Matthew: 6
Geographically, the events of the first 18 chapters of Matthew take place in and around Galilee, but beginning in Matt 19:1, the story begins to shift towards Jerusalem, with chaps. 19-25 dealing with Jesus’ deeds and teaching in Jerusalem.
In terms of his deeds, Jesus continues the ministry of healing he began in Galilee (Matt 19:2). Just prior to entering Jerusalem, he heals two blind men, who address him as “Son of David” (20:29-34; Matt 1:1). When Jesus finally arrives in Jerusalem, the “city of the great king” (Matt 5:35), he rides into the city on a donkey (21:1-11). This “triumphal entry” fulfills Zech 9:9 (although technically, this is another combo-quote—remember Matt 2:6?—Matthew combines Isa 62:11 and Zech 9:9). Whereas kings normally ride into cities on glorious white chargers, Jesus, the humble king, rides into town on a simple beast of burden. It would be like a newly inaugurated Prime Minister or President traveling in a motorcade in the backseat of an old ’85 Honda Civic (no offense to ’85 Honda Civic owners)!
Once inside the Jerusalem temple Jesus heals the blind and the lame (Matt 21:14), but prior to healing them he cleanses the temple (Matt 21:12-13). The temple had become a place of corruption (think in terms of Mal 1:7-8). The economics of the temple institution had come to eclipse the religious/spiritual life the temple provided. Jesus’ actions, then, are symbolic: he overturns the temple—what it had become—in order to set it right, viz., to establish it as a center for prayer (21:13), healing (21:14), and worship (21:15-16).
In terms of teaching, throughout this section of Matthew Jesus continues to spar with the religious leaders over the Mosaic Law, i.e., the proper interpretation of it. They challenge him about issues dealing with divorce (19:3-12; 22:23-33). He challenges their understanding of how to obey the Law (19:16-22), the priorities within the Law (22:34-40), and also the nature of Davidic Messianism (22:41-46; remember, Jesus is the “Son of David”). He openly questions, and even denies, the legitimacy of Pharisaic authority (23:1-36). The climax of Jesus’ teaching in this section can be found in chaps. 24 and 25, the so-called “Olivet Discourse,” where he speaks of the near future and the far future. In terms of the near future he declares that Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed and that his followers will be persecuted to death (24:1-28). However, all is not lost for Jesus will come again to reward the faithful and judge the wicked (24:29-41). Therefore, in view of his Second Coming, Jesus exhorts his followers to live alertly, faithfully, and wisely (24:42-25:46).
Matthew’s Gospel concludes and climaxes, of course, in Jesus’ death and resurrection (chaps. 26-28). Matthew follows Mark pretty closely, so I won’t rehash what I’ve already said in the Mark blog. I will, however, highlight a few notable differences between Matthew and Mark (his literary source—see Gospels intro blog). Matthew adds an explanation about Judas’s fate (27:1-10). Here Matthew does two things. First, he puts the final blame for Jesus’ death sentence at the feet of the Jewish leaders. Judas recognizes that Jesus is innocent, but the leaders could care less that he is (Matt 27:4). Second, he underscores God’s sovereignty in the crucifixion. Judas’s betrayal of Jesus did not somehow surprise God, catching him off guard. Rather, his betrayal was predicted by the scriptures (Matt 27:9-10): again Matthew does a combo-quote here of Zech 11:12-13 and Jer 32:6-9.
Matthew also includes a statement about other people being resurrected before Jesus’ resurrection (Matt 27:52-53). This would serve to heighten the drama and the power of the event of Jesus’ crucifixion. It would serve to heighten the anticipation of Jesus’ own resurrection. And, that these resurrected saints go to Jerusalem is a further witness against this city’s rejection of Jesus (cf. Matt 10:17-18) and why subsequently it was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 (cf. Matt 23:37-38). Also, these verses are an allusion to Ezek 37:1-13, which is part of Matthew’s fairly sustained allusion in his Gospel to Ezekiel 34. Thus, what happens in the resurrection is part of the fulfilment of scripture.
Matthew alone adds an account of how the Jewish leaders attempted to explain away the empty tomb (Matt 28:11-15). That Jesus, even after his resurrection, continued to be rejected by the Jews posed a bit of an embarrassing situation for his earliest followers. That is why so many NT passages emphasize that their rejection of their messiah was part of God’s sovereign, mysterious plan: e.g., all 4 Gospels and Acts refer to Isa 6:9-10—God’s hardening of Israel (see also Paul’s extensive discussion of this in Rom 9—11); similarly, the Gospel writers, use the “stone passage” of Ps 118:22-23, while Peter uses this text as well as the other “stone passage” of Isa 8:14 (see 1 Pet 2:6-8). Clearly, the Jews’ continued rejection of their resurrected messiah figured largely into the psyche of the biblical authors.
Finally, Matthew has the most familiar and detailed commissioning in the Gospels (Matt 28:16-20). I think it’s kind of neat that, even in the wake of the resurrection, some followers still had their doubts (28:17)—neat b/c this is another example of how the bible is very real-to-life, and doesn’t try to sugar coat things. The gospel of the kingdom now goes out to everyone. Prior to Jesus death and resurrection it went exclusively to Israel (Matt 10:5-6). But now the call of the gospel has been extended to “all the nations”—Jews and Gentiles alike (see Paul’s comment in Rom 1:16).
Let me finish off our brief survey of Matthew’s Gospel by listing some of his themes or emphases. Most obviously, Matthew has a well-developed Christology: e.g., Jesus is portrayed as the Son of David, the Son of God, Israel’s Shepherd and their Moses-like deliverer. He has a heavy emphasis on the fulfilment of scripture: everything about Jesus—from beginning (his birth) to end (his death and resurrection)—fulfils scripture; the events of his life fulfill scripture predictions about the messiah, as well as fill out the true/ultimate significance of various scripture texts. Lastly, Matthew emphasizes the Mosaic Law: he says that it must be rightly interpreted and kept—and the final authority on the Mosaic Law is, of course, Jesus!
Next up: Luke.
Matthew: 5
When counselling his disciples about their future missionary endeavours (10:16-23), Jesus warns them of the terrible opposition they will encounter. How does Jesus know? One reason is b/c of the opposition he is about to experience; and if it’s that way for him then it will be that way for them (Matt 10:25). Matthew depicts the rising opposition to Jesus and his teaching in chaps. 11-18.
It’s ironic that the towns in which Jesus did most of his miracles rejected him (Matt 11:20). I find Matt 11:20-30 to be a really interesting chunk of text for its theological implications. First, Jesus speaks of the final judgment being “more bearable/tolerant” (Matt 11:22, 24) for some than for others. That suggests that there are degrees of divine punishment. In other words, while any, every, and all sin is worthy of divine condemnation, God judges sin differently: some will receive harsher judgment than others—otherwise the language of “more tolerable” makes no sense (see also, for example, John 19:11). Second, we see evidence for divine “middle knowledge” that Christian philosophers speak of: God, being omniscient, doesn’t simply know the future, he knows exactly what would have happened if things had been different. Well here, Jesus says that if he had come and ministered in the days of Sodom or Tyre & Sidon— nations destroyed by God b/c of their sins—they would have repented and placed their trust in him, and would not have been destroyed. This brings me to a third implication: in his supreme holiness, God owes salvation to no one! These nations would have turned to Jesus had they been given the chance—but they were not. God owes absolutely nothing to anyone! That is a daunting truth! Fourth and consequently, God sovereignly chooses to reveal Jesus to some and conceal him from others (Matt 11:25-27). Thus, as the Apostle Paul exclaims, “Behold then, the kindness and severity of God” (Rom 11:22).
Jesus causes a big ruckus on the Sabbath. Ruckus #1: he allows his disciples to pick heads of grain to feed their empty stomachs (12:1-7). Now in the view of the Pharisees, they (and Jesus implicitly) were guilt of breaking the Mosaic Law by “working” (i.e., picking grain heads) rather than resting on the Sabbath. In response, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of misunderstanding the spirit of the Sabbath law, and that if one must “work” for self-preservation, so be it. Moreover, Jesus is the “Lord of the Sabbath” (12:8), so b/c of his disciples’ connection to him, they are not guilty of breaking the Sabbath. Ruckus #2: Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath (12:8-14). Again, b/c the Sabbath was to be a time of resting not working, the Pharisees think that Jesus has violated the Law b/c healing (I guess) qualifies as work. But Jesus declares that they still misunderstand the Sabbath: it’s actually lawful to do good works on the Sabbath (Matt 12:12; cf. Mark 2:27). But the Pharisees are none too keen with that answer, so they plot to get rid of Jesus (Matt 12:14).
What begins in private/semi-private (i.e., opposition to Jesus) becomes more public. In response to the healings that Jesus has performed, the crowds begin to openly wonder if Jesus is the “Son of David” (Matt 12:23; cf. Matt 1:1). The Pharisees, however, openly reject this notion, and instead accuse Jesus of healing people through the power of the devil (Matt 12:24). Notice: they do not try to deny his healings; they implicitly acknowledge that he has shown the power/authority to heal—which puts them in a bit of a corner. So, rather than deny the obvious (Jesus’ healings), they shift the question to 1 of source; and for them, Jesus’ source of power must be the devil. In response, Jesus simply turns their accusation around: “OK, then how are your people able to do it, especially since I’m a lot better at it?” (12:25-29). Moreover, such an extreme accusation is none other than the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit—calling the work of God through Jesus a work of Satan (Matt 12:30-32).
Chap. 13 is a long chapter which is comprised of parables about the kingdom. Most of these parables teach that the righteous and the wicked must coexist together—until the very end when God will separate and judge them. But maybe the most important point of Jesus’ parabolic teaching is their purpose. The disciples asked Jesus why he speaks to the crowds using so many parables (Matt 13:10). In his answer (13:11-15), Jesus essentially says that parables have a dual purpose. One side of the parable coin (so to speak) is to conceal God’s truth; the other side is to reveal God’s truth. In other words, when Jesus teaches in parables, people with open hearts are more apt to understand and accept his teaching, but people with hard hearts will be more apt to misunderstand and reject it.
In his continuing conflict with the religious leaders, Jesus remarks how they are more interested in obeying and having people obey their own traditions and rules, rather than God’s Law (15:1-20). While obedience to God has external entailments, ultimately, it’s what’s on the inside that counts (Matt 15:11). Hence, Jesus declares that their worship of God is “vain” (Matt 15:9) and not genuine. It is b/c of the misguided, erroneous, human-centered teaching of the religious leaders, and b/c of their continual opposition to Jesus, that, after the feeding the 4000 Jesus warns his disciples, “Watch out and beware of the [teaching] of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (16:6, 12).
While the rest of this section has a mixed bag of teachings, the latter part focuses on following Jesus, i.e., discipleship issues—like priorities and serving others (18:1-11), communal discipline (18:15-20), and forgiveness (18:21-35). At the close of this “sermon” (18:1-35), Jesus begins to set his sights on Jerusalem.
Matthew: 4
In chaps. 8-9, Jesus backs up his powerful words (chaps. 5-7) with powerful deeds. The major thrust of these chaps. 8-9 is Jesus’ divine authority.
While people must avoid touching lepers—otherwise they risk infecting themselves—the opposite is true with Jesus: when he touches them they are healed of their leprosy (Matt 8:1-4).
Jesus’ divine authority is such that even a Gentile centurion recognizes it (Matt 8:5-10). This story is particularly interesting in view of the background of Roman Imperial Theology (see earlier blog). According to RIT, Caesar was invested with the authority of the gods; and consequently, all of his officers/soldiers had authority over others not in and of themselves but b/c of their connection to Caesar: they served and represented him. The Roman centurion says that b/c he is “a man under authority”—i.e., Caesar’s—people must obey him. He sees that Jesus too is “under authority”—i.e., Almighty God’s—and therefore not just people but even sickness must obey his orders. And so it does (Matt 8:13).
Matthew describes how Jesus can cast out demonic spirits “with a [single] word” (Matt 8:16). This provides an interesting point of contrast with other people in that day who performed exorcisms. Exorcists in the Graeco-Roman mystery religions used “magic” spells and incantations, even objects like amulets to ward off evil spirits. Early Jewish exorcists (at the time of Christ & 100 or so years earlier) used lengthy prayers or rituals; they would invoke the name of some of their ancestors like Solomon or David; they would also use amulets, & stuff like that. But how different is Jesus! No lengthy incantations, no rituals, no “magic” objects; he just cast out demons with a single word (8:16)—such was his authority!
His authoritative single words were not limited to demonic spirits: they extended even to nature (Matt 8:23-27). Consequently, his disciples marvelled when Jesus stilled the storm, exclaiming, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!” (8:27)
With this kind of authority it should not be surprising, then, that Jesus can even forgive sins (9:1-8). When Jesus proclaimed to the paralytic that his sins were forgiven, everyone was shocked (Matt 9:3). I mean, think about what Jesus did, for a minute. If you punch me, and I say, “I forgive you,” that’s 1 thing. But, if 1 stranger punches another stranger, and I say, “I forgive you for punching him,” wouldn’t that sound weird? If you were the 1 who got nailed, what would you say to me? “Thanks for forgiving that guy for sucker-punching me; that really means a lot.” Uh, somehow I don’t think so. The only person who could say something like that in that kind of situation is God: b/c every sin is always a sin against God, who is supremely holy. For anyone else, that kind of proclamation is utter nonsense, or blasphemy—unless the one making that proclamation walks in God’s authority (being God himself) . . . like Jesus.
Another thing that these chapters do is they reveal how Jesus went about saving his people from their sins (Matt 1:21). Prior to the cross, Jesus saved them from the consequences of their sins, viz., physical sickness and demonic oppression. Why is there sickness and oppression in the world? Because Adam and Eve sinned—which theologians refer to as “the Fall.” When they sinned the floodgates opened for sickness and oppression—physical, emotional, spiritual, relational—to enter our world. So ultimately, the common cold, cancer, schizophrenia, and every other illness ultimately owe their existence to the Fall. Had there been no Fall there would have been no sickness of any kind on the earth. But sometimes the sin—sickness link can be more specific. In the case of Israel, for example, the Hebrew Scriptures make it pretty clear that when they rebel against God they can expect to reap sickness and oppression.
So when Jesus, Israel’s Ultimate Deliverer came, he began to save his people from the ramifications of their sins: from physical sickness and demonic oppression. Hence, when he noticed that his people were “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (9:36), Jesus sent out his disciples to shepherd his people Israel and to extend his “saving” ministry to them (Matt 10:1-8).
In addition to saving them from the ramification of their sins, Jesus also offers them God’s forgiveness for their sins (Matt 9:2), which would climax in his death on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead—but that’s later in the story!
Now, you would think that with all this healing going on, everything would be great. But, that wasn’t the case, as we’ll see next.
Matthew: 3
The second section of the Gospel, the proclamation of the Kingdom in words (chaps. 3-7), begins with echoes of exile (Matt 3:1-3). John the Baptist came preaching “in those days” (3:1a). In the Hebrew prophetic literature, the phrase, “in those days,” is closely tied to eschatology, i.e., the future, dramatic work/power/coming of God. Matthew quotes Isa 40:3, but a first-century, Jewish reader would have been familiar with the wider context of verses in Isa 40:1-5. Isaiah announced the end of the Babylonian Exile. Based on the tone of chap. 2, and his citation of Isa 40:3, Matthew is announcing that in Jesus Israel’s spiritual exile has come to an end—b/c their great Moses-like deliverer (see last blog) has come: hence, John’s call for repentance (Matt 3:2, 8-11)!
The uniqueness of Jesus as Israel’s deliverer is amplified by his baptism (3:13-17) and by his temptation in the wilderness (4:1-11). The final “OT” prophet (so to speak), John the Baptist, despite speaking with authority from heaven (Matt 21:25-26), deferred to Jesus (Matt 3:14). And when John finally does baptize Jesus, God the Father affirmed Jesus’ unique sonship (Matt 3:16-17, echoing the language of scripture: Ps 2:7; Isa 42:1).
Jesus’ sonship is also affirmed in the temptation narrative. The devil attacked by saying, “If you are the Son of God,” but Jesus’ victory over each temptation proved that he is indeed the Son of God. Taken together with the baptism, what Matthew shows is that, while Israel was a son of God (e.g., Exod 4:22-23; Hos 11:1), Jesus is the true Son of God; for where they, after crossing the river, ultimately failed in the wilderness of temptation (Deut 8:2), Jesus passed his test with flying colours. Thus, when Jesus emerges from the wilderness, his first words of proclamation are “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (4:17)—so get ready!
Jesus then begins calling his first disciples (4:18-22), and they follow him as he travels from town to town proclaiming the Kingdom in words and in deeds (Matt 4:23). The first part of 4:23, i.e., “proclaiming [verbally] the gospel of the kingdom,” is the focus of the Sermon on the Mount, chap. 5-7. While a lot could be said of these 3 chapters (and indeed entire books have focused just on the Sermon on the Mount), I’m going to limit what I say about Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon. This section of the Gospel accomplishes a couple of things for Matthew. First, as I stated earlier, he defends Jesus against the charge that he came to undermine the Mosaic Law: rather, Jesus came to fulfil the Law (Matt 5:17-18). What that means is, on the one hand, the regulations of the Law find their ultimate and true significance in Jesus and his work on the cross. Thus, for example, those old animal sacrifices only “worked” to bring about forgiveness of sins b/c in God’s eyes, those sacrifices were bound up in/tied to Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. In and of themselves these sacrifices were useless (this is part of the teaching of the book of Hebrews). On the other hand, Jesus fulfills the Law in that he is the final, authoritative interpreter of the Law: what he says about doing/obeying the Law goes!
Second, the way in which Jesus interprets the Law affirms his uniqueness. While other Jewish interpreters of the time and the rabbis after him used a kind of introductory formula (e.g., ‘Rabbi X says A and I say…’ or ‘Rabbi Y says B, Rabbi Z says C, and I say…’), Jesus’ introductory formula is unprecedented: ‘You have heard … but I say…’ Jesus didn’t have to anchor his interpretations of the Law with other Jewish legal experts—b/c his interpretation is the ultimate/final interpretation! And his interpretive authority was not lost on those who heard him—they recognized it (Matt 7:28-29). It is b/c of who Jesus is that he becomes the fulcrum for entering the Kingdom: people must confess his name, and the validity of their confession is determined by him (Matt 7:21-23); it is his words that must be obeyed (7:24-27).
Matthew depicts the 2nd part of Matt 4:23 in chaps. 8-10: the verbal proclamation of the gospel of Kingdom is followed by the proclamation of the Kingdom in deeds. Scholars have referred to chap. 8 and 9 in particular as the “Miracle Chapters,” b/c of the individual stories of miracles that take place in such a short section of text. We’ll look more at this next.
Matthew: 2
Scholars refer to the rest of the introduction (1:18-2:23) as Matthew’s “birth and infancy narratives.” In this section Matthew introduces most of the major themes/motifs of his story.
The significance of Jesus’ name is recounted the passage describing Jesus’ virgin birth. Matthew writes that “Jesus” will “save his people from their sins” (1:21). The Hebrew word for “Jesus” means “save.” The exact way in which Jesus “saves his people from their sins” will be revealed by the rest of Matthew’s Gospel. He applies Isa 7:14 to Jesus, saying that in Jesus “God [is] with us” (1:23). This statement contrasts squarely with one of the planks of Roman Imperial Theology (see Blog on NT Background), which held that the presence of the gods is manifest in the Emperor of Rome.
The familiar Christmas story of the 3 wise men comes from Matthew’s description of the “magi.” Magi were basically eastern (i.e., Gentile) astrologers. Matthew, however, gives them a priestly tinge with the gifts they offer Jesus (Matt 2:11). In this way Matthew elevates Jesus: these priests come all the way from the east to worship the baby Jesus. Moreover, the significance of the magi being Gentiles should not be overlooked. Jesus has come to save Israel from their sins (1:21; 2:6b), yet these magi are the first people to call Jesus the “King of the Jews” (2:2a), and they are the first to worship him. This notion of Gentile worship of Jesus climaxes in the so-called “Great Commission,” where Jesus commands his followers to “make disciples of all nations”/Gentiles (28:19).
While the editors of bible translations assert that Matthew is quoting Mic 5:2 (actually Mic 5:1 in the Hebrew text) in Matthew 2:6, this is incorrect—he’s actually “splicing” two texts together (he does this quite a few times throughout his Gospel), viz., Mic 5:2 and 1 Sam 5:2. By doing this he accomplishes a couple of things. First, he emphasizes (as he did in the genealogy) Jesus’ Davidic lineage: Davidic ancestry is part of the Mic 5:2 prophecy, while 1 Sam 5:2 is God’s own words to David. Second, using 1 Sam 5:2 enables Matthew to introduce the idea/belief that Jesus is Israel’s “Shepherd”: he has come to shepherd “[God’s] people Israel” (2:6d). Again, how exactly Jesus does this will be evident as the Gospel story goes along.
Scholars have long noted how Matthew’s birth and infancy narratives closely resemble the birth and infancy narratives of Moses. Let’s take a look . . .
When King Herod learns that a child has been born king of the Jews he secretly plots the child’s destruction (2:13c). But Jesus’ father flees with the baby to Egypt (2:13b). When Herod discovers he’s been duped by the magi, he gives orders to kill all the male children under the age of 2 (2:16). For devout Jewish and/or Christian readers, Matthew’s plot would sound all too familiar: when Pharaoh, king of Egypt, suspects that the Jews may align with his enemies he gives orders for all newborn males be killed (Exod 1:10, 16). The baby Moses, however, is spared this fate b/c of the actions of his parents (Exod 2:1-10). That Matthew specifically has this story in mind as he’s writing his Gospel becomes crystal clear when he writes in 2:20b that “those seeking his life are dead.” The Greek of Matt 2:20b is virtually identical to Exod 4:19 in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible [see an earlier blog])—which basically became the “OT” for the early Christians—“all those seeking his life are dead.”
I think Matthew uses this Mosaic imagery for 2 reasons. First, Moses is indivisibly tied to the Exodus: Moses was Israel’s great deliverer, who led God’s people out of Egypt—i.e., the Exodus. Thus for Matthew, Jesus is like Moses in that Jesus will also deliver (“save”) God’s people from their afflictions. Second, Matthew shows that he does not believe that Jesus stands opposed to Moses—contrary to the view of Jesus’ opponents. The religious authorities attacked Jesus, believing he undermined the authority of Moses and the Mosaic Law. But this was not the case. Matthew brings Jesus and Moses together, so to speak, and holds them together—albeit in tension with each other. For Matthew, Moses’ authority for Israel only pointed to the ultimate authority of Jesus. In other words, Jesus should not be perceived as being opposed to Moses’ but to be obeyed more b/c his authority is superior to Moses’; rather, their respective authority is aligned with the other—but Jesus’ authority fills out Moses’ authority in a way that Moses never could have. Moses’ authority only looked forward to or anticipated, in a prophetic way, someone with ultimate authority from God: Jesus. So, to obey Jesus is to obey the Law of Moses (for they are in agreement—at least for Matthew).
Closely related to Matthew’s Moses/Exodus imagery in these narratives is the Exile imagery, which climaxes in Matthew’s quote of Jer 31:15 in Matt 2:18. For Matthew, the slaughter of the Jews during the Babylonian Exile (depicted in Jeremiah) finds its ultimate fulfilment or prophetic significance in the slaughter of babies under King Herod. Jesus, however, providentially escapes this fate and eventually lands in Nazareth, where he grows up.
Thus, at the end of chapter 2, Matthew leaves the reader anticipating the coming of another deliverer—like Moses—to save God’s people out of their afflictions, and to lead them out of their spiritual exile. This exit from exile motif begins chapter 3 . . .
Matthew: 1
So now we come to my favourite Gospel. Let me just offer a few things by way of background to examining Matthew. As I said earlier, when the Christian canon was being put together it was thought that Matthew was the earliest/first of the four Gospels: hence, its placement in the NT. Scholars have since recognized that Matthew was likely written second, probably between AD 75 and 85, that Matthew used the Gospel of Mark and the lost Gospel Q (see earlier blog, “Getting the Gospels”), and that he wrote independently of Luke.
One of the major reasons that the early Christians thought Matthew was written first was b/c it’s the most Jewish sounding of all the Gospels (although John’s Gospel also has quite a Jewish feel to it). Most scholars (though not all by any means) believe that Matthew’s Gospel was written by a Palestinian Jewish follower of Jesus; some of the reasons: his extensive use of the Jewish scriptures and Jewish themes, his extensive use of the Mosaic Law, and his rather Jewish use of the shepherd metaphor. His original audience/first readers were probably communities of Jewish/Jewish-oriented believers, located between Galilee and Syrian Antioch.
There quite a few different ways Matthean scholars have subdivided the Gospel, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. For the sake of expediency, I’m going to examine Matthew according to the following 6 sections: the introduction (chaps. 1-2), the proclamation of the Kingdom in words (chaps. 3-7), the proclamation of the Kingdom in deeds (chaps. 8-10), Jesus’ teaching, deeds and rising opposition in Galilee (chaps. 11-18), Jesus’ teaching and deeds in Jerusalem (19-25), and Jesus’ passion and resurrection (chaps. 26-28). First, let’s look at Matthew’s intro.
The “intro of the intro” would be Matt 1:1-17: the genealogy. The title/heading of the genealogy (possibly the whole Gospel) is Matt 1:1. Matthew introduces Jesus using three Christological titles. What is the significance of these of these particular Christological titles for Matthew? Well, for “Christ” (Greek)/“Messiah” (Hebrew), refer to my first blog on Mark’s Gospel—it would basically hold the same relevance for Matthew. The significance of “Son of Abraham” is this: God made a covenant with Abraham (Gen 12:1-3, 7a); well, Jesus is the fulfilment of this covenant: he is “the seed” to whom God ultimately referred. He is also the “fulfiller” of God’s promise to Abraham; that is, God promised Abraham that blessing would come to the nations/Gentiles through him, i.e., through God fulfilling the promise he made to Abraham. Well, b/c of Jesus—his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension—now Gentiles can be included in that promise, by placing their trust in Jesus as the Christ (cf. Paul’s letters to the Romans and the Galatians). This title, then, would correspond to the command in Matt 28:19, to make disciples of “all the nations/Gentiles.”
That Jesus is the “Son of David” is of special importance for Matthew. God promised King David that his throne would endure forever (2 Sam 7:11-16). The importance of Davidic lineage becomes emphasized in the Prophets, e.g., Isa 9:6-7, Ezek 34:22-24. It is also emphasized in later Jewish writings, e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls. In Jesus this promise is fulfilled b/c Jesus’ lineage can be traced back to David, making him his son genealogically. Matthew’s motif of Jesus being the Son of David, then, gives further evidence of his strong Jewish orientation.
Why does Matthew’s story of Jesus begin with a genealogy? Well, in the Ancient Near East, lineage counts: knowing where you came from. It was particularly important for the priesthood and the monarchy: typically, only the sons of priests could become priests, and only the sons of kings could become kings. Matthew’s genealogy subtly yet purposefully stresses Jesus’ connection to King David and to his throne. First, David is introduced in the genealogy as “David the King” (Matt 1:6). Second, the name “David” receives mention 5 times within the genealogy rather than just twice (or thrice in the case of Abraham). Third, Matthew uses David as a kind of pivot point for the genealogy (Matt 1:17). Lastly, he structures the genealogy in terms of the number 14 (1:17). In Hebrew, letters pull double duty as numbers (it would be like in English, using ‘A’ for ‘1’, ‘B’ for ‘2’, etc.); well, the letters of “David” add up to . . . 14! Hence, for Matthew Jesus really is great David’s even greater Son! In the rest of the intro, Matthew compares David’s greater Son to the great prophet, Moses . . .
Mark: 4
If the passion narrative is the climax of the Gospel, then the “climax of the climax” is the resurrection. Let me offer a few highlights from this final section of Mark.
While critics often attack the bible and Christianity as being patriarchal and as having a low view of women, I find it fascinating that women are actually portrayed in rather positive ways. Sometimes this portrayal is subtle and easily missed: like here. Who are the first people to go to Jesus’ tomb? Women (Mark 16:1-2); not a man in sight—only an angel (who only manifests as a man). What happened to all the men? They all fell away—just as Jesus predicted, remember (Mark 14:50-52, 72)?
I think it’s significant how the women learn of Jesus’ resurrection: it’s not by self-discovery but by angelic proclamation (Mark 16:4-6). I believe this is important for a few reasons. First, the angelic proclamation emphasizes the magnitude of the event. See, not everything that happens in the bible gets announced by angels—even some of the important things: creation was never angelically announced; the coming of Moses to rescue the Israelites; the crowning of David as king; the arrival of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Some big things get announced, of course, but it’s not automatic. The resurrection of Jesus receives angelic proclamation. Second, given the magnitude of the resurrection, it was necessary that it received some sort of divine revelation or corroboration rather than being based simply on human deduction. Third, as I mentioned when we first began exploring Mark, angelic proclamation of the resurrection fits with Mark’s motif of verbal proclamation (i.e., the importance it should hold for his readers).
This leads to the (short) ending in v. 8. The angel orders the women to go and tell Jesus’ disciples (Mark 16:7); but instead, “Trembling and bewildered, the woman went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone because they were afraid” (v. 8). I talked about the short ending of Mark (vv. 1-8) vs. the long ending (vv. 1-8 + vv. 9-20) back in “NT Origins” and text criticism, so I’m not going to rehash all of that again. Instead, having gone through Mark I want to look at why this short ending actually fits better with the previous narrative and with the social historical context of the Gospel than the long ending does.
In terms of previous narrative, that the women say nothing to anyone (16:8b) fits well with Jesus’ previous imperatives to say nothing to anyone (Mark 1:34; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26, 30). In terms of the social historical context a few things can be said. First, Mark’s audience already knew how the story went: they knew that the disciples went every telling everyone about the resurrection (cf. the book of Acts). This would have been self-evident (i.e., to someone living in the 70s [AD]): how else do you think the Roman readers became Christians in the first place? But, while they knew what these women and the 11 disciples did after the resurrection, the short ending of Mark in v. 8 would still have felt somewhat jarring (as it still feels to us today). Why would Mark end his story in this abrupt way? I think because it serves as an invitation or a challenge to the reader/audience. Remember in the first Mark blog I talked about the background of Mark, viz., Roman persecution. The Roman Empire had begun to persecute Christians, e.g., just prior to the writing of Mark, Peter and Paul had been martyred. So, given the situation for these Christians living in Rome—the capital of the Empire—would it have been an easy thing to share their faith with others? Let’s face it, under easy, breezy conditions it’s difficult to share about Jesus with unbelievers! Mark tells us that the women were afraid to share the good news about Jesus with anybody—and he ends it at that. Herein lies the implicit invitation or challenge to the original audience: are you (Christians living in Rome) going to follow suit (of the women of the story)? Because of the threats of persecution, are you going to follow their example and say nothing to anyone? I actually think that this represents a pretty pastorally sensitive way to challenge a community in crisis to share their faith despite threats of personal security. That’s Mark’s Gospel in a nutshell.
Let me conclude our look at Mark with a brief overview of some themes. The first and most obvious theme is his Christology—i.e., Mark’s view of whom he believed Jesus to be. For Mark Jesus is the Son of God in the obvious sense: he possesses divine authority (e.g., he could do miracles), he is a royal figure (e.g., the “king of the Jews/Israel”), and the scriptures spoke of him. But Jesus is also the Son of God in a not so obvious sense, viz., he is the suffering servant—the one who came from God to suffer and die on the cross.
Another theme for Mark is discipleship. Here, Mark shows that Jesus’ followers will suffer like Jesus—that Jesus, being the Suffering Servant/Messiah, serves as a paradigm for his followers in terms of the suffering they will experience as his followers. Also, the context for discipleship is hope: while Jesus’ twelve disciples were often dimwitted and slow to believe, from the audience’s post AD 70 perspective, they know that the disciples eventually got it right in the end. So there’s hope for the rest of us folks, too.
Another important theme (as I’ve previously mentioned) is the verbal proclamation of the good news of Jesus. Jesus’ followers ought to be committed—even during times of religious persecution—to proclaiming who Jesus is and what he did.
Next up: we’ll move from the first Gospel chronologically to the first Gospel canonically: Matthew.
Mark: 3
We now come to the final section of Mark. Mark’s Gospel has been called a Passion story (chaps. 14-16) with an extended introduction (i.e., chaps. 1-13). Clearly the climax of the Gospel is Jesus’ death and resurrection (14:1-16:8). Let me highlight a few things.
On the night Jesus was betrayed a woman comes to where he and the disciples are staying, and she anoints him with expensive perfume (Mark 14:3). While some of the disciples were indignant of such “waste,” Jesus reveals the true symbolism of her actions: viz., she’s preparing him for his impending burial (Mark 14:8). Clearly for Judas, enough is enough: Jesus is not who he thought he was (unlike the Chicago Bears), so he decides to make a quick buck-and-a-bit and betray Jesus (Mark 14:10-11). During their final Passover meal together, Jesus again predicts his death and resurrection, as well as his disciples’ falling away during the moment of trial (Mark 14:26-31).
Afterward, we get a window into Jesus’ inner turmoil when he goes to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray (14:32-42). Despite knowing the outcome of what lies ahead, Jesus nevertheless agonizes over the path he must walk, and even seeks support from his three lead disciples (Mark 14:32-34). When he is arrested (with Judas the betrayer leading the way), his disciples flee and deny knowing him—just as he had predicted (Mark 14:50-52, 66-72).
The Jewish council charges Jesus with blasphemy and consequently, condemn him to death (14:55-65). It’s important to see that the religious leaders condemn him of blasphemy (Mark 14:61-64), a charge which Jesus never rebuffs. Some people claim that Jesus and his earliest followers never believed that he was divine—it was only much later that Christians asserted this. Not true! The Council asks him, “Are you the Christ/Messiah?” Jesus answers by quoting Dan 7:13 (Mark 14:62), and implicitly identifies himself as the “Son of Man” in Dan 7:13-14—a figure who in Daniel is worshiped (rightly) as God. To claim to be that Son of Man is blasphemy . . . i.e., if you’re not God. If Jesus didn’t think he was God, he could have easily set the record straight: “Hey, you guys misunderstand me! I’m not saying that I’m God—only that God has sent me to teach the way.” If he had said something like that then he couldn’t have been charged with blasphemy. But he didn’t. He didn’t b/c his accusers correctly understood his claims: Jesus was claiming to be God, which is blasphemy—that is, if he wasn’t God.
So the Jewish council hands Jesus over to Pilate, who was appointed by Rome to be the political leader of the Jews, and he ends up sentencing Jesus to death (15:1-15). After a tremendous amount of scourging Jesus is crucified (15:16-41). There’s irony in the Passion narrative. For example, Jesus is frequently called the king of the Jews (Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 26, 32), but the people who witnessed the event were only being sarcastic; the reader of Mark, however, knows better: Jesus truly is the King of the Jews (and then some!). The inner curtain of the temple is torn in two (15:38), which symbolized the impending judgment against the temple: the temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. The tearing of the temple curtain also symbolized the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice: the former ways to gain access to the holy of holies has been abolished; there is now but one way: Jesus (cf. Heb 9:11-12).
Remember how the Gospel began? “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). The title, “son of God” now comes full circle: the Roman centurion who witnesses Jesus’ death on the cross confesses, “Surely this man was the Son of God” (15:39). There are a few things to note here. First, the man who makes this confession is a Gentile. Jesus came to the Jews, but aside from Peter’s semi-private confession of Jesus as the Messiah, the first person to profess publicly that Jesus is the “Son of God” is a Gentile and not a Jew. Second, he makes this confession not based on Jesus’ teachings, nor on his miracles, but based on the way Jesus died: presumably, in contrast to the loud misery in which people died by crucifixion, Jesus dies with a great deal of dignity and inner strength. Third, it’s significant that a Roman centurion confesses Jesus to be “the son of God” (Mark 15:39). If you remember in a past blog entry (“Background Check”), I talked about Roman Imperial Theology; one of the planks of RIT is the belief that the Roman Emperor was the son of God. This Roman centurion—a soldier who faithfully served the Emperor and the Empire—now confesses that it is Jesus, a Jew, who is actually the son of God! Fourth, this confession is all the more significant if Mark seeks to address Christians in Rome, who are being persecuted by the Roman Empire.
Then comes the resurrection . . . which we’ll look at next.
Mark: 2
In the 2nd section of his Gospel, Mark deals with Jesus’ public ministry (1:16-8:26). Here Mark showcases Jesus’ divine authority. Jesus’ authority is evidenced by people obeying his call to follow him (Mark 1:16-20; Mark 2:14)—people left behind even family and their occupations in order to follow him. His authority is evidenced by his teaching: those who heard him were amazed b/c he taught with such authority—especially compared to their other teachers (Mark 1:21-22). Jesus had the authority to cast out demons (Mark 1:23-28; Mark 1:32-34; cf. Mark 5:1-20); people were amazed that unclean spirits obeyed him (Mark 1:27). He had authority over diseases (his authority to forgive sins was evident by his authority to heal [see Mark 2:5-12]). He had authority over nature: e.g., storms (Mark 4:35-41), food (Mark 4:33-44; 8:1-13), and water (Mark 6:45-52). Jesus stands as Lord over the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-3:6), and offers his authority to his disciples so that they too can preach with authority and cast out demons (Mark 3:13-19; Mark 6:7).
Not everyone, however, recognized or accepted Jesus’ authority. During his public ministry Jesus’ authority is doubted, disputed, and challenged. The Pharisees challenge Jesus’ authority over the Sabbath, plotting to kill him after he demonstrates his authority over the Sabbath by healing someone on that day (Mark 3:1-6). The scribes (experts in the Mosaic Law) deny that he has real authority over demons; rather, he casts out demons b/c demons are at work in him (Mark 3:20-22, 30). Even the people of his hometown doubt that he has the power to do the miracles they have heard about him (Mark 6:1-6). The scribes and Pharisees also challenge his dismissal of their oral tradition (Mark 7:1-5).
In the 3rd section of the Gospel, Mark deals with Jesus’ instructions to his disciples (8:27-13:37). This section begins with what serves as the turning point of the story: Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah (Mark 8:27-31). Jesus, on the one hand, orders his disciples not to tell anyone that he is the Messiah (Mark 8:30). Jesus’ forbidding of people to tell others that he is the Messiah is a recurring motif in Mark (e.g., Mark 8:26; Mark 7:36; Mark 5:43; Mark 3:12; Mark 1:34). Some scholars have referred to this motif as Mark’s “Messianic Secret,” and misconstrue it to assert that either Jesus didn’t think he was really the Messiah, or that he didn’t want anyone to know he was the Messiah—other than his disciples. Rather, Jesus’ concern is that his followers would proclaim the gospel only when they understand him/it more fully, i.e., post-resurrection, when much of their confusion and many ambiguities were cleared up; more about this when we revisit the “short ending” of Mark.
On the other hand, Jesus reveals what kind of Christ/Messiah he is: he is one who came to suffer and die (on the cross), and rise from the dead (Mark 8:31). Although Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, his rejection of Jesus’ rejection (Mark 8:32) demonstrates how partial his understanding of Jesus and his messianic mission was. Here again is another motif: the disciples’ misunderstanding of Jesus and his mission—for which Jesus or Mark/the narrator regularly rebuke their shallow understanding (e.g., Mark 4:40; Mark 6:52; Mark 8:17).
The magnitude of the disciples’ confession is heightened by the episode of the “transfiguration” (Mark 9:1-13). Jesus’ physical appearance is transfigured; that is, his clothes are made dazzlingly radiant (Mark 9:2-3). This physical glorification of Jesus’ apparel will foreshadow what happens when he returns: he’ll appear in the clouds in great power and brilliant glory (Mark 13:26). Of all the OT prophets why do Elijah and Moses appear with Jesus (Mark 9:4)? Here are some possible reasons. Elijah is an eschatological figure in the prophetic books: he is associated with the End and with God’s activity in the End (e.g., Mal 4:5-6). Jesus represents the beginning of the End, and his transfiguration signifies that his death, burial, and resurrection—which will start the clock ticking—is close by (from the standpoint of the Gospel’s plot/narrative). Also, Jesus is depicted by the Gospel writers as ushering in the New Covenant which replaces the Old one—which is typified by Moses. So the Old Covenant is about to come to an end and the era of the New Covenant is about to begin. More could be said but I’ll leave it at that.
Once again, Peter’s response to the transfiguration is one of confusion: he wants to build a shelter for each of Jesus, Moses, and Elijah (Mark 9:5); his view is erroneous: he seems to put all 3 people at the same level of authority. Hence, God corrects Peter (Mark 9:7; which is an echo of Mark 1:11—which affirmed Jesus’ unique identity). Literally God says, “THIS ONE is my beloved son, listen to HIM.” The emphasis, then, is on Jesus being greater than the other two figures. Consequently, when the disciples looked around they saw no one except “Jesus alone” (Mark 9:8).
Afterward, Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem. On the way he continues to predict his suffering and death, and his rising from the dead (Mark 9:30-32; Mark 10:33-34). He heals people (9:14-29; 10:46-52); he also gives instructions about various aspects of discipleship (loyalty, divorce, obedience).
When he reaches Jerusalem, it is to adoring crowds (Mark 11:1-10). But despite the adulation of the crowds, he symbolically predicts (via the fig tree incident) that the Jewish nation is headed for divine judgment b/c it has failed to bear the necessary moral fruit (Mark 11:12-14, 20-21). Jesus goes onto to confront the religious leaders because, among other things, of their temple infractions: he cleanses the temple because it had become a place of corruption (Mark 11:15-18). Jesus accuses the religious leaders of failing the nation: they failed to recognize the divine authority of his own ministry and even of that of his preparer, John the Baptist (Mark 11:27-33). In doing so they’ve effectively plotted against God (Mark 12:1-12). Their misunderstanding of the Law and the Prophets has kept them from seeing the true point of the scriptures (12:18-33), and from recognizing Jesus’ unique identity as God’s son (Mark 12:35-37).
The climax of his teaching in Jerusalem is the so called, “Olivet Discourse” (b/c he gives it while on the Mount of Olives [13:1-37]), where he reveals what the future holds for the temple and for his followers. Here Jesus essentially states that he will come again—this time in indisputable divine glory (as foreshadowed by the transfiguration)—to judge the nations (Mark 13:24-27). In the mean time, the “in-between” time, his followers can expect to be persecuted (Mark 13:9), and Jerusalem destroyed (13:1-2, 14). Jesus’ charge to his followers while they await his 2nd coming is to live responsibly—like someone who will have to give an account of their life (13:28-37).
MARK: 1
You were probably expecting to cover Matthew 1st, but we’re actually going do Mark first; two reasons: one, it’s the 1st Gospel written (as previously mentioned a few entries ago), and two, I’m simply trying to think a bit outside of the box.
Just a few things about specific background info re. Mark (oh no, more background!). Most scholars believe it was written around AD 68-73. This would mean that it was written during the turbulent times of the first Jewish Revolt: Rome was exerting great force against its Jewish constituents on the one hand, and during Nero’s reign the Empire had begun to persecute Christians (it was during Nero’s reign that Peter and Paul, for example, were martyred) on the other. So, the persecution of Christians would be the backdrop for Mark’s Gospel.
The author, “Mark,” was probably a Palestinian Jewish Christian, based on his extensive use of the Jewish scriptures and Jewish themes, as well as his use of the shepherd metaphor (don’t ask!). He was probably writing to predominantly Gentile Christians living in Rome. Some reasons for thinking this: Mark’s use of Latinisms (e.g., “Praetorium”), and his explanations of Jewish customs (they would have been foreign to most Gentiles).
OK, to the text. Mark’s Gospel subdivides into 4 sections: the introduction (1:1-15), Jesus’ public ministry (1:16-8:26), Jesus’ instructions to his disciples (8:27-13:37), and his death and resurrection (14:1-16:8). In this entry I’ll focus on the first section, the introduction. Please note: I’m never going to pour over each and every verse of a text, I’m simply going to pull some things out within a given passage. But feel free to ask questions of verses I didn’t cover that tweek your interest; I’ll answer them (or die trying)!
The intro is Mark 1:1-15; it basically sets up the rest of Mark’s story of Jesus. He opens with the “The beginning of the gospel.” Remember a few entries back: “gospel” does not refer to Mark’s written Gospel, but to the proclamation of or preaching about Jesus Christ. Notice how the introduction is cast in terms of verbal proclamation (Mark 1:1a, 4b, 7a, 14b, 15b). Verbal proclamation is a recurring motif throughout Mark. This reflects the importance Mark places on the message of Jesus (who he is and what he did). This also reflects the importance Mark places on preaching the good news, especially in light of the social-historical background of the text, viz., persecution (this will prove to be important when down the road we revisit the “short ending” of Mark).
The proclamation of Jesus Christ actually begins with the ministry of John the Baptist (Mark 1:4-11). John’s ministry was forecast in the scriptures (Mark 1:2-3). He was a prophet who testified of Jesus before Jesus began his own public ministry. Through his preaching he prepared the way for Jesus’ ministry; viz., John brought Israelites to repentance (Mark 1:4-5), in expectation for the coming Messiah (Mark 1:7-8). And as soon as John’s ministry is over Jesus’ ministry begins (Mark 1:14).
Mark introduces Jesus as “Christ” and as “the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). “Christ” is the English translation of the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word translated “messiah” (did you get all that?). “Messiah” means “anointed one”—typically, to be anointed with oil. In the OT, Israel’s high priest (think Aaron) and its king (think David) were anointed with oil. After the Babylonian Exile, however, the term was applied to a future deliverer who would rescue Israel from its oppression at the hands of its enemies. When you read the writings of early Jews (i.e., a century or two before the coming of Jesus), it’s clear that Jews had different views of what to expect from their future deliverer (i.e., the Christ/Messiah). Some groups thought he would be a warrior-king; others believed he would be a cosmic judge; still others a priestly ruler. The question Mark seeks to answer for his audience, then, is, what kind of Christ is Jesus?
“Son of God” was a very familiar term for both Jews and Roman Gentiles. For Jews Israel was the son of God (e.g., Exod 4:22-23; Hos 11:1), the king of Israel was the son of God (2 Sam 7:12-14; Ps 2:6-7), and angels were sons of God (e.g., Job 38:4-7). For Romans, the emperor of the Roman Empire was the son of God, i.e., a son of the gods. Thus, the other question Mark seeks to answer for his audience is, what kind of son of God is Jesus? The rest of Mark’s story will unpack for the reader what kind of “Christ” Jesus is and what kind of “Son of God” he is, beginning with Jesus’ baptism: God affirms Jesus’ identity as his “beloved Son” (Mark 1:10-11)—Jesus is the one true and ultimate son of God, in a way like no other (as the rest of Mark’s story shall demonstrate).