Matthew
Jesus as Emmanuel — "God with us" — and the fulfilment of Israel's prophetic hope.
Overview
Matthew's Gospel is deeply Jewish in character, presenting Jesus as the new Moses, the Davidic king, and the fulfilment of Israel's scriptural promises. Matthew structures his narrative around five major teaching discourses (echoing the five books of Moses) and frames the entire story with the Emmanuel motif: Jesus is "God with us" at the beginning (1:23) and promises to be with his followers "to the end of the age" (28:20).
Matthew's Christological significance in later Christian theology is outsized relative to the subtlety of his actual claims. The triadic baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 — "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" — became foundational for Trinitarian doctrine, even though the text itself does not articulate a Trinitarian theology. Understanding what Matthew intended by this formula, and how it was later interpreted, is essential for anyone studying the development of Christian doctrine.
Matthew consistently presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter of God's law — "You have heard that it was said... but I say to you" — and as the one in whom God's presence dwells. Whether this "presence" language implies ontological deity or supreme prophetic authority is the central question of Matthean Christology.
Christological themes
- Emmanuel — "God with us" — Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 to frame Jesus's birth is a foundational Christological claim. But what does "God with us" mean? In its original Isaianic context, it was a sign name, not a metaphysical statement. Matthew may be making a higher claim — that in Jesus, God is literally present — or he may be affirming that Jesus is the locus of God's saving action among his people.
- Fulfilment of prophecy — Matthew's characteristic formula citations ("This happened to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet...") present Jesus as the culmination of Israel's story. This fulfilment Christology is primarily functional — it's about Jesus's role in God's plan rather than his nature — but it carries implicit claims about Jesus's unique relationship to God.
- The triadic formula — Matthew 28:19 places Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a single baptismal formula under one "name." This text became crucial for later Trinitarian theology, but scholars debate whether it reflects Matthew's own theology, a later liturgical development, or even a post-Matthean interpolation. The formula coordinates three figures but does not specify their ontological relationship.
- Divine authority — Matthew's Jesus claims "all authority in heaven and on earth" (28:18) and exercises prerogatives that belong to God: forgiving sins, judging the nations, and demanding ultimate loyalty. Whether this authority is inherent or bestowed ("has been given to me") is a key interpretive question.
- Son of God as messianic king — Matthew uses "Son of God" primarily in a royal-messianic sense, rooted in texts like Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14. The title carries overtones of special intimacy with God and divine appointment, but in its Jewish context it does not necessarily imply ontological deity.
Key passages
What scholars debate
The most contested question about Matthew's Christology is the authenticity and original meaning of the triadic baptismal formula in 28:19. Some scholars (notably those in the tradition of F.C. Conybeare) have questioned whether the text is original, noting that Eusebius of Caesarea quoted it differently in his earlier works. Others argue the formula is authentically Matthean but reflects early liturgical practice rather than developed theological reflection on the inner relations of the Godhead.
More broadly, scholars debate where Matthew sits on the Christological spectrum. His Gospel clearly has a higher Christology than Mark (note how he modifies Mark 10:18 to soften the implication). But is Matthew's Christology "divine identity" Christology (as Bauckham would argue), or does it remain within the bounds of Jewish messianic expectation (as scholars like Daniel Boyarin might suggest)? The Emmanuel motif is the key test case: is "God with us" a claim about who Jesus is, or about what God does through Jesus?