Wim J.C. Weren, «The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel: A New Proposal», Vol. 87 (2006) 171-200
The weakness of the proposals concerning the macrostructure of Matthew’s
Gospel made by Bacon and Kingsbury is that they depart from rigid caesuras,
whilst a typical characteristic of the composition of this Gospel is the relatively
smooth flow of the story. On the basis of the discovery that the various
topographical data are clustered together by means of three refrains we can
distinguish three patterns in the travels undertaken by Jesus. This rather coarse
structure is further refined with the use of Matera’s and Carter’s distinction
between kernels and satellites. Kernels are better labelled as “hinge texts”. The
following pericopes belong to this category: 4,12-17; 11,2-30; 16,13-28; 21,1-17;
26,1-16. Each of them marks a turning point in the plot and has a double function:
a hinge text is not only fleshed out in the subsequent pericopes but also refers to
the preceding block. It is especially these “hinge texts” that underline the
continuity of Matthew’s narrative and should prevent us from focussing too much
on alleged caesuras.
The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel 191
what Jesus says to Peter in 16,17-18 and his statement in 16,23 (31). The
passage as a whole is framed by the two references to the Son of Man
(an inclusio).
What then is the function of 16,13-28? Matera sees this part as a
“kernelâ€, in which, for the first time, the journey of the Messiah to
Jerusalem is mentioned; this journey is entered into in more detail in
the satellite texts that follow (17,1–20,34). In my opinion, 16,13-28
extends much further than this: this passage points ahead to
17,1–25,46, because it is not until 26,2 that there is a signal that the
recurring announcement of Jesus’ death actually becomes reality.
Matera does not mention that 16,13-28 at the same time offers a
recapitulation of the material from 4,18–16,12. As a result of this
double direction of focus, I consider 16,13-28 not so much as a
“kernelâ€, but as a hinge within the whole corpus.
The hinge function of 16,13-28 appears from a number of textual
phenomena. The first topographical pattern (to withdraw) ends in this
passage, whilst the second pattern (to and in Jerusalem) starts in the
very same part. Further, the connections with 4,18–16,12 are clearly
obvious: the question put by Jesus to his disciples with regard to his
identity is related to John’s question of whether he is the one that was
to come (11,2); that, according to some, he was John the Baptist is an
echo of the opinion expressed in 14,2 by Herod Antipas; Peter’s
answer (“you are the Messiah, the Son of the living Godâ€) links with
the disciples’ confession in 14,33; that the knowledge of Jesus’ identity
can only result from divine revelation is also expressed in 11,27. Apart
from recapitulations of the preceding text, 16,13-28 also anticipates
later parts: the word “church†is also used in 18,17 (and is not further
mentioned in Matthew); the role assigned to Peter (to bind and unbind)
is linked with the role mentioned in 18,18 of the local church; the
combination of an announcement of the passion with the instructions
to the disciples on the implications of being followers (16,21-28) is
repeated in 20,17-28.
f) The structure of 4,18–16,12
The first part of the corpus (4,18–16,12) is again made up of two
sections (4,18–11,1 and 12,1–16,12), that are connected to one another
by means of a hinge text (11,2-30). In a schematic overview:
(31) First of all, Peter is praised as the receiver of God’s revelation; then Jesus
reproaches him for his thoughts not being those of God; first he is indicated as
being a rock and then as a stumbling block.