Jennifer L. Hamden
Critical review of Ulrich Luz's Matthew in History
Luz wants to remedy the shortcomings of the historical-critical exegetical method with his hermeneutic of the "history of effects." He writes that "the biblical texts themselves are the result of a history of effects because they are not the ultimate point of departure nor the ultimate authority but products of human reception, human experiences, and human history" (23). The second aspect of Luz's hermeneutic is the effects of the texts themselves-- how they have shaped church history. Whereas historical-critical exegesis "explains the texts by giving them back to the life they had in their original setting," Luz uses his method to "function as a bridge between the biblical texts and us" (24). It "describes the ditch between past and present and makes clear that there was never an interpretation of a text that did not bear the mark of the historical setting of the interpreter" (26). Luz wants to bring the biblical texts into contemporary life with modem significance.
He looks at the rejection of violence in Matthew 5:38-42 as it was interpreted at various points in Christian history, as an example.
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you (Harper Collins Study Bible, NRSV)
In pre-Constantinian times, this passage was translated literally-- Christians were held by a bond to the church in an oath of non-violence and non-involvement in worldly affairs. However, after Constantine, Christians too had a responsibility for war and peace. Two possibilities surfaced: (1) renunciation of violence, and (2) responsible participation in political power (27). During the Reformation, the Anabaptists chose the first; the other churches chose the second. Luz seeks to illustrate here that one must understand the difference between the situations and thereby avoid a premature condemnation of other Christians' decisions.
Luz focuses upon two chapters of Matthew: the mission discourse of Chapter 10 and the primacy text of Chapter 16. He looks at the history of interpretation of the mission discourse, including modern exegesis' three arguments for historical exclusivity to 1st century Christians:
Luz challenges these findings, arguing that "disciple," a transparent term through which Christians participate in the story, and the historical term "apostle" are not mutually exclusive terms; the mission discourse is a discourse and not a report, and the message of the discourse corresponds to that in the Sermon on the Mount, which is not meant only for the past time of Jesus. Yet, for Luz, the history of noneffects proved to be important for Matthew 10. It "had so little effect upon the history of the mainline churches because it could be easily marginalized; it was hardly realized that it is a fundamental ecclesiological text and not simply a description of some peripheral activities of the church" (55). On the opposite side of the spectrum, the primacy text of Chapter 16 is "petrified" in St. Peter's Cathedral, inscribed around the cupola, expressing the tremendous effect of our text on subsequent history (57). Luz looks at the history of the interpretation of this text: the typological, the Eastern, the christological, and the Roman; how each functioned, and what their effects upon Christian history and faith were. He uses synchronic analysis to draw several conclusions about the origin and original function of the primacy text. Then, Luz looks at what it means to have varying interpretations of one text, which condense "all the rich and different experiences of faith" (71 ).
Luz cites the work of several scholars and philosophers, both past and present, including Augustine's and Origen's commentaries on Matthew, Tertullian's Fuga, H. G. Gadamer's Truth and Method (New York: Crossroad, 1982), Spinoza's Tractatus theologico-politicus (Leiden: Brill, 1989), and Kant's Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (Chicago & London: Open Court, 1934). He seeks to capture from their work aspects that demonstrate the use of scripture in both its historical context and contemporary existence. For Luz, "to understand a New Testament text does not mean to understand the words of the text only but to understand the living Christ to whom it testifies and the life situation that was shaped by him, and to understand both as a gift, a question and a challenge for our own lives" (93).
Luz's take on the Gospel of Matthew sounds exciting and productive, as a joining of historical-critical and reader-response exegesis. I am troubled that he uses his hermeneutic on only two chapters of one gospel to demonstrate its possibilities for modem interpretation and Christian faith. But will it work for other New Testament texts, even other parts of Matthew?