A Character of Righteous Integrity in Light of God’s Reign: The Spirituality of Jesus According to Matthew

Abstract

This essay examines Matthew’s depiction of both the spirituality demonstrated by Jesus’ actions and words (his own spirituality) and the spirituality he preaches (prescribes/expects of others). Key Matthean themes interweave in this topic. Jesus’ own spirituality and that which he expects of his followers are shaped most profoundly by the apocalyptic expectation of the imminent Reign of God. All practices and attitudes must be aligned with this coming reality. Because of this, the key mark of a true disciple or righteous person is integrity—the congruence of one’s inner character and outer actions, of one’s professed commitments and one’s behaviors. In this, Jesus is the paragon of integrity: everything he does is in alignment with the character of the coming Reign and God’s will. His actions are always a manifestation of his inner character as God’s son and messianic agent within God’s emerging Reign. Those who, like Jesus, manifest a character that is aligned with the realities of the coming age are called righteous and, at the judgment, are allowed to experience God’s Reign. Their attitudes and behaviors have shown that their inner character is in alignment with the character of the Reign of God. By contrast, the scribes and Pharisees are continually upbraided for their hypocrisy and warned that this will cause them to be barred from the Reign. Thus, the spirituality of Jesus in Matthew can be summed up as “spiritual integrity” (which is “righteousness”) shaped by the character of the imminent Reign of God. Jesus exemplifies this and calls his followers to demonstrate their character with integrity as well.

1. Introduction

Jesus’ own spirituality and that which he expects of his followers are shaped most profoundly by the apocalyptic expectation of the imminent coming of the Reign of God. I take spirituality to mean both the various religious practices that are typically considered expressions of one’s spiritual life—e.g., prayer, worship, charity, repentance and reconciliation/restitution, etc.—as well as the overall sense one has of the presence of the divine and how that manifests itself in one’s attitudes, behaviors, and view of the other and the world. This essay will examine Matthew’s portrayal of both the spirituality of Jesus’ actions and words (his own spirituality) and the spirituality he preaches (what he prescribes/expects of others)1 and the ways they are necessarily interrelated.

For Matthew, all propositions about what God is up to in the lives of believers and in the world more broadly—and what this implies for the practices and attitudes of their spiritual life—are informed by the imminence of God’s Reign.2 Since, at the judgment preceding this Reign, people will be judged on the congruence of their inner character and outer actions, the key mark of a true disciple or righteous person is integrity. In this sense, Jesus is the paragon of integrity: everything he does is in alignment with the character of the coming Reign and God’s will. His actions are always a manifestation of his inner character as God’s son and messianic agent of the emerging Reign. Similarly, those who, like Jesus, manifest a character that is aligned with the realities of the coming age are called righteous and, at the day of judgment, are allowed to enter God’s Reign. Their attitudes and behaviors have shown that their inner character is in alignment with the character of this new reality.

This is seen very pointedly in the uniquely Matthean material (especially the parables, but elsewhere as well), which overwhelmingly focuses on one’s fitness for God’s Reign and one’s outer righteousness as an expression of one’s inner character. By contrast, Matthew portrays the scribes and Pharisees as “anti-disciples”3—people whose character manifests spiritual incongruence, which is condemned. Jesus consistently upbraids them for this hypocrisy and warns that this in particular will cause people to be barred from the Reign. Respectable deeds and concern for keeping the commandments outwardly are deemed hypocritical when they miss the center of God’s will. The Pharisees are depicted as archetypes of hypocrisy:4 their opposition to Jesus (God’s messianic agent) and his works (manifestations of the imminent Reign) and their abrogation of the “weightier things” that are at the heart of the Law—mercy, justice, and faith—in favor of mere outward commandment-keeping are the antithesis of Matthew’s understanding of a correct spirituality. They are particularly condemned when their attention to commandment-keeping does not uphold love of God and neighbor, upon which all the commandments depend (Mt 22:34–40). Thus, the spirituality of Jesus in Matthew can be summed up as “spiritual integrity” (which is “righteousness”) shaped by the character of the imminent Reign of God. Jesus manifests this and calls his followers to demonstrate their character with inward and outward integrity (righteousness) as well.

2. Jesus’ Own Spirituality

Jesus’ personal spirituality in Matthew is characterized by obedient integrity, both to God’s commands and will and, as part of this, to his call as God’s messiah (the son of David), agent of the in-breaking of God’s Reign, through the Spirit of God at work within him.

To appreciate Jesus’ distinctive Matthean spirituality, we need to note some things that are not emphasized. In Matthew, Jesus is only twice depicted as praying: in ch. 14, between the feeding of the 5000+ and the second storm-calming, and in Gethsemane. This is in contrast to Luke, where he is more often portrayed as retreating to pray. Prayer is not depicted in Matthew as a significant aspect of Jesus’ own spirituality, though Matthew’s silence on this matter should not be taken as a negative stance. Rather, prayer is simply not a practice of Jesus’ that is emphasized. So, contrary to what we might imagine, prayer does not play a prominent role in the depiction of Jesus’ own spirituality in Matthew.

Similarly, in contrast to Luke and John, Jesus is rarely shown attending synagogue or participating in the Jerusalem Temple festivals (except the Passover before his crucifixion). While this is not to make any claims about the historical Jesus’ practice, it is surprising given Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus’ affirmation of the abiding validity of the Torah Commandments, which would lead us to suspect that the Matthean Jesus would have observed Sabbaths and holy days with noteworthy faithfulness. The reason this is not portrayed may have to do with the historical situation of Matthew’s community/audience. If Jesus’ faithful obedience and integrity are taken as paradigmatic for his followers’ spirituality, and if Matthew is writing after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, portraying Jesus’ spirituality as closely tied to Temple-centered celebrations would present a picture impossible to emulate. Similarly, if, as many scholars suspect, Matthew is writing for Jesus’ followers who have already broken ties with the larger Jewish community—either having left voluntarily or having been expelled from their synagogues5—then a portrayal of Jesus as deeply connected to synagogue culture would, again, be problematic to emulate. Regardless of what might have been the historical circumstances surrounding Matthew’s writing, it is worth noting what is not said, or what is de-emphasized, regarding spirituality as well as what is said and emphasized.

Instead, Jesus’ spirituality in Matthew is grounded in the coming Reign of God and being faithful to his calling with respect to that. Jesus knows who he is and thus resists the temptations in the wilderness which revolve around Satan’s repeated questioning of his identity as the Son of God (4:1–11). Matthew depicts Jesus as knowing that God’s Spirit and power are active within him to do the works of the coming Reign (note particularly the Beelzebul controversy of ch. 12) and knowing what works he is called to do: to preach the imminence of the Reign and call people to repentance (integrity), to teach, to heal, to call and commission disciples through whom the work will continue, to suffer and die at the hands of those inimical to God’s coming Reign and Jesus’ part in that, and ultimately to judge and reign as God’s Messiah/Son.

Jesus always manifests congruence between his inner character and his outer behavior. Unlike his opponents or other false teachers, he is not a white-washed tomb of hypocrisy, nor a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing, nor a tree bearing fruit that is not in keeping with its nature. Jesus keeps both the letter and the spirit of the Torah. He makes it clear that he has not come to abrogate the Law in any way and forbids others to do so (Matt 5:17–19). Jesus expects his followers to follow the Law, and he himself does so, modeling the spirituality of obedience he clearly preaches.

This is clear not only in his explicit statements in ch. 5 and his denunciation of the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees (15:1–9; 23:1–36), but also in key moments of the narrative. For example, in comparing the versions of two stories regarding religious rites in Mark and Matthew,6 Jesus is portrayed as more scrupulously upholding the Law in small but important ways in Matthew than in Mark. In the controversy about eating with unwashed hands and Jesus’ declaration that uncleanness comes from the heart, the narrator clarifies near the end of Mark’s version of the episode that, in saying that what goes into the body does not defile a person, Jesus “thus declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19). In Matthew, although much of the passage is nearly identical, Matthew includes no narrative comment claiming Jesus sets aside any aspect of kashrut. As Matthew summarizes it, the evils that proceed from the heart defile a person, “but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile one” (Matt 15:20). Jesus in Matthew takes issue with the imposition of the extra-scriptural purity traditions of his opponents, but he is not portrayed as undermining the dietary commands found in the Torah. The emphasis therefore lands wholly upon the congruence of the internal (heart) and external (deeds). Cleanness of hands is irrelevant and an incongruous display of purity if the heart is producing unclean attitudes and actions.

Similarly, in Jesus’ trial before the Jewish council, when Jesus is interrogated by the high priest about whether he is the Christ, in both Mark and Luke Jesus responds, “I am”. In Mark, this provokes the high priest to tear his garments and declare “You have heard his blasphemy!”, and the council agrees he deserves death. It seems clear that Jesus’s declaration of “I Am” is taken as a blasphemous use of the Divine Name and deserving death (Exod 3:14, 20:7; Deut 5:11). In Matthew, when asked if he is the Christ, instead of declaring “I Am,” Jesus replies, “You have spoken” (Matt 27:64). Jesus’ further statement that “hereafter you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (echoing Dan 7:13) is thus cast as the statement that provokes a cry of “Blasphemy!” from the high priest, but Jesus in Matthew cannot be charged with breaking a commandment in his response.

On the other hand, Jesus is portrayed in Matthew (as in the other Gospels) as prioritizing blessing and flourishing as the fundamental spirit of the Law over obedience to the commands, which results in damage, and as denouncing seeming obedience that is merely a cover for pious hypocrisy. We see this in the controversies about plucking grain and healing on the Sabbath in 12:1–14 and in the controversy about washing hands. Jesus’ denunciation of the Pharisees’ practice of Corban offerings in lieu of “honor” to their father and mother7 highlights Jesus’ emphasis on both the actual commands of Scripture and the rejection of seeming obedience that takes advantage of loopholes. Use of such interpretive legal technicalities is a violation of the commitment to integrity that Jesus demonstrates and expects. One cannot “tithe dill, mint, and cumin but neglect the weightier matters of the law—justice and mercy and faith” (23:23).

Jesus is consistently portrayed in Matthew as keeping the letter of the Law without neglecting the “weightier matters”—the underlying principles of the Law. In so doing, he demonstrates a spirituality of God’s will being done “on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10), which is God’s Reign made manifest. As he says in the Beelzebul controversy, “If is it by the Spirit of God that I do [these works], then the Reign of God has come to you” (12:28). Jesus’ works and the integrity of faithful obedience with which he does them are proleptic manifestations of the Reign of God he preaches and has been sent to bring about.

3. The Spirituality Jesus Expects of His Followers

As with Jesus’ own spirituality, the spirituality that Jesus promotes for his followers in Matthew has many things in common with that which he expects and promotes in the other Gospels:

• A willingness to forsake previous ways of life (“Follow me!”);
• Service (“Whoever would be great among you must become a servant of all”);
• Self-sacrifice (“the one who would find their life must lose it; take up your cross”);
• Courage and watchfulness in the face of eschatological trials (“Take heed that no one lead you astray…the one who endures to the end will be saved”);
• Prayer (“Pray like this…/when you pray say…/whenever you stand praying…”);
• Devotion to God and one’s neighbor (“the greatest commandment is this: you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart…the second is like it…”).

One notably Matthean emphasis is that disciples are to be humble. This is articulated in a number of ways and by a variety of terms. For example, Matthew’s first Beatitude is that it is the “poor in spirit” (as opposed to Luke’s “poor”) who are blessed (5:3). To be poor in spirit is to be bereft of internal resources. It is the opposite of haughty independence and self-sufficiency. Similarly, only Matthew declares “Blessed are the meek!” (5:5). Matthew depicts Jesus as paradigmatic, in this regard,8 for his followers’ spirituality in his saying, in 11:29: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle/meek and lowly/humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” Further, the verbal form, “to humble oneself” (tapeinoō), appears at the outset of chapter 18—a discourse specifically about the spirituality of disciples in community—when Jesus, echoing language from the Sermon on the Mount, declares “Those who humble themselves like this child, those are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (18:4).

In a larger sense, Jesus’ instructions for his disciples’ spirituality have a distinctive emphasis in Matthew: the most succinct term for the Matthean vision of a disciple’s spirituality is “righteousness.”9 However, this righteousness is not simply ethical behavior, holiness, or commandment-keeping.10 As is clear in 5:17–20, those who wish to enter God’s Reign must keep and not relax the commands nor teach others to do so, yet “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” And what is it that the Pharisees’ lack? How is their righteousness deficient? It is not that they are deficient in keeping the outward letter of the commandments. They are renown for that. But they lack inward integrity; they are hypocrites. They are, in a sense, the opposite of the spirituality Jesus preaches.

It is not surprising, then, that much of the uniquely Matthean parabolic material picks up this theme. Parables such as the Wheat and Tares (13:24–43) and the Sheep and the Goats (25:31–46) are warnings that one’s inward character (wheat versus weeds, sheep versus goats) will ultimately be disclosed. One’s true nature cannot remain hidden. White-washed tombs will be shown to be full of corpses and filth (23:27). Inward hypocrisy and lawlessness (anomia, as opposed to keeping the Law) are the opposite of the traits of a disciple (23:28). Even if one is a trusted slave in the household, behavior that shows an underlying corrupt character (through, particularly, the mistreatment of other slaves) will result in the master coming to punish such a slave, and he will “put him with the hypocrites” (24:45–51).

So also the Matthean material in the Sermon on the Mount emphasizes the importance of integrity over hypocrisy, the congruence of one’s inner character and one’s outer actions. Matthew sets the theme early in the Sermon with the uniquely Matthean Beatitude: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (5:8). While many have pondered what this purity of heart might mean, the larger context of Matthew’s emphasis on integrity (in the parables and elsewhere) as the key component of righteousness clarifies its character. Purity of heart is the internal quality of authentic devotion to God, the result of which will be “seeing God,” i.e., entering God’s Reign. Similarly, in the passage on love of enemies (5:43–48; paralleled in Luke 6:27–36), the Matthean material insists “…and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven, for He makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous….” The passage concludes with “Therefore be perfect, even as your heavenly father is perfect.” In the context of these verses, the “perfection” that God demonstrates and which Matthew’s Jesus calls for is a consistency of inward character and outward action, a wholeness (which is in keeping with the more literal meaning of teleios as “complete”) that is characteristic of God’s generosity to all. This wholeness, or perfection, is the opposite of internal disjunction and inconsistency—that is, hypocrisy (Via 1990). When seen in the light of Matthew’s larger emphasis on integrity, the meaning of both perfection and purity of heart becomes clear.

The Antitheses of Matthew 5:21–48 have rightly been characterized as a rabbinic-style call not to set aside or even go beyond the commands of Torah (it is not a “New Law of the Kingdom”) but an injunction to live more deeply into the fundamental principles of the commandments.11 In the context of Matthew’s larger emphases, they also represent a call to a spirituality of ethical living that draws on the deeper principles behind the specific commands (the “spirit of the Law”) and insists on integrity in that regard rather than pro forma external compliance. Thus, simply refraining from murder reflects hypocritical outward adherence if one indulges in the deeper sin of anger and a demeaning regard for others (5:21–22). Superficial marital faithfulness means nothing if one indulges in lustful, objectifying contemplations: behavior that demonstrates coveting in one’s heart (5:27–28). These and the other Antitheses are clearly about consistency of character—a congruity of inner and outer—which defines true obedience, righteousness, and Torah adherence.

In 6:1–18, the focus turns to what we might see as the most explicit discussion of matters of spirituality for disciples in Matthew. Except for the actual words of the Lord’s Prayer, these verses all constitute uniquely Matthean material. Unsurprisingly, the emphasis is on humility and integrity in these practices, in contrast to pride, hypocrisy, and pious posturing. It opens with the summative warning “See to it that your righteousness is not done in front of people in order to be seen by them” (6:1). The subsequent sections on almsgiving, prayer, and fasting all focus on not being like hypocrites who wish people to know of their piety, but instead seeking to please and be seen by God, toward whom these acts are rightly directed (6:3, 6, and 18). The mention of rewards from humans (in the form of their approval and admiration) versus rewards from God again sets this call to integrity in the framework of an eschatological blessing in God’s Reign for those who demonstrate true righteousness.

Finally, in 7:15–23, Jesus pointedly depicts the character and behavior of those who lack integrity. He begins by metaphorically describing false prophets: they clothe themselves in deeds that make them appear to be sheep, “but inwardly they are ravenous wolves” (7:15). The disjunction between their appearance and their true nature shows them to be false rather than true prophets. True prophets manifest a consistency of character and action. Jesus then warns that the fruit of their inner character cannot remain hidden. Thorns and thistles are unable to produce grapes and figs, and good trees will produce good fruit (7:16–20). Indeed, it is only in producing good fruit that a tree becomes designated as “good.” These sayings emphasize that people’s character will ultimately be revealed not by first appearances but by the final fruits of their nature and that there will be punishment (again invoking the pervasive apocalyptic eschatological context) for those whose fruit does not bespeak a righteous inner character. This saying is repeated in ch. 12 as part of Jesus’ rebuttal to the Pharisees’ accusation that he casts out demons by the power of Beelzebul:

Either make the tree good and its fruit good or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten, for a tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. The good person out of their good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of their evil treasure brings forth evil. (12:33–35)

So also will the tares (which, when they sprout, look much like wheat) be discerned by their inability to produce anything good (13:30, 37–42). This a consistent theme in Matthew, as is the caution that only God or God’s agents (Jesus and/or angels) will be able to accurately make this judgment, and only at the coming of the Reign.

This section of the Sermon on the Mount ends with yet another unique Matthean teaching about the necessity of integrity and another warning that puts its ramifications in an apocalyptic context, one that perhaps complicates our understanding of the role of “good fruit” in judgment. Jesus here declares

Not all who say to me “Lord! Lord!” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my father in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, “Lord, lord, did we not prophesy in your name? And in your name cast out demons? And in your name do many mighty works?” And I will declare to them, “I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness!” (7:21–23)

If a tree is judged by its fruit, those who are addressing Jesus would seem to have ample produce to commend themselves. But even fruit, it seems, can be deceptive. Works here that would seem to be good are counted as lawlessness (anomia—the doing of which is also a characteristic of the tares in 13:41) because those producing these seemingly good fruits in Jesus’ name are doing so without actually knowing or being known by him. They are deceptive and disingenuous in their seeming submission to Jesus as Master. And this, regardless of how mighty their works may be, demonstrates a lack of integrity and honesty, which renders their seeming fruitfulness irrelevant, or worse, as acts of hypocrisy, and not the doing of God’s will that will allow them to enter the Reign.

While we might continue to enumerate the ways Matthew emphasizes integrity as the key component of a disciple’s spirituality, to see this spirituality depicted in narrative form, we might look at two stories of secondary characters—stories that are unique to Matthew and that bookend the Gospel: the story of Joseph in chap. 1 and the story of Judas in chap. 27.

Only in Matthew do we hear of Joseph’s concern over Mary’s unexplained pregnancy and his dream visitation by an angel of the Lord. It says that when Mary was found to be pregnant before her marriage, “Joseph being a righteous man and not wanting to make a public example of her…” (1:19). This brief phrase holds much. We have already seen that “righteous” is the descriptor of those who will enter God’s Reign and of Jesus’ followers who demonstrate faithful integrity. And yet, for Matthew, righteousness must include keeping both the letter and the spirit of the Law. As has been often noted, the Law prescribed stoning for women found to be pregnant outside of marriage (Deut 22:13–21). While this sentence may not have been consistently enacted (See Keener 2009, pp. 87–95, esp. 92–94), even the spirit of the Law in this case would require significant public disgrace for Mary. Joseph, as a righteous person, knows what he is supposed to do, but he wants to shield her from public shame. In this case, the and in “being a righteous man and not wanting to make a public example” contextually has the force of “being on the one hand a righteous man, and on the other not wanting to make a public example.” Joseph has conflicting impulses or allegiances: on the one hand, to obey the commandment (being righteous), and on the other, to extend merciful protection (a “weightier thing”), which would compromise his obedience. In deciding to “put her aside quietly,” Joseph tries to balance these, with the scale tipping toward mercy.

This is the same balancing we see in Jesus’ interactions, particularly his activities on the Sabbath. The uniquely Matthean conclusion to the story of plucking grain on the Sabbath presents Jesus as saying “If you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless” (12:7). This saying provides the bridge to the healing of the man with a withered hand. In each of the Synoptics, Jesus declares that he is Lord of the Sabbath, but only in Matthew does he assert that obedience to even such a basic commanded practice as Sabbath keeping must be balanced with mercy. So, Joseph’s twin impulses—obedience and mercy—are in line with Jesus’ example and indeed Jesus’ instruction that mercy is one of the “weightier things” of the Law, along with justice and faith, and that adherence to those principles outweighs adherence to any specific command. Joseph demonstrates the integrity of the righteous by balancing faithfulness to the commands and faithfulness to the weightier principle of mercy. In his situation with Mary, he chooses mercy in his genuine struggle to do what is right.

Though it may not seem so at first, Judas is also presented as a character struggling to do what is right with integrity. While there is seemingly no end of speculation about Judas’ motivation for betraying Jesus, Matthew’s story of Judas’ recognition, repentance, and suicide in 27:1–10 portrays him as a surprising model of integrity.

After Jesus’ trial before the high priest, we read that “Judas, his betrayer, seeing that [Jesus] was condemned, repenting brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders saying, ‘I have sinned in betraying innocent blood’” (27:3–4). Judas is here shown doing the right thing under the Law: he has recognized his sin and confessed it—a capital offense under the Law. He has brought back the money to make restitution of what he gained and now awaits the sentencing from the priests. He is ready to face his punishment and knows that, under the Law, his crime carries the death sentence. But here, Matthew paints Jesus’ opponents as not only hypocritical and corrupt but unwilling even to fulfill their rightful work with regard to Judas. Instead of sentencing him and arranging for his execution, the priests say, “What is that to us? See to it yourself!” (27:4). And Judas, on the pronouncement of the priests, does just that: he sees to it himself and inflicts capital punishment upon himself (27:5). He, in place of the priests who have abdicated both any responsibility for Jesus’ death and their priestly duty toward Judas, takes up the responsibility of fulfilling the Law’s command for retributive justice upon himself. Judas, when confronted with his failure, does all that the Law commands with an integrity that costs him his life and casts shame on the priests. Even after the encounter, the religious authorities only think about how to keep the minor regulations regarding what money can go into the treasury, and in so doing admit their own guilt and complicity in a sin of a far greater magnitude (27:6–10). Judas’ integrity in the face of his guilt thus becomes a foil that makes the leaders’ hypocrisy all the more glaring.

4. Conclusions

In its presentation of humble integrity as central to the righteousness of the Reign of God, the Gospel of Matthew makes a unique contribution to the picture of the relationship between Jesus and spirituality. While adherence to the commands of Torah is necessary for righteousness, humble integrity is the crucial component of the “greater righteousness” needed to enter the Reign, and this is portrayed in the distinctive Matthean parables and other material. Conversely, humble integrity is the quality lacking in the opponents of Jesus who, despite scrupulous commandment-following, stand as anti-disciples because of their pride and hypocrisy. Their pro forma adherence to specific commands lacks commitment to the deeper principles of the Law (love of God and neighbor, justice, mercy, and faith) that true integrity demands, and thus honest “sinners” who make no pretense of any sort of holiness are granted entry into the Reign of God ahead of such hypocrites.

This integrity entails consistency between one’s inner nature or character and one’s outward actions. A disjunction between these will be revealed at the final judgment, when people’s true nature is revealed by God or God’s agents, often through the revelation of the “fruits” they have produced (for example, those who have unwittingly performed righteous acts will be recognized as “sheep” destined to participate in God’s Reign, having demonstrated their nature by their actions, while those whose nature as “goats” is also revealed through their unwillingness to do such loving and merciful acts [25:31–46]).

In Matthew, Jesus exemplifies this same integrity, combining a commitment to true obedience to the Law with consistency of one’s nature and actions, and both of these are framed within the context of God’s imminent Reign. Jesus’ own spirituality is a model of the spirituality he teaches and which he expects and indeed proclaims as requisite for those who would follow him. And, as the proclaimer of the spirituality of God’s imminent Reign, the Matthean Jesus embodies that which he proclaims.