CHAPTER 4
NARRATIVE OVERVIEW OF THE
GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
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]
This chapter details the three major divisions in the Gospel of Matthew in order to understand more clearly whom the false prophets are that Jesus warns His disciples about. To accomplish this objective, 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. Chapter 4 draws attention to the various viewpoints espoused by the God, and the civil/religious leaders in Israel. This chapter 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 chapter is an overview of the Gospel from a literary perspective. Chapter 4 is an extension of Chapter 3 in that it continues to explore 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.
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]
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.”
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
evaluation 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 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).
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 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
|
|
Going on from that place, he went into
their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a
reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the
Sabbath?” |
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said
to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.” |
Also, the leaders do not mind criticizing His
disciples to His face.
Matthew 12:2
|
Matthew 15:1-2
|
|
When the Pharisees saw this, they said to
him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” |
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law
came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?
They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” |
In this second subdivision (part B), one
observes the intensity of controversy. Prior
to this level of antagonism, interaction was to some extent avoided. But now controversy saturates this
section. This is the pattern one
detects in 12:2-8, 9-14, 38-45; 15:1-9.
This passion of hatred is so great against Jesus that the religious leaders
seek His life. Matthew captures this
intense dislike with these words: “The Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus” (12:14). In this direct confrontation with Jesus, He
twice speaks of eschatological judgment against these leaders (12:22-37, 38-45). Jesus speaks of judgment when they accuse
Him of doing His miracles through the prince of demons (Beelzebub); second, He
speaks of judgment when they refuse to believe and request another sign.
Jesus and Beelzebub
Matthew 12:36-37
|
The Sign of Jonah
Matthew 12:41-42
|
|
But I tell you that men will
have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have
spoken. For by your words
you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. |
The men of Nineveh will stand
up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for
they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is
here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation
and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to
Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. |
These two
judgments foreshadow the eschatological judgment that Jesus elaborates in
Matthew 24 and 25. This judgment is the
same “coming wrath” that John the Baptist forewarned the religious leaders
about when they came to him for baptism (3:7-12): “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” (3:12). Jesus again alludes
to this judgment in the Parable of the Weeds (13:36-43):
As the weeds are
pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his
angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and
all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of
their Father. He who has ears, let him hear (13:40-43).
As stated above,
the religious leaders’ opposition with Jesus escalates. Following the attack against Jesus in
Matthew 12, the demanding leaders plot how they might destroy Him (12:14). The critical leaders are
presented to the reader as characters who are “evil” (12:23, 39, 45; 16:4),
spiritually blind (12:24, 38, 42; 16:3), hypocritical (12:10; 15:7; 16:10),
conniving (12:14), murderous (12:14), unfaithful to God (12:39; 16:4),
unrepentant (12:41), and lawless (15:3, 6).
In addition to the above, Jesus also likens them to a man possessed by a
demon (12:43-45); and they are also pictured as acting in a manner
representative of Satan (12:38; 16:1).
These are the ones who Jesus warned His disciples about in the Sermon on
the Mount (7:15).
Development of the Conflict
In this second major section (4:17—16:20),
part B (11:2—16:20), one witnesses the escalation of conflict. The following is a chronological listing of
the various encounters between Jesus and the religious leaders:
·
12:1-8 Plucking Grain on the
Sabbath
·
12:9-14 Healing of the Man with
a Withered Hand
·
12:22-37 Healing Bind and Dumb
Demoniac
·
12:38-45 Demand for a Sign
·
15:1-20 Eating with Defiled
Hands
·
16:1-4 Second Demand for a Sign
·
16:5-12 The Leaven of the
Pharisees and Sadducees
These seven encounters demonstrate the hatred that the religious leaders exhibited toward Jesus. Even with the miracles, they were not persuaded as to the true identity of Jesus. Part B of the second major section is about the repudiation of Jesus’ ministry to Israel. As stated in the first major section (1:1—4:16), the identity of Jesus is presented with the climax in God’s announcement of who Jesus really is: “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (3:17).
Entwined with the motif of repudiation in 11:2—16:20 is also the
speculation about the identity of Jesus.
The questioning begins with John the Baptist: “When John heard in prison
what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples to ask him, ‘Are you the one who
was to come, or should we expect someone else?’” (11:2-3).
Even the crowds question one another: “Then they brought him a
demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he
could both talk and see. All
the people were astonished and said, ‘Could this be the Son of David?’” (12:22-23).
CONFLICTING VIEWS
ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF JESUS
As mentioned above, Matthew presented the various viewpoints about Jesus in 1:1—4:16. But in this second part, one is also confronted even more pointedly than in the first part as to the identity of Jesus. It is significant that God in Part One (4:1—4:16), as well as in part two (4:17—16:20), breaks into the world of Matthew with His evaluative point of view about Jesus (3:17; 17:5). This identity of Jesus also permeates, in greater detail, the third section (16:21—28:20). This identity is of such a controversial nature that Jesus even asked the disciples what people were saying about who the Son of Man is (16:13).
As a result of Jesus’ widespread activity of teaching, preaching, and healing, His fame spreads throughout Palestine and even Syria (4:23-25; 9:36, 31, 33, 35; 11:2, 4; 13:54; 14:1). But in spite all of this fame, one still observes conflicting views about the true identity of Jesus of Nazareth. The reaction to Jesus is mixed. For example, the crowds follow Him (4:24-25; 8:1, 10; 9:33; 12:15; 13:2; 14:13; 15:30-31), but, on the other hand, the religious leaders place Him under scrutiny (9:3, 11, 34). In spite of His fame, in spite of His teaching, in spite of His preaching, and, in spite of His healing, nevertheless, Israel, as a whole, repudiates Him (11:2—12:50). The religious leaders and the crowds do not recognize His true identity.
Towns in Galilee
This conflict is not surprising to Matthew’s readers because they had
been forewarned (2:3; 3:7-12; 9:3,
11, 14, 34; 10:5-42).
Jesus was amazed at the unbelief of so many in their rejection of
Him. Jesus renounces the people for
their turning away from John and especially Himself (11:16-19).
Jesus issues condemnation on the cities of Korazin, Bethsaida (11:20-21), and Capernaum (11:23-24) for their
unwillingness to be moved to repentance following His mighty miracles. Even the townspeople of Nazareth were
astonished at the teaching of Jesus: ‘“Isn’t
this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers
James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t
all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?’ And they took offense at him” (13:55-57a).
Herod Antipas
Herod Antipas, having heard news about Jesus,
speculates about Him: “At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about
Jesus, and he said to his attendants, ‘This is John the Baptist; he has risen
from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him’” (14:1-2).
Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, inherited Galilee and Perea as
his kingdom. He is the one that had
previously beheaded John the Baptist at the request of his wife’s daughter Herodias
(14:3-11). He did not possess the mind
of God as to who Jesus really is.
Disciples of Jesus
But in contrast to all these, the disciples
having been caught in a storm, watching Jesus walk on water, seeing Peter saved
from drowning, and witnessing the calming of the sea (14:24-33), they all proclaimed: “Truly you
are the Son of God.” (14:33). This correct response is the answer to an
earlier question that they had asked when Jesus calms a storm: “What kind of
man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!” (8:27).
Matthew concludes this second major section with two evaluative points
of view which he juxtaposes to each other in order to bring his story to a
culmination—Peter’s confession near Caesarea Philippi (16:13-20): “You are the Christ, the Son of
the living God” (16:16). Peter’s point of view is correct because it
is in alignment with God’s point of view (3:17; 16:23a). On the other hand, the evaluative viewpoint of the various
segments of the Jewish nation is that He is just one of the prophets (16:13-14).
In the second part (4:17—16:20), Matthew tells of Jesus’ ministry to Israel (4:17—11:1) and of Israel’s response to Him (11:2—16:20). Through His ministry, Jesus summons Israel to repentance and to live in the sphere of God’s end-time rule (5:1—8:1). Despite His plea for restoration and acceptance of Himself as the Son of God, some charged Him with blasphemy (9:3). This section consists mainly of Jesus’ teaching, preaching, and healing (4:23; 9:35; 11:1).
In the later part of Matthew’s story, one observes a change (11:2—16:20). To all intents and purposes, Jesus’ ministry is without success. In fact, Israel’s response to His ministry is one of repudiation. The religious leaders attack Jesus Himself over the traditions of the elders and seek His life (12:1—8, 9—14; 15:1-9). The leaders dismiss Him outright as an agent of Satan (9:34; 12:24). The Jewish crowds look upon Him as another prophet (16:13-14).
In contrast to both the crowds and the leaders, the disciples confess Him to be the Messiah Son of God (16:16; 14:33). Still, despite the correctness of their confession, Jesus commands them to silence; they do not yet fully understand that the central task before Him is death upon a cross. Israel is ignorant as to who Jesus is, but the disciples know Him to be the Son of God. Jesus’ ministry is without success, at least according to the religious leaders and the crowds. But, on the other hand, His ministry, in the sight of God, is successful because He accomplished redemption for the sins of the world.
Matthew begins Section Three with Jesus’
prediction about His ultimate fate (crucifixion) by the religious leaders. He writes, “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” (Matthew 16:21). One observes that in this explanation of His impending death,
Jesus sets forth the concept that His death is necessary (“he must go” or “it
is necessary,” dei`). God and Jesus intend this death for the salvation of all
humanity (1:21), but, on the other hand, the religious leaders’ objective is
destruction (12:14). Matthew employs
the passion-prediction as another literary device to give cohesion to the third
part of his story. He records three
references to Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection (16:21; 17:22-23;
20:17-19).
Prior
to these predictions, one recalls Peter’s confession about Jesus as the Messiah
and Son of God (16:16). Following this confession, Jesus warned the
disciples “not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.” One reason for this silence was that the
disciples still did not understand the full mission of Jesus. Again, following the transfiguration of
Jesus, the three disciples—Peter, James, and John—were told: “Don’t tell anyone
what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead”
(17:9).
The disciples still did not understand that Jesus had to die
for the sins of the world. After
Jesus’ first announcement about His death, Peter immediately rebuked Jesus: “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” (16:22).
Peter still did not understand the atonement. Jesus then reprimanded Peter for not thinking the “things of
God,” but rather the “things of men”: “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). The readers of
Matthew’s Gospel would naturally reflect upon Jesus’ temptation in the
wilderness when Satan also sought to frustrate the scheme of God: “Away from
me, Satan!” (4:10). Peter’s evaluative
point of view did not coincide with that of God’s.
Subsequent to this rebuke by Jesus, one finds
three of Jesus’ disciples with Him on the Mountain. In the transfiguration of Jesus, God gives His viewpoint
concerning the identity of His Son and the necessity of the death of His
Son. Earlier, it is recalled that God
entered into the world as actor and gave His testimony. Matthew records this intervention: “And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son,
whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (3:17). In this
second revelation of God’s point of view, He adds an additional statement:
“Listen to him!” (17:5). On the way back to Jerusalem, as stated
above, Jesus informs the disciples of His impending death (16:21), but Peter
says “no” (16:22). But on the Mount, God says,
“Listen to Him!” They were to listen to
His warnings about His impending death (16:21;
17:22-23; 20:17-19).
Following the confession of Peter in Caesarea
Philippi and the Mount of Transfiguration scene, Jesus and His disciples enter
Galilee. Upon entering this territory,
Jesus for the second time tells them of His impending death: “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” (17:22-23). One can still hear the echo of God’s voice:
“Listen to Him!” They were to receive
that which God had ordained—suffering and death in Jerusalem. Yet, the disciples still would not
understand the implications of this death until after the resurrection: “As
they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, ‘Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man
has been raised from the dead’” (17:9).
The disciples did not fully understand these events until Jesus met with
them after the resurrection and explained the “things of God”:
He said to them, “This is what I told
you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written
about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened
their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written:
The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and
repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father
has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from
on high” (Luke 24:44-48).
When Jesus
completed His work in this area (Galilee), He started toward Jerusalem (Matthew
20:17). He took the disciples apart
privately and, again for the third time explained the “things of God”: “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!” (20:18-19).
From the border of Jericho, Jesus journeys in
the direction of Jerusalem and arrives at the Mount of Olives (21:1). The
events that now transpire are shrouded in the fulfillment of Old Testament
prophecies. Israel receives Jesus into
Jerusalem as the Son of David (21:9).
When the inhabitants of Jerusalem inquired of the crowds as to who this
Jesus is, the people replied: “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in
Galilee” (21:11). This confession of
the crowds is similar to the remarks of the disciples concerning
the identity of Jesus as reported by the people: “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others,
Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” To the people, Jesus is no more than a prophet, even though
they spoke of Him as the Son of David.
Israel still did not understand God’s evaluative viewpoint about
Jesus.
Jesus’ arrival
in Jerusalem marked the beginning of the end of His conflict with the religious
leaders. His actions caused the
religious leaders to engage Him in direct confrontation over His course of
actions. Jesus attacked the seat of
their power: “My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it
a ‘den of robbers’” (21:13). Jesus launches a massive assault upon their
authority and integrity (21:12-13).
This action paves the way for the thorny controversies with the religious
leaders leading up to His crucifixion.
As Jesus debates and speaks in parables, the tension between Him and the
religious leaders reach a breaking point (21:12—23:39).
The
confrontation with Jesus widens to the point that it includes representatives of
all the groups in Jerusalem:
·
Chief priests and the scribes (21:15)
·
Chief priests and the elders of the people (21:23)
·
The disciples of the Pharisees along with the
Herodians (22:15-16)
·
The Sadducees (22:23)
·
A lawyer from the Pharisees (22:24-35)
·
Following these confrontational
episodes, Jesus Himself closes the series by challenging the Pharisees:
“What do you
think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. He
said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him
‘Lord’? For he says, “‘The Lord said to
my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under
your feet.”’ If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and
from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions (22:42-46)
After Jesus silences the leaders in debate, then the religious leaders leave the scene of the temple. Alone with the crowds and the disciples, He delivers a piercing chastisement against the religiosity of the religious leaders. This scathing rebuke is reminiscent of His stern disapproval of the sanctimonious leaders in His Sermon on the Mount: “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).
Jesus begins His ministry with an analysis of their teachings and ends His ministry with another stinging condemnation of their ethical behavior. Jesus issues seven woes directed against their conduct (chapter 23). Following this indictment of the rigid leaders for their shallow display of piety, He then proceeds to speak of God’s judgment upon the nation of Israel (chapter 24). This entire chapter is about God’s eschatological judgment upon the nation, upon the unscrupulous shepherds, and upon the temple. He then speaks three parables—The Parable of the Ten Virgins, The Parable of the Talents, and The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats—against the over-bearing leaders of Israel for their pretense of virtue (chapter 25).
After concluding these three parables of
judgment, Jesus again brings to the attention of His disciples the impending
death that awaits Him by the chief priest and elders of the people
(26:1-5). The leaders demonstrate their
rejection of His parables by their plotting to put Him to death. The corrupt leaders rejected God’s identity
of Jesus Messiah as His Son (3:17; 17:5).
Their evaluative viewpoint is not the “things of God,” but rather, the
“things of men.”
Jesus now informs His disciples, after their
request about the Passover, that it is time to prepare the Passover meal
(26:1). It is during this meal that
Jesus gives a glimmer of information as to what His death is all about: “Then
he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it,
all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for
the forgiveness of sins” (26:27-28).
Following this Supper, the political machinery starts to roll in its
intensity for His crucifixion.
Immediately upon His arrest, He is taken before the Sanhedrin
(26:57-67), before Pilate (27:11-26), and then the soldiers mock Jesus
(27:27-31). Matthew then describes in
accelerated movement the events of the crucifixion (27:32-44), the death of
Jesus (27:45-55), the burial of Jesus (27:57-66), the resurrection of Jesus
(28:1-10), the guards’ report (28:11-15), and finally the instructions of Jesus
to His disciples about making disciples (28:16-20).
CONCLUSION
The third major division of Matthew’s Gospel
(16:21-28:20) is honeycombed with confrontations with the religious
leaders. Beginning with Matthew 16:21,
one observes an escalation of the “powers that be” to get rid of Jesus. The religious leaders are so cunning in their
attack against Jesus that even the crowds are taken in by their hypocrisy
(27:20). No wonder Jesus warned His
disciples on two different occasions to “Watch out for false prophets” (Matthew
7:15; 24:11, 24). The first warning
followed Jesus’ rebuke of the religious leaders’ theology (Matthew 5—6) and the
second and third warnings occurred following His seven woes (Matthew 23)
against the hypocrisy of the religious leaders. The false prophets in the Gospel of Matthew refer, so it appears,
to the religious leaders. Throughout
the ministry of Jesus, He scrutinizes the unethical behavior of the
leaders. Conflict with the leaders of
Israel permeates the whole of Matthew’s Gospel.
Chapter 4 analyzed the three major divisions in the Gospel of Matthew. Throughout the three sections (4:1—1:16; 4:17—16:20; 16:21—28:20) of Matthew’s gospel, the identity of Jesus permeates all three divisions. In these three divisions, one observes that conflict abounds from the beginning to end. To begin with, Matthew foreshadows this disunity but in the ministry of John the Baptist, one observes direct confrontation. Jesus begins His ministry with an analysis of the religious leaders’ concept of God’s righteousness, and He concludes His ministry with His analysis of the religious leaders’ characteristics (chapter 24 and 25). The antagonism of the leaders of Israel against Jesus begins in the second major section. But in Part A one observes, not direct confrontation, but indirect confrontation. On the other hand, in Part B one observes an escalation of the quarrels with Jesus by the leaders—it is now direct. In the third major section 16:21—28:20), this animosity against Jesus reaches its climax on the part of the leaders in the crucifixion of Jesus.
Chapter 5 will analyze the false prophets passages in Matthew 24 in order to understand more fully who the false prophets were that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:15 and 24:11, 24. This chapter heightens an awareness of why Jesus warned the disciples to beware of false prophets. An investigation of His last controversy with the religious leaders will drive home the point that the false prophets were the religious leaders that Jesus dealt with in His ministry—leaders who were corrupt through and through. In fact, they were spoken of as evil, a brood of vipers, children of hell, unmerciful, judgmental, wicked, adulterous, insincere, hypocritical, unrepentant, unbelieving, lacking in righteousness, lawless, legalistic, insensitive, murderous, and opposed to God’s point of view about the identity of Jesus.
[1] Mark Allen Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 99.
[2] See Ronald David Witherup, “The Cross of Jesus: A Literary-Critical Study of Matthew 27,” (Ph. D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1985), 56, where he comments on an important methodology of literary criticism.
Contemporary literary criticism accepts the object of its study as literature in and of itself, not as a means to an end. As opposed to the other Biblical criticisms, there is no intention to look behind the text to discern history or sources. Literary criticism looks at a text, rather than through it. To use Murray Krieger’s apt metaphor, the text is to be viewed not as a “window” through which one looks to discern what is on the other side; rather, it is a “Mirror” and the meaning of the text is thus on “this side” of the reading experience.
[3] Ibid., 95.
[4] Matthew 7:15; 24:11, 24.
[5] John H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay, Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1987), 75.
[6]
Powell, Criticism, 1-10.
[7] Ibid., 7.
[8] Ibid.
[9] See Chapter 2, “The Crisis and Identification of False Prophets Within the Churches of Christ,” for examples of not applying the principles of literary analysis in seeking to comprehend the false prophets passages. And, as a result of this loose interpretation, each division within the Churches of Christ claims the false prophets citations as their own exclusive ticket to defend their separation from other Christians.
[10] See M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 6th ed. (New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1993), 269, where he says,
Iser distinguishes between the “implied reader,” who is established by the text itself as one who will respond in specific ways to the “response-inviting structures” of the text, and the “actual reader,” whose responses are inevitably colored by his or her accumulated private experiences.
[11] An example of this distinction is found in Appendix VI—The Passover Traditions in the First Century—where the real reader goes to outside sources to discover what the implied reader already knows about the Passover traditions in the first century. See Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism, 19-21.
[12] Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978), 149-150; Wolfgang Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1974); David Robert Bauer, “The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Literary-Critical Examination,” (Ph. D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1985), 24-26; Dorothy Jean Weaver, “The Missionary Discourse in the Gospel of Matthew: A Literary Critical Analysis,” (Ph. D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1987), 66.
[13] See W. K. Wimsatt, The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry (Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1982), where he counsels Christians not to reject literary criticism.
Religious thinkers should be sympathetic to criticism because it is a branch of philosophy; it is an effort to get at certain truths about signs, knowledge, and reality. If these remarks seem at all platitudinous, let me add that I have taken the trouble to make them because it seems to me possible for the thought and scholarship of religious persons (especially in America today) to be too far sold in the cultivation of certain merely historical, informational, and neutral techniques. This may have been for a time a necessary phase of competition with secular science and secular education. But there is no reason why Christians should be the last (or even be slow) to transcend the limitations of such knowledge, to outgrow pedantic misconceptions and participate in literary philosophy.
[14] See Witherup, “ Cross of Jesus,” 120, 139.
[15] Chatman, Story, 19-27.
[16] Ibid., 19.
[17] Jack Kingsbury, Matthew As Story, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 3.
[18] Ibid.
[19] See also Bauer, “The Cross of Jesus,” 62.
[20] E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel, (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1927), 30.
[21] Chatman, Story, 19, 26.
[22] Kathleen Morner and Ralph Rausch, “Plot” in NTC’s Dictionary of Literary Terms (Chicago: NTC/Contemporary Publishing Company, 1997), 167.
[23] See Dorothy Jean Weaver, “The Missionary Discourse in the Gospel of Matthew: A Literary Critical Analysis,” (Ph. D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1987), where she summarizes quite succinctly the story, plot and setting: “This story can be viewed in terms of three basic elements: characters (the actors in the story), plot (the sequence of events within the story), and setting (the designated location or surroundings within which any given event of the story takes place).
[24] Forster, Novel, 86.
[25] See Bauer, “Structure,” 26, where he comments on “plot”:
Another aspect of literary criticism which has received a great deal of attention lately is the “plot.” Put succinctly, the plot is the arrangement of incidents within the narrative, considered in light of their relations to one another. A distinction is usually made between the arrangement of events in the narrative time and that in the story time to which the narrative refers. The narrative may include such devices as flash back or foreshadowing, forcing the readers to place the incidents thus described in their proper temporal position within the story.
[26] See also Morner and Rausch, NTC’s Dictionary, 168.
[27] Jack Dean Kingsbury, Story, 43.
[28] Ibid., 34.
[29] Powell, Criticism, 23; See also Weaver, “Discourse,” 67.
[30] For an excellent treatment of the various evaluative points of view in Matthew’s Gospel, see Kingsbury, Story, 1988), 33-37; Morner and Rausch, NTC’s Dictionary, “Point of View,” 170-171; M. H. Abrams, “Point of View,” Literary Terms, 165-169. See also Mark Allen Powell, “The Religious Leaders in Matthew: A Literary-Critical Approach,” (Ph., D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1988), 176-184.
[31] See Witherup, “Cross of Jesus,” 76-86; Weaver, “Discourse,” 68-100; Kingsbury, Story, 33-42.
[32] Powell, “Leaders,” 184.
[33] I am indebted to Kingsbury’s book, Matthew as Story, for calling my attention to this threefold structure. This overview of Matthew’s structure follows the development by Kingsbury. See also Powell, “Leaders,” 39-41; Witherup, “Cross of Jesus,” 112-150; David Robert Bauer, “The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Literary-Critical Examination,” (Ph. D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1985).
[34] Kingsbury, Story, 43-58.
[35] This second section may be further divided into two subdivisions: (1) Ministry of Jesus to Israel [4:17—11:1]; and (2) Israel’s repudiation of Jesus [11:2—16:20]; Witherup, The Cross of Jesus, 34; Bauer, “Structure,” 185.
[36] Kingsbury, Story, 77-93.
[37] For an analysis of the structure of Matthew, see Witherup, “Cross of Jesus,” 142, 152.
[38] Witherup, “Cross of Jesus,” 89.
[39] Weaver, “Discourse,” 62.
[40] Kingsbury, Story, 98.
[41] For an excellent commentary on God entering the world as actor, see Weaver, “Discourse,” 90; Witherup, “Cross of Jesus,” 124.
[42] See Kingsbury, Story, 35.
[43]
“When Abram was ninety nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said,
‘I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. I will confirm my covenant
between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.’ Abram fell face down, and God said to him, ‘As for me, this is my covenant with
you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be
Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very
fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will
establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your
descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God
of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give
as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will
be their God’” (Genesis 17:1-8).
[44] See Kingsbury, Story, 48-49.
[45] See Kingsbury, Story, 49-51, for an insightful analysis of the Baptist’s point of view.
[46] In the Greek New Testament there are many kinds of conditional statements. There are four classes of conditional sentences that are outstanding in usage. The first class condition, the one employed by Satan, affirms the reality of the condition. It is expressed by ei (“if”) with the indicative mood in the protasis (if clause) and almost any mood or tense in the apodosis (main or fulfillment clause). This interpretation is required according to Greek syntax. Whenever the indicative with ei (“if” clause) is employed instead of the subjunctive with ean (“if” clause), then, one must assume the truth of the protasis (if clause). This construction confirms the condition and is best translated “Since you are the Son of God. . . .”
[47] See Kingsbury, Story, 59-76.
[48] For a detailed study of the Old Testament and its relevance, see Dallas Burdette, “The Authority of the Old Testament: A Brief Summary of the Relevance of the Old Testament within the Christian Community” [ON-LINE]. Available from http://www.freedominchrist.net [accessed 16 February 1999], located under caption BIBLICAL STUDIES and then under the subheading MISAPPLIED SCRIPTURES.
[49] Jack Dean Kingsbury, Story,
[50] Powell, “Leaders,” 217.
[51] Ibid.