόω (20.19; 26.2; 27.22, 23, 26, 31, 35).

¹⁵ To ‘do’: ποιέω (esp. 7.21; 12.50; 21.31; see also 1.24; 5.19; 6.1; 7.12, 24, 26; 13.23; 19.16; 21.6; 23.3, 23; 24.46; 26.19; see further 6.10; 12.2; 18.14; 21.23–4, 27; 26.42; 27.23; 28.15). To ‘do for one’: ποιέω ένί (25.40, 45). To ‘keep’: τηρέω (23.3; 28.20). To ‘bring forth’: ἐκβάλλω (12.35). To ‘bear fruit’: καρποφορέω (13.23); see also to ‘produce fruit’: ποιέω καρπόν (3.8, 10; 7.17–19; 13.8, 26; 21.43).

¹⁶ Concerning the need for the reader to ‘fill in’ the ‘gaps’ that present themselves in narrative, see Iser, W., The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1978) 166–70.Google Scholar

¹⁷ That Joseph's obedience to the angel's commands is not ‘blind’ but informed by ‘understanding’ is to be inferred from 1.19–20: the aorist participle ἐνθυμηθέντος in 1–20 (‘After Joseph had reflected on these things’) indicates that the revelation brought by the angel caused Joseph to change his mind. The reason why Matthew does not always state explicitly that what is ‘heard’ by a character is also ‘understood’ has to do with Matthew's inclination to convey the notion of ‘understanding’ by depicting a character as immediately ‘doing’ God's will.

¹⁸ See, e.g., Matt 11.16–19, 20–4, 25–6; 13.10–17.

¹⁹ Matt 4.23; 9.35; 11.1. Note Jesus' own summary of his ministry at 11.4–5 as he tells the disciples of John the Baptist: ‘Go and tell John the things which you “hear” and “see”: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.’ See further 12.15, 23.

²⁰ See, e.g., Matt 4.23–5; 5.1–2; 7.28–9; 8.1, 10, 18; 9.8, 26, 31, 32–3, 35, 36; 11.1, 7; 12.15, 23, 46; 13.1–3.

²¹ See Matt 3.1–3, 5–6; 11.7–10.

²² As in ancient characterization in general, dramatic persons in Matthew's story are stereotyped. In the case of the religious leaders, they appear, at the human level, as the chief opponents of Jesus. This explains why the traits they exhibit are, to all intents and purposes, exclusively negative.

²³ For a detailed narrative discussion of this parable, see Kingsbury, J. D., ‘The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Secret of Jesus' Divine Sonship in Matthew: Some Literary-Critical Observations’, JBL 105 (1986) 643–55.Google Scholar

²⁴ See, e.g., Donahue, J. R., The Gospel in Parable (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 94–5Google Scholar; Scott, B. B., Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989) 241–2Google Scholar; Weder, H., Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern (FRLANT 120; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 191Google Scholar; Klauck, H.-J., Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexte (NAb 13; Münster: Aschendorff, 1978) 312.Google Scholar

²⁵ On a personal note, permit me to say that, since the publication of my book Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom in 1975, I have revised my position on Matthew's use of ‘the Son of man’. My current position is set out in the new Preface of this aforementioned book (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989), and, at much greater length, in the revised and enlarged edition of my book Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).Google Scholar

²⁶ This is apparent already from Matt 1 (esp. vv. 1, 16, 17, 18).

²⁷ See esp. Matt 4.23; 9.35; 11.1.

²⁸ See Isa 29.18–19; 35.5–6; 61.1.

²⁹ See J. Gibbs, ‘“Let the Reader Understand”: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew' (forthcoming dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, Virginia).

³⁰ Matt 1.1, [6]; 9.27; 12.23; 15.22; 20.30–1; 21.9, 15; 22.42, 45.

³¹ On the ‘typical nature’ of seeing in faith that Jesus is the Son of David and receiving him as such, see, e.g., Matt 9.27–9; 15.22, 25, 28; 20.3O–1, 34; 21.15–16.

³² On why the crowds' view of Jesus as ‘prophet’ is incorrect, see Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 74–5; also idem, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom, 88–92. In the parable of the vineyard (21.33–46), Matthew shows that although Jesus' ministry can correctly be seen as standing in the line of the ministries of Israel's prophets, Jesus himself depicts himself, not as ‘(a, the) prophet’, but as God's Son (21.37).

³³ See Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom, chap. 2, esp. 41–2.

³⁴ See Matt 3.17; 17.5; also 2.15; 21.37–8.

³⁵ By virtue of this filial relationship, God is decisively active in Jesus to save (3.16; 11.27; also 1.23) and Jesus, because he knows and does God's will, is perfectly obedient to God (4.1–11; 26.39, 42, 44; also 16.21).

³⁶ See Matt 1.18, 20; also 2.15; 3.17; 17.5.

³⁷ Cf. Matt 3.17 with 4.3, 6. See also 26.63–4; 11.27; 17.5; 21.37; 22.2.

³⁸ Matt 16.16–17; 27.54. See also 14.33.

³⁹ As testimony to his great eagerness to persuade the reader to ‘receive’ Jesus as the Son of God, Matthew further uses the rhetoric of comprehension to characterize a range of dramatic persons as responding to the ‘sight’ or ‘sound’ of Jesus by wondering or speculating about who he is (Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, esp. 74–5). Such wondering or speculating constitutes an ongoing effort by dramatic persons to ‘understand’ Jesus' identity.

⁴⁰ Garland, David E., Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1993) 4.Google Scholar