Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Salvation From Death, part 1

...While he was saying these things to them, behold! one of the rulers came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has died just now! Nevertheless, come place your hand upon her, and she will live." And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold! a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came near behind him and caught hold of the tassel of his garment, for she said to herself, "If only I just catch hold of his garment, I will be saved." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Have courage, daughter! Your faith has saved you." And the woman was saved from that very moment. And when Jesus came to the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the crowd causing a disturbance, he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And they ridiculed him. But when the crowd had been cast out, he went in and grabbed hold of her by the hand; and the girl arose, and this news went out into all that district.  (Matthew 9:18-26)


In the previous two posts (here and here) I focused upon two things: 1) the major differences between Matthew 9:18-26 and it's corresponding accounts recorded by Mark and Luke, and 2) the literary structure of Matthew's narrative. In this post, I won't be reviewing much of that content. Instead I plan on diving into the narrative in order to draw out Matthew's purpose and design. It may take a couple posts to accomplish, but I am confident that the end result will be well worth it. And so, with that in mind, the first thing you need to know is that the focus of Matthew's narrative (9:18-26) is not upon a Jewish "ruler" and his faith; nor is it focused upon the resurrection of a Jewish ruler's daughter. It certainly begins with a Jewish ruler's faith and ends with the restored life of his daughter, but neither of them are actually the focus of this narrative. In this brief narrative, as presented within Matthew's gospel, the focus is actually upon the salvation of a woman who suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years. And so, instead of viewing Matthew's narrative as focusing upon two miracles (which, indeed, incorporates two miracles into one story), Matthew's design is to focus upon one central miracle. Everything else is placed in juxtaposition with that central miracle. (Mark and Luke, however, do not juxtapose all the surrounding events, nor do they follow the same literary structure.)



Now, as I was explaining in a previous post, this particular narrative is a "sandwiching" story. And in academic circles, it is referred to as narrative intercalation,1 which is a fancy way of describing one story that's inserted between one other story, effectively splitting one story into two by means of a second story. And the purpose of the first story -- the one that gets split into two parts -- is to provide a context and commentary upon the second, central story "sandwiched" in between. In Matthew 9:18-26, the first story is about a "ruler" whose daughter has just died and Jesus' willingness to go and heal her; whereas the second story is about another daughter, a daughter of an even greater "ruler" in Israel, a "daughter" of God himself. To appreciate this distinction, let's first take a look at Matthew's perspective regarding this "ruler" and his entrance into the narrative.



Matthew begins this next and final triad2 of miracles with the statement: "While he was saying these things to them..." This is a very clear indicator of the location in which this following narrative takes place. It takes place within Matthew's house during a great feast where Jesus is "reclining at table" with his disciples, along with tax collectors and "sinners" (which, as I showed in a previous post, was a snobbish name that Pharisees used to label Jews who did not adhere to the strict Pharisaical laws about food, tithing, and purity).3 And it is within this time of feasting that some disciples of the Pharisees and John decide to crash the party and disrupt the table fellowship with provocative questions. And so, Jesus decides to share a few words with them in response. And it is during this point in time -- this time of feasting at a table -- that Matthew records the following words: 

"While he was saying these things to them, behold! one of the rulers came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has died just now! Nevertheless, come place your hand upon her, and she will live."
Now, if you were one of the original recipients of Matthew's gospel, namely a 1st century Palestinian Jew, then this interruption of table-fellowship would have been very alarming, and for many reasons too. The first shock would have been in hearing about "one of the rulers" coming directly to Jesus. In context, because this "ruler" is not distinguished by any title of gentile nobility or official rank, most commentators suggest that it would have been understood by Matthew's audience as a Jewish ruler of a local synagogue. Hence, Mark and Luke go out of their way to clarify to their audience (which was different than Matthew) that this ruler was a "ruler of the synagogue" (Mk. 5:22; Lk. 8:41). As one of the rulers of a synagogue, this man would have been a leader and director of weekly worship, and he would have been known by all of the local Pharisees in town, including those present within Matthew's house. And yet, despite the conflict which would undoubtedly ensue in future relationships among the Pharisees, this "ruler" of a synagogue bursts into Matthew's house, falls to his knees before Jesus in a posture of worship and abject humility, just to tell Jesus that his daughter has just died.Now, it doesn't take a rocket-surgeon or a brain-wizard to figure out that Matthew is painting a word-picture of complete and utter desperation. This ruler has no one else in the world that he can go to for help. And his tremendous faith in God is manifest, not only in believing that Jesus could bring his daughter back to life, but that he was willing to confess this in front of everyone -- even his respected colleagues. But this is still only part of Matthew's shocking introduction to this narrative. 


Not only is this ruler a respected leader among the Jews, and not only his he disrupting table-fellowship in Matthew's house, and not only is he kneeling before Jesus in a posture of worship before the Pharisees, and not only is he displaying a very clear belief that Jesus -- and Jesus alone -- can raise his dead daughter back to life, but this ruler insists that Jesus only has to touch his daughter to be healed. It is at this point which Matthew's audience would have definitely been aghast. Every Jew understood that a plea from a Jewish "ruler" to intentionally touch a dead body was more than just a faux pas or slip of the tongue. That was a huge doctrinal statement. In essence, this Jewish ruler was willing to let everyone know that Jesus could cleanse the absolutely unclean.



Within first century Jewish tradition, contact with dead bodies was absolutely prohibited by priests and Levites, and as E.P. Sanders has argued persuasively, most "rulers" of the synagogues (archisynogogos) were priests.5 Not only was direct contact with the dead prohibited, but they were forbidden to enter any house, or approach any spot, where a dead body was lying or had been buried, or even any part of a dead body -- even a piece the size of a grape -- or blood to the amount of half a "log" (which was a little over one cup in modern measuring standards). The ruler was also forbidden to touch anyone or anything that became unclean through contact with parts of a dead body.6 And so, what we find in this brief narrative is a ruler who knows the Rabbinical traditions of law, and yet he still publicly confesses his faith that Jesus can raise his dead daughter to life again by touching her. From this perspective, this ruler is not merely desperate; he really believes that Jesus is the only "ruler" in Israel with the authority to touch his dead daughter. This ruler is incredibly faithful -- more faithful, in fact, than the Pharisees who are squabbling over eating with tax collectors and "sinners." If anyone is going to be viewed as a "sinner" in the eyes of the Pharisees from now one, it's this Jewish ruler and the man he kneels before publicly. 



But there is still a lot more going on in this brief narrative. Not only does this ruler risk his public reputation in order to confess his faith in Jesus, but Jesus actually gets up and follows himThis is the first time in all of Matthew's gospel where Jesus is said to be "following" someone. All we have seen up to this point are people drawing near to Jesus. But now, even in the midst of table-fellowship and feasting, Jesus stops what he's doing, gets out of his seat, and follows this ruler to his house. What an amazing event to behold! Matthew also mentions that the "disciples" of Jesus followed along too. People must have flocked toward Jesus once they saw him get up and follow this ruler, which means that Matthew's house must have become really crowded shortly after they saw Jesus get up and leave suddenly. Interestingly, Mark and Luke both go out of their way to emphasize that there were crowds of disciples swarming around Jesus and pressing him in on all sides (Mk. 5:24; Lk. 8:42). 



This is the dramatic scene in which Matthew goes out of his way to interrupt by introducing an unnamed woman who had been suffering from a discharge of blood for twelve years: 

"And behold! a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came near behind him and caught hold of the tassel of his garment..."
This is also the scene which will be continued in a future post....




1.  I explain more about intercalation in the link.

2.  A triad is a group or set of three things, and here in Matthew chapters 8 & 9 there are three sets of triads separated by two narrative interludes. For more information about the literary structure of Matthew 8 & 9, see my previous post here.
3.  As an additional note to what I have recorded in previous posts, Jakob Van Bruggen, professor of New Testament at the Theological University of Kampen, Netherlands, has observed that: "In the Judaism of Jesus' day, a much broader notion of "sinner" had developed. Anyone who did not act in the manner prescribed by the Pharisees (which was much more detailed than the Torah) was to be condemned as "sinner," as "lawless" (in the Pharisaical sense of the word)." -- Jakob Van Bruggen, Jesus The Son of God: The Gospel Narratives as Message [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company; 1996] p.20
4.  Mark and Luke both begin their narratives with the ruler's daughter as "dying" (Lk. 8:42, 49) and "at the point of death" (Mk. 5:23, 35), whereas Matthew clearly wants his readers to recognize how dramatic this scene was in real life, by depicting the daughter as having been dead already. In both accounts of Mark and Luke, Jesus receives a report that the daughter had just died, and yet Jesus travels to the ruler's house anyway. In contrast with that, Matthew is obviously not interested in "sandwiching" his story with details about a dying girl. Mark and Luke both "sandwich" their stories by beginning with a daughter who is alive (but dying), and then they both finish with the same daughter dying (in order to resuscitate her). But Matthew is only interested in beginning with a dead daughter and ending with a risen daughter.
5.  E. P. Sanders, in his book Judaism: Practice & Belief 63 BCE-66 CE [London: SCM Press; 1992], makes the claim that priests controlled most of the synagogues, even those among the Diaspora. He writes: "Philo indicates that priests retained their status as leaders in the Diaspora (Hypothetica 7.12f.), and archeology confirms that in at least some places outside of Palestine priests were specifically designated as such" (pp. 52-53). Elsewhere he writes: "What is clear is that the rulers of the synagogue were priests, three generations of them, and very prosperous at that. If we must assign them to a party, the Sadducean would be the most likely guess, but there is no reason to think that they represent the party. What we learn from the [Theodotus] inscription is that a family of wealthy priests who could speak Greek built and maintained a synagogue for Greek-speaking pilgrims, and that the synagogue had a dual purpose of serving as a guest house and a place of instruction. The inscription supports the evidence of the literature: it was the priests who taught the law" (pp. 176-177). And finally, Sanders writes: "The Theodotus inscription is graphic evidence of the role of priests in synagogues, a role that some retained in the Diaspora. We recall that according to Philo a priest or elder was responsible for sabbath instruction (Hypothetica 7.13). At the synagogue in Sardis an inscription was found that refers to a man who was a 'priest and teacher of wisdom'. This is from the fourth century. Its relevance is that it shows continuity with the passage of Philo and the Theodotus inscription. In neither Palestine nor the Diaspora did priests withdraw from public life and community study and worship. ...The priest or elder read and interpreted the Bible, and others for the most part remained silent (Philo, Hypothetica, 7.13)" (pp. 201-202).
6. For Talmudic sources, see Sifra, Emor, i. 1, ii. 1; Naz. vii. 2, 4; 42b, 43a, 47b, 48b, 56a, b; Yer. Naz. 56c, d; For Mishnaic sources, see "Yad," Bi'at ha-Mikdash, iii. 13-15; ib. Ebel, iii.; Shulhan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 369, 371.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Sandwich Storytelling



...While he was saying these things to them, behold! one of the rulers came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has died just now! Nevertheless, come place your hand upon her, and she will live." And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold! a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came near behind him and caught hold of the tassel of his garment, for she said to herself, "If only I just catch hold of his garment, I will be saved." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Have courage, daughter! Your faith has saved you." And the woman was saved from that very moment. And when Jesus came to the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the crowd causing a disturbance, he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And they ridiculed him. But when the crowd had been cast out, he went in and grabbed hold of her by the hand; and the girl arose, and this news went out into all that district.  (Matt. 9:18-26)

Matthew 9:18-26 is often described in laymen's terms as a sandwiching story. In the academic arena, this rhetorical pattern is described as intercalation. Intercalation occurs when a distinctive story is intentionally imbedded between another story, thereby causing an interruption in the story. Intercalation frames the beginning and ending of a story in such a way that they both serve as a commentary on the imbedded narrative. In other words, intercalation frames a story in an A--B--A' pattern, leaving the "A" and "A' " framework to function as a commentary upon "B."  This type of rhetorical pattern is actually very common in Scripture, even though it may seem like an unusual method of recording historical events today. And contrary to many liberal accusations of inherent contradictions within the synoptic gospels, rhetorical devices such as intercalation help explain why there are many aesthetic differences (without contradiction) among all three synoptic gospels. 

For example, in the story of the fig tree that Jesus curses and causes to wither away, Mark uses intercalation, whereas Matthew clearly does not. Matthew has Jesus cursing and withering the fig tree as one combined story, followed by Jesus "cleansing" Herod's temple (Matt. 21:18-19). But in using intercalation (an A--B--A' pattern as a commentary upon the central "B" section), Mark interrupts the story of cursing the fig tree with Jesus "cleansing" Herod's Temple before returning to the story about Jesus causing the fig tree to wither away (Mk. 11:12-14 [A]; 15-19 [B]; 20-21 [A']). The cursing and withering of the fig tree serves as a commentary on Jesus' visitation upon the Temple (and it's future destruction in 70A.D.).


Not only does Matthew "sandwich" one miracle between another by splitting the first miracle in two parts, but he also arranges each miracle with a neat symmetrical parallelism (A--B--C--a-a'-b-b'--A'--B'--C'): 


A)  While he was saying these things to them, behold! (idou) one of the rulers (archon) came (erchomai) in and knelt before him, 
   B)  saying, "My daughter has died just now! Nevertheless (alla), come (erchomai) place your hand upon her, and she will live." 
      C)  And Jesus rose (egeiro) and followed him, with his disciples. 

                                                                   * * * * * * *

a)  And behold! (idou) a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came near behind him and caught hold of (apto) the tassel of his garment, 
   a')  for she said to herself, "If only I just catch hold of (apto) his garment, I will be saved." 

b)  Jesus turned, and seeing (eidon) her he said, "Have courage, daughter! Your faith has saved (sozo) you."
   b')  And the woman was saved (sozo) from that very moment. 

                                                                  * * * * * * *

A')  And when Jesus came (erchomai) to the ruler's (archon) house and saw (eidon) the flute players and the crowd causing a disturbance, 
   B')  he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but (alla) sleeping." And they ridiculed him. But when the crowd had been cast out, he went in (eis-erchomai) and grabbed hold of her by the hand;
      C')   and the girl arose (eigero), and this news went out into all that district.




Friday, February 22, 2013

Compositional Divergencies


The ESV translation of Matthew 9:18-26 says:
While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I will be made well." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well. And when Jesus came to the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the crowd making commotion, he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. And the report of this went through all that district.
This brief story may be the most difficult to decipher among the ten miracles listed within chapters 8 & 9 of Matthew's gospel. And it's particularly difficult for multiple reasons. First of all, it's difficult because it's describing two miracles in tandem, not simply one isolated miracle. And because multiple shades of meaning and authorial intent can be (and often are) emphasized within each miraculous story, one can easily assume right from the outset that the shades of meaning and authorial intent within a tandem-miracle story are at least twice as complex as those with only a single miracle. To be sure, there are degrees of complexity which vary from story to story -- degrees which can only be determined by deciphering the similarities and contrasts of both miracles side-by-side -- but nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume a much greater complexity of meaning when an author presents two tandem miracles within a single miraculous narrative. Of course, the complexity increases even more when multiple authors describe the same miraculous story in their own words, but in different ways, which is what we have with this miracle story (i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke).


Secondarily, the literary picture which Matthew paints for us is very different from what Mark and Luke portray. This ultimately means that the divergencies of Matthew's gospel are going to be more difficult to harmonize with Mark and Luke. For example, in Matthew's gospel, the woman who's been bleeding for 12 years gets a hold of Jesus' attention by simply clinging (ἅπτω)1 to the tassel of his robe (c.f. John 20:17) and nothing more; and then after Jesus turns around to speak directly to her, we find the following declaration: "And instantly the woman was made well" (v. 22). In this way, Matthew is connecting the power of Jesus' words with the power of healing this woman. Instead of repeatedly emphasizing her contact with Jesus -- via a "touch" -- as bringing healing to her (c.f. Mk. 5:27-33 and Lk. 8:44-48), Matthew minimizes an emphasis upon her "touch" in order to maximize the appearance of a small window of hope for her to get Jesus' attention -- to get him to turn around and declare healing words directly to her.  But Mark and Luke both portray the same event differently than Matthew. They both portray the woman suffering from a discharge of blood as though she reached out to Jesus and was healed before He knew who touched him. Mark's gospel says that after she touched Jesus' garment,

...immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, "Who touched my garments?" And his disciples said to him, "You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, 'Who touched me?" And he looked around to see who had done it. But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. (Mark 5:27-33) 
Luke's gospel (8:44-48) emphasizes this event in a very similar way, but with an additional note about her hiding among the crowd:
...and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. And Jesus said, "Who was it that touched me?" When all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!" But Jesus said, "Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me."  And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. And he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace."
Notice carefully how Mark's story and Luke's story both emphasize her "touch" upon Jesus as bringing physical healing. They both also emphasize that this physical healing occurred before Jesus knew who it was that was just healed by him; whereas if Matthew's story was the only one available to us, we would be left with the impression that Jesus knows exactly who touched her; and it isn't her "touch" that brings physical healing. In Matthew's story, it's the power of Jesus' words which bring healing. And since I'll be discussing more about this in a future post, I'll simply say that this is a very important distinction to make for understanding Matthew's portrayal of this historical event, and leave it at that for now. 


Even though I'm personally persuaded that Matthew is offering his own unique perspective about this event, I'm not going to pretend as though I know how to perfectly harmonize all of these and other divergencies throughout the synoptic gospels. But I am willing to conclude that Matthew is following a different rhetorical convention than Mark and Luke, and he's also painting his word-pictures with a different purpose in mind than Mark and Luke. Sometimes these different purposes are blatantly obvious; sometimes they're extremely subtle. But whether they're obvious or subtle, once they're discovered, all sorts of connections with the larger story are opened to the audience, each with their own invitation to explore even deeper into the theological depths of God's revelation.



For example, once the subtle difference between Matthew's clinging "touch" and Mark & Luke's powerful "touch" is distinguished, the underlying Christology of Mark & Luke becomes that much more apparent. When compared with Matthew's story (Matt. 9:18-26), Mark and Luke both seem to distinguish between Jesus' human and divine nature in order to highlight his divine power, whereas Matthew doesn't show any interest at all in highlighting that kind of distinction (perhaps because his Jewish audience would have already concluded Jesus' divine power from the surrounding context of Jesus' authoritative word). In Mark and Luke, it is through the work of Jesus' divine nature that the woman receives healing by touching Jesus, but in his human nature Jesus is completely ignorant of who touched him when he "perceived that power had gone out from him." Jesus, in his human nature, did not know who touched him, and so Mark describes Jesus as searching the crowds to learn who touched him to receive healing. Matthew's gospel, however, makes no such distinctions because he's interested in continuing the narrative in which he already affirmed Jesus' divine authority to heal and restore Israel.



Last of all, Matthew's narrative (9:18-26) is difficult because it's chronology is very different from Mark and Luke. In the gospels of Mark and Luke, this story takes place immediately after returning from the other side of the Sea of Galilee where Jesus had just cleansed the demon-posessed man, and it also takes place long after Jesus was feasting with his disciples in Matthew's house. But in Matthew's gospel, this chronology of events is reversed. In Matthew's story, the events of 9:18-26 take place long after Jesus returned from cleansing the demon-possessed man, and it also happens while Jesus is feasting with his disciples inside Matthew's house. Notice carefully what the opening words of Matthew's story say:

"While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him..."  
What were those "things" he "was saying" and who were "they" to whom he said those things? Well, if Matthew wanted his audience to make the connection from one story to another, it's obvious that those "things" refer to Jesus' discussion with the Pharisees and John's disciples -- a discussion which took place during a great feast which Matthew prepared for Jesus and his disciples within his own home. My own conclusion is that this encounter with the "ruler" and the "woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years" did actually begin in Matthew's own home. I don't believe Matthew is generating a fictional narrative here. My main reason for believing that this encounter began in Matthew's home is because Mark and Luke both describe the timing of this event in a more general way than Matthew (c.f. Luke 8:40-41 and Mark 5:21-22). Mark simply lumps two circumstances together. First, Jesus is said to be with a crowd of people by the sea of Galilee. Then Mark mentions very casually that "one of the rulers came to him then." That is hardly a recipe for specificity. And the same is true with Luke's story. Luke simply says that "when Jesus returned" from cleansing the demon-posessed man, a crowd of people welcomed him, and then, shortly thereafter, the "ruler" comes to Jesus, falling down to his feet. Matthew's story is, by far, the clearest statement of where this story takes place. It was "while Jesus was saying these things" in Matthew's house that "behold! a ruler came in and knelt before him..."


When all is said and done, Matthew's own intended meaning and purpose is what needs to be deciphered, and so far, I've only scratched the surface of Matthew's story. So in a future post, I plan on exploring deeper into Matthew 9:18-26.







1.  In John 20:17 we read: "Jesus said to her, 'Do no cling (ἅπτω) to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father." ἅπτω literally means to "fasten" or "attach," which is why the general use of the term means to "hold" or "touch" in a sense which is more than just momentaryἅπτω does not mean "tap," "poke," or to "brush up against" something because all of those modern terms imply momentary "touches," whereas the "touch" (ἅπτω) of Matthew 9:18-26 and John 20:17 refers to something more than momentary.






Saturday, February 16, 2013

Zorro copied Jesus



As I was preparing to teach on Matthew 9:9-17, I ran across a small portion of this passage in an ancient manuscript formally known as the "Gospel of Thomas."  Nowadays the Gospel of Thomas is generally associated with the mystical pseuo-christian religion of gnosticism, but can still be found in many bookstores on the shelves labeled "Christian literature." And as far as I can tell, even though gnosticism never really considered itself to be an officially "Christian" movement anyway, and it actually seems to have grown from the roots of first century mystical Judaism instead, many religious people still consider the Gospel of Thomas as one of the "lost scriptures" that never found it's way into the official canon of Christian "Scripture." But now that we have it, lo and behold, Christians are finally able to understand the gospel message correctly. Or, at least that's what some of those "coexist" web-sites are currently advocating.

Now, for those who know me really well, it won't be a big surprise to find out that I think this "gospel" of Thomas is really, really great. It is a great combination of historical fiction and pseudo-wisdom that's entertaining from beginning to end, kind of like the Apocryphal tale of "Bel and the Dragon." (Go ahead, read that one too. The best part is when Daniel kills the dragon. You'll see what I mean.)  The Gospel of Thomas clearly pretends to be portraying the wisdom of Jesus, even as Bel and the Dragon was with Daniel, but really, it's just another corny piece of religious-fiction. And the portion of wisdom taken straight from the parable within Matthew 9:16-17 and Luke 5:36-39 is a really good illustration of how consistently silly this pseudo-gospel really is. And so, because I thought it was worth sharing, I've included an extract from it. Hopefully I'm not the only one in the world who laughs after reading this:
Jesus said: It is not possible for a man to ride two horses or stretch two bows; and it is not possible for a servant to serve two masters, unless he honors the one and insults the other. No one drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine. And new wine is not poured into old wineskins, lest they burst; nor is old wine poured into a new wineskin, lest it spoil. An old patch is not sewn on a new garment, for a rent would result.1
Now, after reading this again, here's what I'm thinking: Old wine can definitely be poured into a new wineskin, old patches can indeed be sewn on new, unshrunk garments, and as far as we know, Jesus probably could ride two horses and stretch two bows. I mean, come on! Let's be serious! We're talking about the guy who walked on water and then multiplied thousands of loaves of bread. I think we could give him a lot more credit than this. He could probably even stretch two bows while riding two horses at the same time. Everybody familiar with the Bible knows that Zorro probably copied his horseback riding skills from Jesus. And so, this pseudo-Thomas guy isn't really impressing me with his wisdom.

But on a more serious note, some scholars have suggested that the reason why the "old wineskins" and "old patches" have been inverted in their meaning is because the references of "old" and "new" from Jesus' original parable have been allegorized and extrapolated to represent the "old" religion of Judaism, leaving the "new" to represent the spirit-filled movement of gnosticism. Admittedly, this is only an educated guess, and it's an interesting one too; but it goes to show that allegorization was not necessarily intended by every parable spoken by Jesus, any more than his alleged statement about horseback riding and bow hunting. As I explained in a previous post, there is a good reason why not to allegorize the "old" and "new" in the Matthew 9:9-17.




1.  Nag Hammandi Coptic manuscript, Gospel of Thomas, speech #47



Friday, February 15, 2013

Chapter and table division





Modern bibles often insert short little "snip-its" of descriptions within the actual biblical text. For example, consider Matthew 9:9-17. In an updated 2011 edition of the ESV bible, published by Crossway, the words "Jesus Calls Matthew" are inserted directly above the text of Matthew 9:9. The next time a description is inserted, it's above Matthew 9:14, and it says, "A Question About Fasting." Although insertions like these may possibly give someone the impression that Matthew wrote those words too, that's actually not what concerns me. What concerns me about those "snip-it" descriptions is that they definitely do give the impression that Matthew inserted two distinctive units into this portion of chapter nine. Now, as I have noted in an earlier post, chapters 8 & 9 of Matthew were written with an intentional structure, and Matthew 9:9-17 is very clearly one distinctive unit, not two.  And because it is was written as one unit in mind, there is a reason for why it begins and ends the way it does. There is a good reason for why 9:9-17 begins with Jesus calling Matthew and why it ends with patching up torn garments and filling up wineskins. Those were not random details. They were historical and purposeful details. 

Below are two comparisons of the same biblical text. The first is a duplicate of the ESV translation of 9:9-17 as noted above, and the second is the same text, only it's presented as Matthew structured it. And just as you will notice, I have included "snip-its" of description exactly as they are found in the ESV and I have also included my own descriptions within the second translation; but my "snip-its" are not supposed to divide the text (as the ESV appears to have done). My snip-its are there to clarify what ordinarily seems to be a chaotic organization of Matthew's story.

* * * * * * *

Jesus Calls Matthew
As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me."  And he rose and followed him.  And as he reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples.  And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"  But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.  Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'  For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.


A Question About Fasting  
Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"  And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the groom is with them?  The days will come when the groom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.  No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made.  Neither is new wine put into old wineskins.  If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."


* * * * * * *

Prologue
As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.”  And he rose and followed him.  And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples.  

Confrontation at the table (part one):
And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”  But when he heard it, he said:

A)  Those who are well have no need of a physician,
   B)  but those who are sick.

CENTER:  Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ 

A’)  For I came not to call the righteous,
   B’)  but sinners.

Confrontation at the table (part two):
Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”  And Jesus said to them:

A)  The wedding guests cannot mourn, can they,
   B)  as long as the groom is with them?
      C)  But the days will come
   B’)  when the groom is taken away from them,
A’)  and then they will fast.  

Epilogue
C)  No one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment,
   D)  for the patch pulls away from the garment,
      E)  and a worse tear results.  
C’)  Neither is new wine put into old wineskins.
   D’)  otherwise the skins burst and the wine is spilled
      E’)  and the skins are destroyed.
F)  But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.

* * * * * * *

Perhaps what is most noticeable about this arrangement of Matthew, when examined according to its literary structure, is that the ending doesn't seem so odd anymore. With the ESV division, not only does it appear as though 9:9-17 consist of two distinctive units, but it also appears that Jesus responds to the question about fasting with three different illustrations: a wedding feast, tearing garments, and exploding wineskins. But the two closing illustrations about garments and wineskins were never intended to be part of Jesus' response to John's disciples alone and their question about fasting alone. Instead, it was intended as an epilogue to this narrative interlude. (Luke even goes out of his way to explain that this epilogue was an additional "parable"; Lk. 5:36.) Just as the prologue opened this story to provide a background which captures the reader's interest, Matthew inserted an epilogue to bring closure to this story from a perspective of someone within the story: the perspective of Jesus. This becomes even more evident when the structure is simplified:

A)  Prologue
   B)  Confrontation #1
   B')  Confrontation #2
A')  Epilogue


The prologue is what introduces the background of table fellowship between Jesus some potential disciples within Matthew's home: the "tax collectors and sinners." The two following confrontations (in the center) are also supposed to be illustrations of potential disciples within Matthew's home, but Matthew portrays them as thought they're not really interested in becoming disciples of Jesus. If they were, they would be feasting with "tax collectors and sinners."  Instead, Matthew portrays them as disciples who have come into his home to disrupt table fellowship. They're in Matthew's home not to feast, but to fast, and to question the appropriateness of this great feast. It is only after Jesus and his disciples are challenged by these false disciples that Matthew inserts a brief epilogue that's short and to the point; and it serves a similar purpose as the prologue too. It serves to explain more about the background, more about faithful discipleship, and more about why Jesus and his disciples were gladly feasting with "tax collectors and sinners."


"No one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, do they?"  Who would be that foolish?  For if they did, "the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results."  In other words, Jesus is feasting with "tax collectors and sinners" to patch old garments together properly. Jesus isn't there to tear things apart; he's feasting in order to patch things together. But just in case that parable wasn't satisfactory enough, Jesus thought it was best to illustrate his point from a different angle. By using a familiar analogy of wine and wineskins, it's as though Jesus is saying: 
No one puts new wine into old wineskins either. That too would be foolish! If you put newly fermenting wine into old wineskins that have already been stretched to the max, they'll explode and you'll lose both the perfectly useful case and the delicious wine inside! Who in their right minds would want to do that?  
If you care about preserving them both, then show that you care. It's common sense, just like it's common sense that new wine needs to be put into new wineskins. The similar principle also applies to sewing patches together the right way. My disciples are sitting here feasting while you snobbishly bicker about your traditions of fasting; and in doing so, you guys are the ones putting new patches of unshrunk cloth on old, torn clothing; you guys are the ones putting new wine in old wineskins; we are the ones preserving both the new wineskins and the new wine by feasting, not fasting.





Thursday, February 14, 2013

Two eat, or not two eat: that is the question




In two earlier posts, I discussed the literary structure of Matthew chapters 8 & 9 as well as one of its two distinctive narrative interludes (Matt. 8:18-22).  Those posts can be found here and here.  In this post, I plan on discussing the second narrative interlude (Matt. 9:9-17). 

As noted before, each of those brief narratives describe two types of disciples, and there are no miracles or dramatically divine manifestations which accompany them. Jesus doesn't rebuke the stormy waves of an ocean or resuscitate anyone from death. There is just a very basic message of discipleship with two types of disciples on display in each of them.  But who (or what) are the two types of disciples on display?  Study Matthew 9:9-17 below and decide for yourself.  If there are two types of disciples to be found in this narrative, who or what are they?
As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me."  And he rose and followed him.  And as he reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples.  And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"  But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.  Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'  For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.  Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"  And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the groom is with them?  The days will come when the groom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.  No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made.  Neither is new wine put into old wineskins.  If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."
At first glance, it may seem as though the two types of disciples is this narrative are the Pharisees and the disciples of John.  After all, the Pharisees ask a question, and Jesus responds to their question.  The disciples of John also ask a question, and Jesus responds again.  Therefore, the two types of disciples appear to be the two groups of people who are asking Jesus and his disciples all the questions.  (Be honest, this thought had at least crossed your mind.)  This convenient pairing even suggests that a parallel theme may exist between this and the first narrative interlude of disciples back in Matthew 8:18-22, a parallel theme between one type of disciple who gets rejected by Jesus (the scribe) and one who gets accepted to follow Jesus. Just as the scribe in the first narrative interlude addresses Jesus as "teacher," so the Pharisees in this second narrative  interlude address Jesus as "teacher," which at first glance gives the impression that there is some relationship between the mentality of the scribes and the mentality of the Pharisees. (Interestingly, Mark's account of this story clarifies that "the scribes of the Pharisees" are the ones who oppose Jesus in this second narrative, not simply "the Pharisees"; Mark 2:16.) 

Even though I think there may be a parallel theme between the rejection of a "scribe" in the first narrative and "the Pharisees" in the second narrative, I'm not quite convinced that there is much more of a parallel between the two types of disciples.  After all, Jesus clearly rejects the disciples of John too, whereas the unnamed "disciple" of the first narrative interlude very likely followed Jesus (at least on to the boat, as shown in an earlier post).  This leads me to suspect that the two types of disciples in this narrative are different, and perhaps much more obvious than what first meets the eye.  And behold (!), upon a second look at the text above, there actually are two types of disciples other than the Pharisees and John: one type is "reclining at table" with Jesus and his disciples; the other type is not, because they are fasting.  If we simply follow the way in which this narrative interlude begins, and keep that as the background of the entire discussion, these two types of disciples will become apparent very quickly.  


Notice first that Jesus calls Matthew by saying "Follow me!"  Only a few moments later, we find Matthew hosting a feast with Jesus and his disciples as honored guests.  (Luke's gospel is even more explicit about this "great feast" in Matthew's house; 5:29.)  Previous to this story, the only other times that Jesus said "follow me" to a disciple, were directed at Peter and Andrew together (Matt. 4:18) and to the unnamed disciple who got on the boat with Jesus (8:22). Immediately Matthew is placed alongside those who follow Jesus and feast with his disciples, and all those who "recline at table" with Jesus become associated with Jesus and those disciples who wish to follow him. This idea is made even more explicit when we read that Matthew leaves his day job of tax collecting -- his "tax booth" -- to follow Jesus, which is immediately followed by a feast in Matthew's house along with Jesus and fellow "tax collectors." Notice the sense of alarm which Matthew applies to these potential disciples: "Behold! Many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples."  This then sets the stage for distinguishing the two types of disciples portrayed within this narrative interlude.  There are clearly those who feast with Jesus and his disciples, and there are those who don't.  There are those who wish to follow Jesus, while others maintain no such desire.  In fact, when these two types of disciples are compared side-by-side, Matthew makes it seem as though the ones who don't wish to eat with Jesus are the ones who we are supposed to be the most concerned about.  Although Matthew doesn't come out and say this, it's as though the text is shouting out at us, saying, "Behold! The disciples of the Pharisees and John are not feasting with Jesus! The disciples of the Pharisees1 and John refuse to break their fast!"  In fact, not only do they refuse to break their own fast, they each challenge the validity of table fellowship within Matthew's house. 

Consider the following facts as background information: The Pharisees greatly despised the profession of "tax collectors," but they saved a special disdain for Jews who chose that profession.  The Pharisees viewed such Jews as "unclean," alongside other "sinners."2 And even the term "sinners" did not mean what twenty-first century western Christians generally think it means, namely that those people were generally recognized as sinful. Instead, the term "sinners" was used in a specifically snobbish  way among Pharisees in the first century, and therefore would have been very familiar to Matthew's Jewish audience.3 Pharisees described "sinners" as people below them, people who were considered uneducated in the Torah because they did not adhere "properly" to the Pharisaical food, tithing, and purity laws.4 Not much has changed since the first century. Even in the twenty-first century we find modern pharisees with this same snobbish mentality that opposes "sinners" who smoke, drink, chew, and go with the girls who do too.  Whenever this religiously snobbish mentality pervades a culture, it's hard to avoid it or to not notice it at all. And as Craig Keener points out, this particularly snobbish label was so pervasive in the first century that even rabbis who tolerated "sinners" were considered "sinners" in the eyes of the Pharisees.5 In the eyes of Matthew's Jewish audience, it was understood that these "sinners" communicated uncleanness just as much as "tax collectors" did.  Matthew's Jewish audience would have been able to read between the lines of his story, so to speak, and clearly distinguish between those who were promoting table fellowship with Jesus and those who were attempting to disrupt table fellowship.  

Also, notice carefully that there are two confrontations during this time of table fellowship. The first confrontation is with Jesus' disciples, not Jesus directly, and yet it concerns table fellowship with Jesus.  In a similar manner, the second confrontation is with Jesus directly, but their concern is about table fellowship with Jesus' disciples, not Jesus per se.  And so, collectively, Matthew paints a picture of the Pharisees disrupting fellowship on one end of the table, and the disciples of John disrupting table fellowship on the other end.  While disciples of Christ are feasting, the disciples of antichrist are fasting.  These two types of disciples set the tone for understanding this narrative interlude.  From beginning to end, those who are fasting each have their own axe to grind, whereas Jesus remains confident that they're not the sharpest tools in the shed. Those who refuse to break their own traditions of fasting may look down upon others as "sinners," but they're the ones who are missing out because the Messiah has come to save sinners (Matt. 9:13).  Those who are "well" may simply want to avoid feasting with the unclean in order to prevent further ceremonial defilement; but the Messiah isn't afraid of ceremonial defilement. The Messiah has come to feast with the unclean because it's the unclean who are sick; it's the unclean who acknowledge their need for cleansing.  

The Pharisees would indeed do well to heed Jesus' exhortation to "Go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'" Sacrificial offerings were a means of cleansing ceremonial defilement. Here, Jesus exhorts them to go and learn what God means when He says His desire is for mercy more than sacrifice. Mercy cleanses far better than the blood of bulls and goats. Mercy heals the sick. Mercy nourishes because it is well fed from all the feasting. Sacrifice, on the other hand, is often just a clever-looking mask of righteousness which covers up the real disease underneath. Sacrifice is often just a pious excuse to continue living sinfully as long as every rite is done in its proper order. And sacrifice could always be found laying on the great table of unhewn stones within Herod's idolatrous temple. Mercy, however, is found reclining at a table of bread and wine within a tax collector's house. 







1.  The "disciples" of the Pharisees are not mentioned explicitly in Matthew's narrative, but it is mentioned explicitly by Mark (2:18) and Luke (5:30, 33). Matthew's narrative certainly implies "disciples" by the plural use of the term "Pharisees," alongside the designation of the "disciples" (plural) of John (singular). By the time of this encounter, John was already in prison (Matt. 4:12), and there was no official title for John's disciples. There was only a general description of whose disciples they believed themselves to be. 
2.  Craig Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 2009] p.292-293 
3.  See Ibid., pp. 294-296; Kenneth E. Bailey, Jacob & the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel's Story [Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press; 2003] pp. 59-63; R.T. France, NICNT: The Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 2007] p. 353; D.A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House; 1984] pp. 224-225
4.  R.T. France, NICNT: The Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 2007] p. 353;  Craig Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 2009] pp. 294-295
5.  Craig Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 2009] pp. 294