Any hermeneutic that locates revelation primarily in the past is inevitably pessimistic. The very passing of time, which is definitive of history, distances us from the significant event and places us at an ever-greater disadvantage. The sentiment that accompanies such a perspective is the suspicion that we are missing something: if only we had been there, we would understand better. The hermeneutic that undergirds narrative criticism challenges this prejudice. Revelation is given through the story, which remains with us today. We are, in fact, in a privileged position, for the story interprets the events for us in ways that we might never have grasped if we had simply been there to witness them transpire in history.[1]
LITERARY CRITICISM
This essay details the three major divisions in the Gospel of Matthew in order to understand more clearly as to whom the false prophets are that Jesus warns His disciples about. The phrase "false prophet" is employed from Matthew's Gospel in order to justify separation from other believers when viewpoints do not often agree. To accomplish this objective of identification of the false prophets, then literary techniques are employed to capture the conflict that envelops the whole of Matthew’s Gospel. This overall analysis of the principles of literary interpretation should assist one in identifying the false prophets in the three different occurrences of the phrase by Jesus. The identity of Jesus is the focal point of all three major sections in Matthew. This study draws attention to the various viewpoints espoused by the God, and the civil/religious leaders in Israel. This critical analysis reveals that unethical behavior and a denial that Jesus is the Son of God calls forth the epithet “false prophets.”
Since God’s revelation is given in story form to His people, this form of communication enables them to arrive at a more precise identification of false prophets in the Gospel of Matthew. One can read the narrative by Matthew and follow the plot for an accurate description of the misleading instructors.[2] This detailed study is an overview of the Gospel from a literary perspective. This literary exploration explores the principles of exposition through the means of narrative investigation. Literary criticism controls the looseness that is frequently employed in the investigation of a solitary phrase.[3]
Literary criticism recognizes that a single text or multiple texts are a part of a larger whole. The three occurrences of “false prophets” in the Gospel of Matthew[4] can be properly exegeted when they are considered fragments of a continuous composition. Hayes and Holladay have correctly stated: “In attempting to understand a particular text, the exegete should seek to see the text within the structure of the major context as well as within the structure of the sub-units.”[5] When the reader posses questions about the literary placement of certain passages, he/she is able to arrive at certain conclusions that might otherwise be missed. Literary analysis of a text helps one to focus more closely upon the individual texts. This form of interpretation assists one in grasping more fully the intent of the author.
This philosophy of interpretation dealing with the complete text is thoroughly worked out by Mark Allen Powell in his study guide on narrative criticism.[6] He points out justly so that "Literary criticism focuses on the finished form of the text."[7] Again, Powell states the matter even more firmly, "Literary analysis does not dissect the text but discerns the connecting threads that hold it together."[8] Dissecting the text from its context contributes often times to an improper application of the text.[9] The goal of literary criticism is to read the text as the implied reader[10] read the text.
The implied reader may know things that are not in the text. But, on the other hand, the real reader frequently consults outside reading in order to understand the text more fully.[11] Seymour Chatman in drawing attention to the meaning of the implied reader puts it this way: “The counterpart of the implied author is the implied reader—not the flesh-and-bones you or I sitting in our living rooms reading the book, but the audience presupposed by the narrative itself.”[12] Narrative criticism helps to narrow the gap between the real reader and the implied reader.[13] This chapter (4) is a narrative construction of Matthew’s gospel in order to try to comprehend as clearly as possible the discernment of the implied reader (original reader) as to who the false prophets are in the Gospel of Matthew.
Plot
As one begins to read the narrative penned by Matthew, one is immediately made aware that there is a plot. Whenever one has a plot, one has a story.[14] Chatman defines story as consisting of two parts—story and discourse.[15] For Chatman story has to do with a chain of events (actions, happenings) whereas discourse is the means by which the story (content) is communicated.[16] Jack Kingsbury, adopting the definition of Chatman, applies this concept to the story of Matthew’s narrative by demonstrating that “The ‘story’ of Matthew is of the life of Jesus from conception and birth to death and resurrection.”[17] On the other hand, Kingsbury in his differentiation between story and discourse says, “The ‘discourse’ of Matthew is the means whereby this story of Jesus’ life is told.”[18] In other words, the story is what is told whereas discourse is how the story is told.[19] E. M. Forster as early as 1927 says, “a story is a narrative of events arranged in time sequence.”[20] This arrangement of events is self-evident when one looks at the Gospel of Matthew as story.
Chatman also describes a story as consisting of three parts—events, characters, and settings.[21] The events are the strings of movements that stretch out from the beginning to the end of the story; in other words, the events cover the whole distance of the report. One dominant trait in Matthew is the reporting of conflict (events) between Jesus and the religious leaders. It is these events that comprise the plot, or flow, of the narration. An understanding of plot can deepen one’s understanding of who the false prophets were in the Gospel of Matthew. Morner and Rausch thoughtfully define plot as
The careful arrangement by an author of INCIDENTS in a NARRATIVE to achieve a desired effect. Plot is more than simply the series of happenings in a literary work. It is the result of the writer’s deliberate selection of interrelated actions (what happens) and choice of arrangement (the order of happening) in presenting and resolving a CONFLICT.[22]
One cannot read Matthew’s story[23] and not observe his choice of arrangements in presenting his story of conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders. Matthew foreshadows the hostility between Jesus and the leaders of Israel in his first section (1:1—4:16); next, he describes indirect collision (4:17—11:1); then he pictures direct confrontation (11:2—16:20); and, finally the friction is resolved in the crucifixion of Jesus (16:21—28:20). An understanding of plot (sequence of events) facilitates comprehension of the whole. There is a difference between story and plot. Forster’s comments on this distinction are worthy of citation.
We have defined a story as a narrative of events arranged in their time sequence. A plot is also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality. “The king died and then the queen died” is a story. “The king died, and then the queen died of grief” is a plot. The time-sequence is preserved, but the sense of causality overshadows it.[24]
In the development of plot, one recognizes the translating of characters into action.[25] In the plot of Matthew’s story, conflict exists between two opposing forces—Jesus and the religious leaders. Matthew’s plot structure begins with exposition (important background information), and then develops the build-up of tension between opposing forces and finally the plot arrangement reaches a climax in its resolution of the conflict—the death of Jesus.[26] In narrative writing, there is a beginning, middle, and end to plot.[27]
Point of View
In examining plot in Matthew’s story, one is immediately confronted with various evaluative points of view about the identity of Jesus.[28] “The notion of point of view is a pervasive one in narrative criticism,” says Powell.[29] There is a contrast in the book of Matthew between God’s point of view and the religious leaders’ point of view concerning the identity of Jesus. One also observes other points of view concerning the crowds. If one’s point of view does not harmonize with God’s point of view as revealed in Matthew 3:17 and 17:5, then that individual is not thinking the things of God, but rather the things of men (16:23).[30]
As one peruses the book of Matthew, one
cannot help but observe various points-of-view about Jesus?[31] One encounters Matthew’s point of view about
Jesus in the prologue (chapters 1 and 2).
Also in the prologue, Matthew gives a foretaste of the religious
leaders’ point-of-view about Jesus.[32] Following the baptism of Jesus, Matthew
reveals God’s point-of-view about who Jesus really is. Throughout the Gospel of Matthew, one is
confronted over and over with various points of view as to who Jesus really
is.
As one moves from the disciples to the Jewish crowds and then to the
religious leaders, one observes the degree to which each group deviates from
thinking the things of God to thinking the things of men. Matthew records one such example in which
one of the disciples did not think the things of God. For instance, he informs his readers that as Jesus begins His
journey to Jerusalem to die for the sins of mankind that He rebukes Peter for
not having in mind the thinking of God.
Matthew records this encounter: “Jesus turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a
stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the
things of men’” (16:23). In other words,
Peter did not think the things of God concerning the necessity of the
atonement, but rather the things of men in his seeking to prevent God’s purpose
for the salvation of mankind through the sacrificial offering of Jesus for the
sins of the world.
One purpose of
this chapter is to investigate the various view points set forth by the
numerous characters in the Gospel of Matthew to see how well the characters’
point of view coincides with that of God’s.
In order to accomplish this target, it is necessary to cover briefly the
structure of Matthew’s history of salvation.
This chapter will reveal that the religious leaders’ point of view was
in direct opposition to God’s point of view.
This rejection of God’s point of view by the leaders of Israel called
forth from Jesus the epithet—false prophets.
There are three broad segments in Matthew’s gospel.[33] The three segments are: (1) The unveiling of
Jesus’ identity [1:1—4:16];[34] (2) The ministry of Jesus to Israel and
Israel’s repudiation of Jesus [4:17—16:20];[35]
and (3) The pilgrimage of Jesus to Jerusalem, which also includes an account of
His crucifixion, burial, and resurrection [16:21—28:20].[36] It appears that Matthew employs a formula to
signal the beginning of each new part.
For example, he says, following the end of segment one: “From that
time on Jesus began to preach” (4:17) and with the beginning of
section three: “From that time on Jesus began to explain” (16:21). Did Matthew intend to call attention to
important turns in his story? If so,
this gives rise to the above outline.[37]
It seems appropriate to analyze the book of
Matthew from the perspective of three major divisions to more clearly grasp the
development of conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders. Even if this division is not the real intent
of Matthew, nevertheless, this three-part partition can still assist one in
understanding the Word of God more clearly.
As the reader advances through the three groupings, it will become
apparent that there is progression in the story of Jesus. In the first part (1:1—4:16), Matthew
foreshadows[38] the
conflict with the religious leaders who are also called false prophets in 7:15. In Part Two (4:17—16:20) the conflict
with the religious leaders begin, but with Part Three (16:21—28:20) the
confrontation with the religious leaders escalates to the point of their
putting Him to death (26:57-67; 27:32-55).[39]
FIRST
MAJOR SECTION: 1:1—4:16
The aim of this first section is to “present
Jesus to the reader so that he/she will know throughout the rest of the story
precisely who Jesus is.”[40]
As one approaches this first section (1:1—4:16), there does
appear to be literary unity from beginning to end. For example, consider the following scenario that testifies to
the unity of 1:1—4:16.
For instance, the formula quotation in Matthew 2:23 is linked to the formula quotation in 4:12-16 through the naming of the geographical location
of His ministry:
·
“And
he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets:
‘He will be called a Nazarene.’”
·
“When
Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he returned to Galilee. Leaving
Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of
Zebulun and Naphtali—to fulfill
what was said through the prophet Isaiah: “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the way to the sea, along the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people living
in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow
of death a light has dawned.”
These three citations (2:23; 4:12-16;
2:15)
along with the baptismal declaration (3:17) declare the unity of
1:1—4:16. The baptismal
declaration reads: “And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love;
with him I am well pleased.’” This
passage (3:17) is foreshadowed by the prophecy in 2:15. Also, 4:12-16 is reflective of the
fulfillment prediction in 2:23. The identity of Jesus also acts as glue that
gives cohesion to Part One. This
section (1:1—4:16) also foreshadows the false prophets that Jesus addresses
in His Sermon on the Mount as well as His eschatological discourse (Chapter 24).
THE IDENTITY OF JESUS
God’s
Evaluative Point of View
In this first section (1:1—4:16), Matthew
unveils Jesus’ identity. In this
division, one finds the most climatic statement regarding the identity of
Jesus. The ultimate declaration as to
the identity of Jesus is from God in the baptismal scene of Jesus: “And a voice
from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased’” (3:17). In this baptismal pericope, God personally
enters the world of Matthew’s story and declares Jesus to be His Son in whom He
is pleased.[41] God in making this declaration expresses His
evaluative point of view concerning Jesus’ real identity, that is to say, how
He thinks about Jesus. For one to trace
properly the flow of Matthew’s story from beginning to end, one must consider
the first part as a major contribution to the unfolding of the Jesus
drama. Before developing God’s
evaluative point of view in more detail, it will be helpful to consider other
points of view about Jesus in this first segment.
Matthew’s point of view is that Jesus is the Son of God.[42] For example, in the prologue, Matthew sets the tone for the development of the real identity of Jesus—Jesus is the Son of God. To illustrate, Matthew, after revealing the angel’s announcement of the birth of Jesus, adds his own comments, which reveals his own point of view:
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give
him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the
Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will be with child and
will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God
with us” (1:21-23).
Matthew reveals his point of view about Jesus by citing the virgin
birth prophecy (Isaiah 7:14). This reference also discloses God’s hand in
the scheme of redemption for sinful man. Since Jesus is the supreme player,
Matthew immediately advances the Davidic and Messiah-King claims through the
genealogy (Matthew 1:1-17). Matthew lets us know that God has guided the
whole of Israel’s history in the promises He made to Abraham (Genesis
17:1-9)[43]
and David (Isaiah 11:1). Matthew informs his readers that even in the
face of the Babylonian captivity (Matthew 1:12) God was still in
control. Since Jesus as the Messiah is
the heir of Abraham and David, Matthew begins his Gospel by calling attention
to this truth: “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son
of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1). It is also
significant that in this genealogy that Matthew combines the name Jesus with
the name Christ. The name Jesus Christ
(1:1,
21) also makes
known God’s point of view as well as Matthew’s point of view.
The name Jesus
is descriptive of His mission. On the
other hand, the term Christ is descriptive of His being appointed by the
Father. Since Matthew gives the personal
name of the Messiah as Jesus (1:16), the reader
should give special attention to the importance of this name. This name assigned to Jesus is of heavenly
origin. Matthew informs us that an
angel of God instructed Joseph to name Him Jesus (1:20-21). Matthew chronicles Joseph’s response to the
angel: “He gave him the name
Jesus” (1:25). Matthew sounds the identity of Jesus through
the genealogy of names and the titles placed at the beginning of his account.
In the name Jesus, one discovers that God is
active in Him for the salvation of mankind.
Matthew not only refers to the one born in Bethlehem as Jesus, but he
also adds the title Christ for further identification. Christ is the title of Jesus, not his
name. Among all the titles assigned to
Jesus, Christ is the most general.
Matthew not only affirms in 1:1 that Jesus is the Christ, or Messiah—a
confession that Peter will later make (16:16)—but also that he
is “Son of David” and “Son of Abraham.”
Matthew includes the genealogy to assert that
God has guided the whole of Israel’s history so that it might culminate in the
birth of Jesus. For Matthew, Jesus is
the Messiah, the Son of David, and the Son of Abraham. Thus, Matthew in this first section (1:1—4:16)
sets forth his evaluative point of view as to who Jesus really is. From the
beginning of his Gospel, Matthew informs us that Jesus is Christ, and, then
concludes the final chapter of Christ’s rejection of Israel’s leaders by
recording Pilate’s question to the chief priest and elders (27:20):
‘“What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?’ Pilate asked” (27:22). Even the high priest in Jesus’ final hours
asked Him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the
Christ, the Son of God” (26:63).
Did Jesus refuse to answer the high priest because He knew that his
question was not sincere? Observe the
contrast between the Magi and the religious leaders—the Magi worshipped Him,
but the religious leaders cried out:
“Crucify him!” (27:22).
Following the birth of Jesus, the Magi from the
East arrived in Jerusalem and inquired about Him who is born “born King of the
Jews” (2:2). This phrase, “king of the Jews,” sets forth
the evaluative point of view of the Magi concerning Jesus’ identity.[44] In fact, the rest of 2:2 reads: “We saw his
star in the east and have come to worship him.” Immediately, in Matthew’s story, one quickly observes the
contrast between Herod and the Magi.
The Magi’s evaluative point of view is in harmony with God’s evaluative
point of view. Matthew begins his
Gospel with a reference to Jesus as “king of the Jews” and concludes the
passion narrative with a reference to Jesus as the “king of the Jews” (27:37).
When Jesus was brought before Pilate, he
inquired of Him to tell him if he were the “king of the Jews.” Matthew records Pilate’s question and Jesus’
answer: “Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him,
‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ ‘Yes, it is as you say,’ Jesus replied” (27:11).
Jesus response reinforces the response of the Magi. Again, in the closing scene of Jesus’
crucifixion, one finds this name over the cross: “Above his head
they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE
JEWS” (27:37).
Herod’s evaluative point of view is not in harmony with
God’s. To illustrate Herod’s point of
view, it is necessary to turn to Matthew’s prologue to observe his actions
about learning of the birth of Jesus.
Matthew says, “When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to
Joseph in a dream. Get up, he said, take the child and his mother and escape to
Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child
to kill Him” (2:13). Herod and the religious leaders are closely
tied together in this story. Matthew
sets the stage for the further development of the animosity of the leaders
against Jesus.
In this First Section (1:1—4:16), Matthew
foreshadows the rejection of Jesus by the “chief priests and the teachers
[scribes] of the law” (2:4)
when they do not respond to what they know to be true. When Herod inquired of them as to where the
Christ should be born, they responded correctly, but did not act on that
knowledge: ‘“In Bethlehem in Judea,’ they replied, ‘for this is what the
prophet has written’” (2:5). Matthew
suggests beforehand the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders that
will ultimately end in His death. As
Jesus completes His ministry to Israel, He forewarns his disciples about the
clandestine operation of the religious leaders: “From that time on Jesus began
to explain to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things
at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that He
must be killed and on the third day be raised to life” (16:21).
Again, Matthew reveals Jesus’ prediction
about His death by the leaders of Israel: “When they came together in Galilee,
he said to them, ‘The Son of Man is
going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third
day he will be raised to life.’
And the disciples were filled with grief” (17:22-23). Finally, for the third time, Jesus reveals
the evaluative point of view of the leaders in that He once more makes known
their intent to destroy Him: “Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took
the twelve disciples aside and said to them, ‘We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be
betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn
him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged
and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!’” (20:17-19).
As Matthew
concludes his Gospel, he draws attention to the religious leaders (referred to
as false prophets in 7:15 and 24:11,24) in their final
outrage against Him.
In the same way the chief priests, the
teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved
others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come
down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him
now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I
am the Son of God.’” In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also
heaped insults on him (27:41-44).
“He saved others” is reflective of 1:21; “He’s the King of Israel” is reflective of 2:2; and “I am the Son of God” is reflective of 3:17. The chief priest, the teachers of the law, nor the elders had the mind of God in their conception of Jesus.
John the Baptist’s
Evaluative Point of View
John the
Baptist’s evaluative point of view is revealed in his confrontation with the
religious leaders (Matthew 3:7-12).[45]
For example, Matthew captures John’s graphic prediction of the Coming One in
glowing terms: “I baptize you
with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than
I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy
Spirit and with fire. His
winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering
his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (3:11-12).
The chaff represents the religious leaders (false prophets) who did not share
God’s evaluative point of view.
Satan’s Evaluative Point of View
Following the baptismal scenario, even Satan acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God:
·
The
tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to
become bread” (4:3).[46]
·
Then
the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of
the temple. “If you are the
Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down” (4:5-6).
Peter’s evaluation of Jesus in 16:13-20 reflects God’s evaluative point of view
in 3:17. Matthew highlights God’s point of view
in the baptismal scene of Jesus. Apart
from Matthew’s introduction—“Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John” [3:13]—one
observes a dialogue between John and Jesus (3:14-15) and two
revelatory events that follow (3:16-17).
Following the baptism
of Jesus, one hears the voice of God: “And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am
well pleased’” (3:17). As stated above, after this acknowledgement
by God, Matthew records Jesus’ encounter with Satan (4:1-11). It is quite evident that Satan did not deny
what God stated, but he did not think the things of God. In other words, he sought to undermine God’s
way of redemption. Later in Matthew’s
story (16:21—28:20)
when Peter tried to prevent the atonement, Jesus rebuked him, because, he, too,
did not think the things of God:
“Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind
the things of God, but the things of men” (16:23).
Surely, the implied reader must have reflected back upon the temptation
scene of Jesus (4:1-12).
But Peter, prior to this rebuke, confessed
the mind of God: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16). Following this confession Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah,
for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven” (16:17).
This statement by Jesus is also reminiscent of the baptismal scene in
which God publicly declared Jesus to be His Son (3:17).
Immediately after Jesus reveals His death, Jesus takes Peter, James, and
John into the Mount of Transfiguration.
Once more, God enters the world of man and proclaims: “‘This
is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!’” (17:5).
SECOND MAJOR SECTION:
4:17—16:20
Following Matthew’s introduction to Jesus as Messiah (1:1—4:16),
he embarks upon Jesus’ ministry to the nation of Israel (4:17—11:1).[47]
Matthew calls attention to Jesus’ ministry with three passages that focus upon
His teaching, preaching, and healing (4:23; 9:35; 11:1). Just as John began his ministry with a call
to repentance, so did Jesus: “From that
time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is near” (4:17). Jesus viewed the multitudes as sheep without
a shepherd: “When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they
were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (9:36). The leaders of Israel (false prophets) had
become evil. This evil caused Jesus to
respond with: “You brood of vipers,
how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the
heart the mouth speaks” (12:34). This statement of Jesus is also an echo of John’s
denunciation of the Pharisees and Sadducees who approached John: “But
when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was
baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from
the coming wrath? Produce
fruit in keeping with repentance (3:7-8).
Jesus’ Teaching Ministry to Israel
In Jesus’ ministry to Israel, He rebukes the religious leaders for
their refusal to discern the will of God for their lives (5:20), and He also
summons the crowds to repent and believe the gospel (4:17; 4:23; 9:35; 11:1). After Jesus learns of John’s imprisonment,
He returns to Galilee to continue His ministry to Israel (4:12). Later He leaves Nazareth and lives in
Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali (4:12-13). During this period of time, He proclaims the
good news that the kingdom of heaven is near (4:17). On one occasion as Jesus walks by the Sea of
Galilee, He calls Simon Peter and Andrew (brother of Peter) to follow Him (4:18-20);
shortly thereafter, He also invites two other brothers (James and John) to
follow Him (4:21-22). Following a number of miracles by Jesus (see chapters 8 and 9),
Jesus calls Matthew to become one of His disciples (9:9-13). Then, in chapter 10, Matthew informs us that He calls
all of His disciples unto Himself (10:1-4).
Following the call of His disciples, Matthew
informs his readers that Jesus went throughout Galilee “Teaching in their
synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease
and sickness among the people” (4:23). It is significant that Matthew
repeats these three activities in 9:35 and 11:1. The third summary
of Jesus’ ministry only mentions two of the three deeds.
Matthew 4:23
|
Matthew 9:35
|
Matthew 11:1
|
|
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching
the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among
the people. |
Jesus went through all the
towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of
the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. |
After Jesus had finished
instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach
in the towns of Galilee. |
As a result of these activities, His fame spread throughout Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and the region across the Jordan (4:25). His healing ministry quickly spread all over Syria (4:24), and as a result of this healing ministry people flocked from all over the area to be healed. Matthew reports the events with these words:
News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them. Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him (4:24-25).
Immediately following this healing ministry, Jesus saw the crowds that accompanied Him and He went up on a mountain and began to teach His disciples (5:1—7:28). If one wants to understand what He taught (4:23), then one must read the Sermon on the Mount. In this Sermon, Jesus taught His disciples that repentance involves a call to responsibility. This Sermon is a direct refutation of the teachings and practices of the religious leaders (5:17-20). Following this teaching, Matthew gives a comment that is rather striking: “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law” (7:28-29). Just as in the first section of Matthew’s story (1:1—4:16), the reader is once again alerted to the hypocrisy of the leaders of Israel. The battle is about to begin but does not really take hold with increased momentum until chapter 12.
This battle of
friction was suggested beforehand in His exhortation concerning impending
persecution by the religious leaders (5:10-13) whom He later
described as false prophets (7:15).
After the Beatitudes, Jesus further warns the disciples about inner
motives for right behavior. Again Jesus
alerts His listeners to the religious leaders: “For I tell you that
unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of
the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (5:20). This statement by Jesus echoes John’s
renunciation of the Pharisees (3:7) and the
complicity of the teachers of the law with Herod (2:4).
Jesus, following His reference to the righteousness of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (scribes), pinpoints some of their teachings (5:21-48) and acts of piety (6:1-18). In calling attention to their teachings, He says, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago” (5:21a), “But I tell you” (5:22). Jesus is not contradicting the law, but rather He is setting forth the true interpretation of the law. He is not nullifying the law; that is to say, He is not setting aside the requirements of the law. If Jesus is abolishing the law as advocated by many Christians, then this interpretation contradicts Jesus’ earlier statement:
Do not think
that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish
them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not
the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear
from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least
of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in
the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be
called great in the kingdom of heaven (5:17-19).[48]
Blessed are
those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say
all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven,
for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you (5:10-12).
As stated earlier, Jesus “went
throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of
the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people” (4:23). In 4:17, Matthew reports
Jesus as saying, “Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is near.” It is through this proclamation that Jews
and Gentiles alike will be enjoined upon to decision. The question is: Will they repent and become followers of Jesus
and enter the sphere of God’s gracious Rule, or will they refuse to enter God’s
kingdom and live in the sphere of Satan’s Rules?
What does the “kingdom of heaven” mean? Does not this phrase simply call attention to the truth that God
rules? Is the kingdom of heaven
equivalent to someone saying the Rule of God, or God reigns? When John said, “the kingdom of heaven is near” (3:2), did he not denote
that the kingdom is coming near, or is approaching? John, Jesus, and the Apostles were advancing the concept that God
has drawn near. For Matthew, God draws
near in the person of Jesus Messiah, the Son of God. Matthew reports that “The virgin will be with child and will give
birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, ‘God with us’” (1:23). And in 12:28, Matthew states
Jesus’ announcement: “if I drive
out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon
you.”
The gospel of
the kingdom is about Jesus Messiah, the Son of God. The gospel of the kingdom is clear: it is the good news about
God’s way of salvation that is revealed in Jesus. The gospel is that which the angel announces to Joseph: “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give
him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (1:21).
The gospel is simply good news about God’s
way of salvation by grace through Jesus. Jesus sums up this good news in a
conversation with Nicodemus:
For God so loved
the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall
not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world
to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not
condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has
not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come
into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds
were evil. Everyone who does
evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds
will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that
it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God (John
3:16-21).
The element of conflict does not dominate 4:17—11:1 (part “A”) as it does in 11:2—16:20 (part “B”). Part “A” of the second major
section focuses more on the teaching, preaching, and healing (4:23; 9:35; 11:1) than it does on the friction between
Jesus and the scrupulous leaders.
Nevertheless, the reader still reads of hostility between Jesus and the
religious leaders; in part “A” the reader is alerted to disunity between Jesus
and the religious leaders in His healing of the paralytic (9:1-8).
In this first section, one is led to count on battle. In 4:17—8:34 Matthew forewarns the reader that he is
to anticipate conflict. Jesus in the
Sermon on the Mount warns the disciples about persecution (5:10-12), and He also describes the
righteousness that falls short of what is necessary for entrance into the
Kingdom of Heaven (5:20).
Jesus in His now-famous Sermon speaks of the
acts of piety performed by religious leaders as being hypocritical in nature (6:1-18).
Following this rebuke of the rigid leaders’ motives, then Matthew concludes
the Sermon on the Mount with: “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at
his teaching, because he
taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law” (7:28-29). Finally, Matthew records Jesus’ admiration
of the centurion’s faith (8:5-10) versus the lack of faith on the
part of the leaders: “I say to you
that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at
the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the
subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there
will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (8:11-12).
Now in Chapter
9, the conflict that the readers have been led to anticipate shows its ugly
face. It has now materialized; it is
here, not in full bloom, but in bud.
This conflict is not direct but indirect. Matthew carefully reveals that the charges brought against Him,
following the healing of a paralytic, were indirect: “At this, some of the teachers of the law said to
themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” (9:3). They declare “to themselves,” says
Matthew. Following the call of Matthew
into discipleship, the religious leaders observed Jesus having dinner with tax
collectors and sinners in Matthew’s home (9:9-10). The Pharisees objected to Jesus’ behavior,
but they did not question Jesus directly about His behavior but rather His
disciples (9:11).
In Chapter 10, Jesus summons His disciples and
delivers to them His missionary charge (10:1-15). In the
conclusion of this missionary charge, Jesus immediately forewarns them of
irreconcilable conflict between themselves and the people (10:16-39).
Just as Jesus had warned them about false prophets (religious leaders)
in the Sermon on the Mount (7:15), now Jesus warns them about “wolves” (the people) in His sending them out to preach and to
heal (10:7,8,16).[49]
In the first major section (4:1—4:16), Matthew presents Jesus as the main
character of his story. He demonstrates
that Jesus is aligned with God as His authoritative Son (3:17).
Matthew discloses two evaluative points of view that forcefully stand
out in this first section; namely, God’s point of view that Jesus is His Son (3:17) and Satan’s challenge to Jesus in this
capacity (4:3, 6).[50] The secular and religious leaders in this
part of the story are characterized as evil.
Their evaluative point of view is an observation that is at odds with
God’s declaration. The religious
leaders are not only set forth as aligned with Herod (2:1-6), but they are also set in opposition to
John the Baptist who is supportive of Jesus (3:7-12).[51] In this first section, one comes away with
the recognition that neither Jesus nor the religious leaders are aware of each
other. But, in spite of this lack of
awareness, one, upon a closer reading, immediately grasps that the leaders’
threat to Jesus is foreshadowed through Herod’s plot to kill Jesus (2:3-6).
Also one immediately grasps Jesus’ eschatological judgment (Matthew 24 and 25) as foreshadowed through the prophecy of
John the Baptist:
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of
vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with
repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our
father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for
Abraham. The ax is already
at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will
be cut down and thrown into the fire. “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will
come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He
will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and
he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and
burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (3:7-12).
As stated above, the second major section (4:17—16:20) of Matthew’s story divides itself into two segments (4:17—11:1 and 11:2—16:20). The first division (part A), in this second major section, focuses on the ministry of Jesus to Israel and the second division’s (part B) central point is on Israel’s repudiation of Jesus. In the first division of this second section, Matthew’s controlling emphasis appears to be Jesus’ ministry of teaching, preaching, and healing (4:23; 9:35; 11:1), rather than on the element of clash between Jesus and Israel (leaders and the people), though this element is still present. In this first section (part A) Jesus calls Israel to repentance and announces the Kingdom of Heaven (4:17). But in this second section (11:2—16:20) of the second major division (4:17—16:20), one observes Jesus’ anguish of Israel’s negative response to Jesus’ call of repentance (11:16-19). In concluding this section about Jesus’ ministry to Israel, one should observe that Matthew prepares the reader for the conflict that is about to begin.
In part “B” of the second major section,
the leaders’ threat to kill Jesus escalates to the point of their plotting to
rid themselves of Him (12:14). This plot is
foreshadowed by their accusation of blasphemy in 9:3.
But in this latter half (part B) of the second part of Matthew’s story,
one observes an escalation of conflict.
The religious leaders’ hostilities are no longer secretive (9:1-8), but their ill will is now one of
direct confrontation over the disciples’ picking heads of grain on the Sabbath
(12:2-8). Following this showdown, the Pharisees
followed Him into their synagogues (12:9) seeking to find something to accuse Him of (12:10).
The leaders are no longer hesitant to speak to Him directly. To illustrate consider the following
encounters:
Matthew
12:9-10
|
Matthew
12:38
|