Charles H. Talbert, «Indicative and Imperative in Matthean Soteriology», Vol. 82 (2001) 515-538
It is usually thought that Matthew emphasizes the imperative at the expense of the indicative, demand over gift. Identifying Matthew’s indicative is difficult because in chapters 5–25, insofar as disciples are concerned, the narrative is told in terms of ‘omnipotence behind the scenes’. In Matt 5–25 four techniques appropriate to such a method of narration speak of the divine indicative in relation to the imperative. They are (1) I am with you/in your midst, (2) invoking the divine name, (3) it has been revealed to you/you have been given to know, and (4) being with Jesus. They show Matthew’s soteriology is by grace from start to finish.
Marxsen’s position is problematic on two counts. On the one hand, Matthew clearly sees getting in Jesus’ community as due to divine initiative. The disciples are called (4,18-22) before Jesus gives the Sermon on the Mount. Matt 28,19-20 specifies that the nations are to be made disciples and baptized before they are taught to observe all that Jesus commanded. That the kingdom has been inaugurated in Jesus’ ministry (12,28) means that repentance (4,17) is a response to a prior act of God. Matthew is clearly not legalism. A divine indicative enables one’s entry into the community of Jesus’ disciples. On the other hand, Marxsen represents a perspective on Pharisaic Judaism that is pre-Sanders3 or for that matter pre-Moore4. Most modern scholars would regard a Pharisaic ethic not as legalism (in which one gets in the covenant relation by works of law) but as covenantal nomism (in which one gets in the covenant by grace and obeys the law thereafter out of gratitude). To such scholars, Marxsen’s description of a type two ethic (= his Christian one) sounds very much like the covenantal nomism modern scholars associate with Pharisaic Judaism. The issue of Matthew’s ethic is better focused by certain other scholars, e.g. Eskola5 and Laato6, as whether or not Matthew represents legalistic covenantal nomism (in which one gets in the covenant relation by grace and then stays in it and gets in the Age to Come by works of law). This legalistic covenantal nomism is seen in contrast to a new covenant piety in which God or Christ or the Holy Spirit enables one to be obedient in an ongoing way after one’s having gotten in the relation. That is, in new covenant piety one gets in the relation by grace and stays in the covenant relation by grace and gets into the Age to Come by grace. In this view, the life of a disciple is by grace from start to finish. This grace is not a substitute for obedience to God’s will but is the enablement of it. The question to be pursued must be refined beyond Marxsen’s statement of it. Properly put the issue is: does Matthew see the imperative as admissions requirements, either initially into Jesus’ community or ultimately into the Age to Come, that humans must meet in order to gain