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.
either or both of these benefits? Most scholars today believe that entry into Jesus’ community is by grace for the reasons cited above. The current debate is over what follows in the disciple’s life. Is there an indicative that underlies and enables fulfillment of the imperative in disciples’ lives after their entry into the community of Jesus?
(2) Other scholars believe Matthew reflects covenantal nomism. That is, Matthew is believed to employ an indicative/grace for the disciple to get in the relationship but is believed to have no developed notion of grace for staying in or for getting in the Age to Come. Luomanen7 and Syreeni8 are representatives of this stance. They each speak of Matthew as reflecting a defective covenantal nomism. Since Luomanen’s work is more comprehensive, we focus on it. He contends that Matthew wanted to understand Jesus’ proclamation within the framework of traditional covenantal nomism and so pass it on to his Jewish contemporaries. There are differences, of course, between Matthew’s content and that of non-Christian Judaism, but from a structural point of view Matthew has much in common with covenantal nomism. God’s election forms the starting point. This grace enables one’s getting in the people of God. It remains a presupposition, however, that is not spelt out. Jesus’ atonement, which is restricted to staying in rather than to inclusion, functions very much as sacrifice did in non-Christian Jewish covenantal nomism. This is an aid to one’s staying in. It is part of the synergism of staying in and getting in the Age to Come. This position is subject to the criticisms of people like Eskola and Laato who regard synergism in the post-entry period as legalistic covenantal nomism. If Matthew represents covenantal nomism, then the indicative sees to one’s getting in but is not solely responsible for one’s staying in or for getting in the Age to Come.
(3) Another group of scholars believe Matthew has both an indicative and an imperative but that the former does not control the latter. At least three shades of opinion must be noted. Some see the imperative as explicit in Matthew but regard the indicative as only implicit. Mohrlang9 and Meyer10 are two representatives of this shade