Healing the Withered Hand: Matthew 12:9-14 (Section D2)

[Jesus] went on from there and entered their synagogue. And a man was there with with a withered hand. And they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--so that they might accuse him. He said to them, "Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him. (Matthew 12:9-14)

Continuing where we left off in this ongoing series of Matthew's gospel, we arrive at the famous story of the man with a "withered hand." This story is found in the other two synoptic gospels as well (Mark 3 & Luke 6). Unfortunately, many commentators have taught this story in a manner very similar to their misunderstandings of the previous one. It has been taught as though Jesus is really concerned about "exceptions" to God's Law under the new covenant, exceptions such as acts of mercy. As a result, the Pharisaical misunderstandings of God's Law become the focal points of this entire story, when really, this section is less of a commentary on "exceptions" and misunderstandings of God's Law and more of a commentary on misunderstandings of the Lawgiver. Such was precisely the point of the previous story, and Matthew continues that thought here as well.

Matthew even makes it obvious that he is continuing where he last left off. He says that Jesus "went on from there and entered their synagogue." We might now want to ask, 'From where is "there" and whose synagogue is "theirs"?' 

In the previous story, Jesus is walking with his disciples on the Sabbath day, among whom were certain Pharisees. Those Pharisees upbraided Jesus for permitting his disciples to do what the traditions of 1st century Judaism had determined as unlawful. It is from that scene of traveling with Pharisees which Matthew now adds onto, only this time Jesus enters their synagogue on the Sabbath day. 

Even though Luke clearly says that this second account occurs on a separate Sabbath day other than the previous Sabbath confrontation (Luke 6:6), Matthew sandwiches the two stories together in order to give his readers the impression that all of these events of chapters eleven and twelves revolve around the same day of Sabbath rest. Here, on this Sabbath day and in the synagogue of the same contentious Pharisees, we read that "a man was there with a withered hand" (ESV). Actually the Greek text is much more startling than that. After entering "their synagogue," instead of focusing upon the confrontation with the Pharisees, Matthew interrupts a seemingly smooth transition into a conversation with the Pharisees by an abrupt and somewhat odd description of a man with a damaged hand. The Greek text literally exclaims: "And behold! A man having a dried-up hand!" The ESV tries to smooth out this startlingly literal translation, but in doing so they lose the original dramatic affect which Matthew intended his readers to notice. And by noticing this exclamation, many among Matthew's Jewish audience would have picked up the significance of these events.

There are quite a few interesting connections with this man's particular disability. For starters, according to 1st century Judaism, such disabilities as a "withered-hand" (cheira xeran) were considered curses from the hand of God. The historical significance of this belief comes to light in the history of Israel's kings. In I Kings 13:1-6 we learn about Jeroboam and his first attempt to take the kingdom of Israel away from David's descendants and seize it for himself, and that story also involves a man with a "withered hand" (cheira xeran). In that story, Yahweh tells Solomon that the kingdom will be torn from his "hand" and given to another (I Kings 11:12, 31, 34-5). We then learn shortly thereafter that Jeroboam is that man. But in order to tear power away from the Davidic line of kings, Jeroboam attempts to divide the allegiance of the people by erecting a sacrificial altar far away from Jerusalem, in Shechem, the place where Israel first renewed their covenant with Yahweh after conquering the promised land. But after Jeroboam erects his idolatrous altar in Shechem, a "man of God" prophesies against his idolatrous grasp of power, and when Jeroboam attempts to seize the man of God, his hand withers (I Kings 13:4). Jeroboam's "hand" (cheira) on the kingdom, which Yahweh took away from Solomon, withered (xeran) as soon as he attempted to stretch out his hand against the man of God, to destroy him. In the end, Jeroboam was at least wise enough to plead to the man of God for healing, and the man of God in turn pleaded to Yahweh for healing; and Jeroboam's withered hand was restored.

It was because of striking accounts like that, that other statements of God pertaining to "withered" body parts were viewed as part of God's covenant curse. For example, in Zechariah 11:15-17, Yahweh describes the leadership of Israel as "foolish shepherds" who don't care about those being destroyed, or about healing the maimed, or nourishing others; instead they devour the Lord's sheep (11:15-16). Then, in the following verse, Yahweh pronounces this covenant curse upon Israel's leaders: 

Woe to my worthless shepherd who deserts the flock!

May the sword strike his arm and his right eye!

Let his arm be entirely withered (xeran), and his right eye utterly blinded!

In Matthew's story above, Israel's leaders aren't too much different from King Jeroboam or even the leaders of Israel described in Zechariah's prophecy. They are foolish shepherds who don't care about Yahweh's sheep. In their attempt to stretch out their arms against the people of God, Yahweh pronounces a curse upon their hands. But in Matthew's account, Jesus doesn't strike out against the Pharisees by withering their hands. Instead he strikes out against the Pharisees by healing the withered hand of a man. By healing the man with the withered hand, Jesus is pronouncing himself to be the wise shepherd of Israel, while leaving them to be the foolish ones.

But there is still more to this story. Notice carefully what Jesus implies in the answer he gives the Pharisees. They ask Jesus, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" The Pharisees were hoping he would affirm their suspicions by answering publicly, so that they could accuse him afterward (Matt. 12:10).  But Jesus doesn't respond by affirming that healing per se is lawful to do on the Sabbath. Instead he responds by affirming what is good to do on the Sabbath. "Which one of you who has a sheep," Jesus responds, "if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

By responding this way, Jesus is comparing the Pharisees to the foolish shepherds of Zechariah's prophecy. And by healing the withered hand of the man in their synagogue, Jesus also claimed to have the authority of Yahweh which the man of God appealed to when he restored Jeroboam. In other words, Jesus was claiming to be the Good Shepherd of Israel and the ruler who cares about those being destroyed, the one who heals the maimed and nourishes the sheep of Israel unto greater health. 

But regardless of Jesus' ability to heal miraculously as Yahweh does, we learn from Matthew's account that "the Pharisees went out and conspired against [Jesus], how to destroy him."

The irony of this closing statement is great. Earlier in Matthew's gospel we learned that Jesus commissioned his twelve apostles to go to the "lost sheep" of the house of Israel, and to proclaim a soon-coming salvation for those who would follow him, but a soon-coming judgment upon those who would refuse. Also, in Matthew 15:24, Jesus will affirm again that he too has been sent, by his Father, but only to the "lost sheep" of the house of Israel. Yet the word for "lost" (apollymi) is the same Greek word used to describe the Pharisees seeking to "destroy" (apollymi) Jesus. Jesus is sent by his Father to the "lost" or "perishing" sheep of the house of Israel, but the shepherds of Israel are conspiring to "lose" him, causing him to perish. Jesus even sends out twelves apostles to represent him as they go to the "lost" sheep of Israel, but the rulers of Israel don't like the one whom the apostles represent. And so they try to destroy the Good Shepherd. 

According to Jesus' own argument, these Pharisees also recognize the value of a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath. But the irony is that they are blind to the evil of their own thoughts--thoughts which conspire to throw the Good Shepherd into a pit of their own on the Sabbath. In this sense, Jesus is like Joseph and the Pharisees are like Joseph's brothers, conspiring to thrown their brother into the pit because their Father gave him the glorious robe of authority. In another sense Jesus is like "the man of God" and the Pharisees are like Jeroboam, attempting to seize the man of God in order to continue sacrificing in their own idolatrous temple (Herod's Temple). And last of all, in relation to the prophecy of Zechariah, Jesus is like Zechariah, called to be "the shepherd of the flock doomed to be slaughtered by the sheep traders" and sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech 11:7-14). But unlike Zechariah, Jesus would not only be the shepherd of the flock; Jesus would also become as one of the sheep doomed to be slaughtered. But in doing so--by suffering under the hand of the evil sheep traders--the rest of Yahweh's flock is spared, and the curse of withering is pronounced upon Yahweh's worthless shepherds instead. 

Who is greater than John the Baptist? (Matt. 11:1-19)

In chapter 11 the theme of wilderness wandering comes to an end and the theme of Israel's rest in the land along with the subsequent rise of their promised King begins. But because I have already commented in an earlier post about how this theme of wilderness wandering begins and ends with Jesus' response to John the Baptist, I will move on to discuss the following statements within chapter 11 which concern the relationship between John and Jesus. 

Matthew 11:7-15 says:

As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold! Those who wear soft clothing are in king's houses! What then did you go out to see? A Prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written,

"Behold! I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you."

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

When John came baptizing in the wilderness, every Jew around the region of Judea understood that he was a true prophet of Yahweh. His ministry and message was very influential among the Jews. Even Josephus, the Jewish historian and contemporary of Jesus' apostles, comments about the great influence of John the Baptist in his day. Commenting on a war between Aretas, the king of Arabia, and Herod the Tetrarch, and how Aretas’ armies destroyed the forces of Herod, Josephus writes:

Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptizer; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness toward one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it…

…Now, when many others came to crowd about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it in to his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself in to difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure against him.1

When Jesus asks rhetorically, "What did you go out to see?", he knows that many among the crowds who are following him once followed John "the Baptizer" also. Jesus also knows that they didn't go out into the wilderness to see something ordinary and weak, like a reed shaken by the wind; nor did they go out to see an ordinary ruler dressed in expensive "soft" fabrics. They went out into the wilderness to see something unique and rare in first century Israel. They went out to see a prophet of the Lord. But Jesus reminds those who have ears to hear that John was much more than a prophet. He was an angel. And as an angel, John was commissioned to prepare the way for the great procession of Israel's King. John was he of whom it is written,

"Behold! I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you."

This "messenger" is angelos in Greek. It's the word from which we translate the word "angel" in English. Angel means messenger though. Sometimes it refers to an angelic creature, but most often in the Scriptures the word simply refers to a messenger. Even the word "gospel" is derived from this word, meaning the "good message" or "good news" (evangellion in Greek). In this case, John is the "messenger" referred to in Malachai 3 and the destined-one whom Jesus confirmed as "Elijah to come." Malachai 3:1-5 says,

Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts.  But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?

According to Malachi's own prophesy to Israel, Yahweh promises a "messenger" who would prepare the way for Him (Yahweh). And then, immediately after this, we find out that the Lord, whom the people of Israel are seeking, is promised to "suddenly come to his temple" after this messenger arrives. The Lord who comes to his temple is then given a descriptive title. The Lord is described as "the messenger of the covenant in whom you (the people of Israel) delight." This, according to Jesus' own enigmatic words, is the direction in which Jesus was aiming his rhetorical questions about John. Jesus knows that among his own crowd there are many Israelites who once followed John. And those who stopped following John and started following Jesus are doing so for a very good reason. They know John was a prophet of the Lord. But Jesus declares that he is actually more than a prophet. He is the messenger of almighty God who would prepare Israel to meet their Lord, the messenger of the covenant.

Jesus confirmed this when he said, "For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

This reference to Elijah also comes from Malachi. Malachai 4:1-6 says:

For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.  But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall.  And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts …Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.  And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.

What we learn from Malachi's prophecy is that a Prophet like Elijah (i.e. John the baptizer) would be sent by Yahweh to “turn the hearts” of Israel (i.e. call them to repentance) before “the awesome day of the Lord comes…[to] strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.” And the Lord himself is that angel of the covenant who “will suddenly come to his temple” and “strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.” This is consistent with the themes of soon-coming judgment upon the land of Israel and its temple which we have already learned from Jesus elsewhere in Matthew's gospel (here, here, here, here, here, and here). John was a messenger of God's good news for the people of Israel. He was a messenger sent from God to turn the hearts of Israel back to Yahweh, away from Herod's idolatrous temple, it's illegitimate priesthood, and it's Christless Judaism, and towards the face of Jesus Christ. This is what Jesus meant when he said, "Among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

Jesus did not mean that Christians in the 21st century would be greater prophets than John. Nor did he mean to infer that no human being in history  had greater dignity than John the Baptist. Some scholars have suggested instead that Jesus was referring to John's spiritual understanding, and that those who are least in the kingdom of heaven were promised to have greater spiritual intimacy with Christ through the pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit, which John never experienced because of his death prior to that event. But I think that's an embarrassing exegesis of the text itself because that's not even remotely alluded to in the text itself. 

Jesus says explicitly that John is the messenger whom Yahweh had prepared for the revelation of the Lord and his coming in judgment upon the idolatrous land of Israel. And so, when Jesus said that "the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he," he was referring to those Jewish disciples in his day who were following him and heralding his good news. They would be greater than John the Baptist. They would be greater messengers than John before the Lord suddenly comes to his temple, striking the land with a decree of utter destruction. Their message would have a greater impact upon the people of Israel than John the Baptist. 

How do we know this is the case? How do we know that Jesus is referring to Jews in his own generation? Because in the same paragraph, Jesus says that the "kingdom of heaven" had already begun with John. Jesus said: "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence..." (present tense). The kingdom of heaven began with Yahweh's messenger, John, who was born within the same year as Jesus.2 Jesus was referring to Christian Jews who were messengers of his gospel, living in the kingdom of heaven within that generation, while awaiting the coming of the Son of Man in 70 A.D.

We now know, as a matter of historical fact and consistent biblical exegesis, that Jesus did come in 70 A.D. to judge Israel, end the old covenant age, and restore the godly people of Israel as he promised; and all those faithful, spirit-filled Jews who followed their Messiah, Jesus, were much greater messengers of the gospel than John ever could have achieved in his lifetime. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

1.  Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.5.2
2.  Mary and Elizabeth were pregnant at the same time. See Luke 1:39-45

Vaughn Ohlman, the "practical theonomist"

Vaughn Ohlman, the "practical theonomist" and reformed baptist who has written a couple self-published books which are popular among the formalistic, baptistic crowd of "reformed" Christianity, says that he holds to "the Grammatico-historical method of interpretation," and that he believes "every text of Scripture must be interpreted with an understanding of both the language that was used, and the context/culture/historical setting in which it was given."1 Immediately following that assertion, he declares that:

All Scriptures are sufficiently plain that there are no facts of history or linguistics which are so obscure, or lost in time, that Christians living today, with revelation of the Spirit and diligent searching of all of Scripture, cannot understand what God would say to them through that text.2

But here is where it gets interesting. He then goes out of his way to make clear that he rejects the "redemptive historical" interpretation of Scripture insofar as it rejects, as a methodology, examples within the historical narratives of Scripture to be considered normative for applying Christian ethics  today. This is what he must strictly adhere to in order for his books on "biblical" marriage (here and here) which reject dating and courting altogether, as well as his requirement of "headcoverings" for women (here) and absolute patriarchal authority (here) to seem convincing among "biblically" sensitive Christians today. Ohlman says he finds that aspect of redemptive-historical method which does not presume upon all historical examples of Scripture as being normative for Christians ethics, 

...to contradict our understanding of the issues raised in II Tim 3:16-17, the linguistic nature of many of the texts themselves, the way these texts are treated in the NT, and the way most commentators and preachers have treated those texts and examples throughout history.3

Ummm... the redemptive historical method contradicts the "linguistic nature of the texts themselves"? Is he serious? Can he be so narrow minded as to miss what is obvious from the text of Scripture itself? When a christian chooses not to presume that the various examples of behavior found throughout the historical narratives of Scripture are normative for Christian ethics in every generation, that is not at all the same thing as denying the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures (II Tim 3:16-17), nor does that lack of presumption inhibit the Scriptures in their entirety from being "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (II Tim 3:16). Ohlman is not simply mistaken in this regard. He is wrong as well.

Secondarily, the way in which these "texts are treated" by the New Testament  authors affirms and confirms the solid foundation of redemptive historical interpretation, and that the historical narratives per se cannot be interpreted as standing laws which are normative for Christians ethics in all generations, but must be interpreted in light of their own redemptive-historical context. For example, God clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins in the garden. And in Deuteronomy 22:11-12, God says, "You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together." Should we therefore disregard the narrative of redemption or the historical context of those passages and conclude that Christians ought to clothe themselves with animal skins only, and to avoid wearing clothing which use plant fibers (as linen does, as apposed to wool which is made of animal hair). Should we also conclude that it is immoral for Christians to wear clothing made of synthetic fibers? After all, God clearly clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins, not polyester. 

Consider another example. The Law of God says: "You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself." Later on the New Covenant we find Jesus wearing tassels on his garments (Matt. 9:20; 14:36; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43, 44). Should we therefore conclude that all Christians at all times wear tassels on their garments too? Vaughn Ohlman's hermeneutic necessarily accepts these historical examples as normative for Christian ethics today. But don't misunderstand my main point: Vaughn Ohlman may not accept it himself. How can that be? Well, that can only be if his hermeneutic is arbitrary at this point. And if it's arbitrary, it's inconsistent too.

Last of all, Ohlman asserts that his interpretation is "the way most commentators and preachers have treated those texts and examples throughout history." That is simply not true. But even more embarrassing is the fact that he doesn't mention any commentators or preachers, let alone "most" of them, who support this narrow-minded claim of his. All one would have to do is take a cursory glance through the Nicene and Ante-Nicene church fathers, and the popular protestant reformers like Calvin, Luther, Bullinger, Zwingle, Knox, Baxter, Bunyan, Henderson, Rutherford, Owen, Turretin, etc.. in order to realize how bogus this claim of Ohlman's is. Such claims of his are a mask to cover up his bogus scholarship. "Most" commentators and "preachers" throughout history did not treat the various and widespread historical narratives of Scripture as standing examples of law which are normative for Christian ethics at all times. Ohlman needs to step down from his hermeneutical high horse to see what reality is like.

Sadly, Ohlman recommends Greg Bahsnen's books on theonomy ("By This Standard," "Theonomy In Christian Ethics," and "No Other Standard") on his blog. I say sadly because Dr. Greg Bahnsen spends an exhaustive amount of time demonstrating that this aspect of redemptive-historical hermeneutics, which Ohlman rejects, is fundamental to a consistent theonomic interpretation of Christian ethics contained within the Bible, and that Ohlman's rejection of such historic principles are an embarrassment to the "theonomic" community.

1.  http://vonstakes.blogspot.com/p/on-our-hermeneutic-summary-given.html
2.  Ibid. 

3.  Ibid.

Instructions to the Twelve (C and C')

Matthew's chiastic framework for chapter ten, in which this section can be derived, is seen below:

A)  Instructions to the twelve apostles  (10:5-15)

   B)  Persecution and family division  (10:16-23)

      C)  Enemies of the Master’s household  (10:24-25)

         D1)  Consolation of the twelve: "Do not fear them..." (10:26-27)

            D2)  "Do not fear those who... but Fear Him who can..." (10:28-30)

         D3)  Consolation of the twelve: "Do not fear, therefore..." (10:31-33)

      C’)  Enemies of the Master’s household  (10:34-36)

   B’)  Persecution and family division  (10:37-39)

A’)  Reception of the twelve apostles  (10:40-42)


The text for sections C and C' is as follows:

A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household. 

...Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 

According to these sections, Jesus is preparing his twelve apostles for soon-coming persecution from God's enemies. Jesus illustrates the relationship between a disciple and his teacher, as well as a servant and his master; and his apostles would have understood why this illustration was relevant to the entire discussion of chapter ten. For the Twelve apostles, this illustration was relevant for at least two reasons: first, Jesus was going to "give them authority over unclean spirits" (10:1), with a unique and crucial mission within Israel to "heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons" (10:8). But Jesus didn't give this authority merely to anyone who wanted it, or everyone capable of possessing it. He was going to give it to them, and only for this unique mission until the Son of Man would come in judgment upon that generation (culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and Herod's Temple in 70 A.D. as seen in the previous posts here, here, here, here, here, and here). And so, one thing which we learn here is that these twelve apostles needed to consider the  authority given to them very seriously, and to guard themselves against the wiles of the Devil which would tempt them to use their authority foolishly. Foolish abuse of God's authority would only aid the enemies of God and harm God's people. 

Secondarily, Jesus doesn't just want them to merely think of themselves as ones with the authority of the Messiah. He wants them to think of themselves as servants of God's household. The Twelve would have understood this language about household servants. They would have recognized the family aspect as well as the priestly aspect of household terminology, for priests were servants of God's house1 -- the Tabernacle/Temple. Jesus is not merely instructing his Twelve apostles concerning their authority. He is instructing them concerning their priestly authority in the midst of Israel, and the expectations which accompany their priestly duties that conflict with other priests in Israel. These "Twelve" apostles were to become the new rulers and representatives of God's new Israel.

As the new rulers of God's new Israel, Jesus expects devilish malignity from those outside of God's household. Of course, all of Israel considered themselves to be adopted into God's household. They were children of God's promised inheritance. They were God's covenant people. But many of the rulers and their disciples throughout the land of Israel were opposed to Jesus, even refusing table fellowship with him, stating very clearly that they did not approve of Jesus' household. Many of the rulers even refused John's baptism which paved the way for their Messiah and fellowship into his household. And as Jesus notes here (and earlier in his ministry), the rulers of Israel had been accusing Jesus of having a devil all along, so this statement about Beelzebul shouldn't surprise us.

As Jesus noted in the previous section (B and B'), his ministry (along with his apostles) would divide the people of Israel even further. Jesus warns the Twelve that if the rulers of Israel and their disciples call Jesus Beelzebul,  a term derived from Baal-Zebul, meaning "Lord of the high dwelling-place," how much more will they malign those of this "Lord's" household? (Baal-Zebul was a derogatory term associated with a pagan deity whom the Jews believed to be the "Lord" of evil spirits and their "house.") Jesus is teaching that if God's enemies can't touch the Lord of glory himself, they will go after his children. And if they want to destroy the Lord of glory himself, they will pursue his children unto death as well. Jesus is warning his Twelve apostles about this reality, and the temptations that come with their priestly responsibility to guard and keep God's house and household.

As Jesus says, he did not come to bring peace to the earth. Far too often this verse is used by overly-zealous children of God to justify their foolish patriotism and nationalism. But by making this provocative claim, Jesus was teaching the very opposite of patriotic nationalism. He did not come --become incarnate-- to bring peace to the "earth." In Greek, the word translated here as "earth" is γη (pronounced gē), which is the term used throughout the Old Testament for the tribal "land" of Israel. Jesus did not come to bring peace to the land surrounding them. What land? The land in which the lost sheep of the house of Israel dwelled. The land which Jesus had come to divide, including the division of its wheat from chaff, sheep from goats, and those who were with him from those who were against him.

Jesus did not come to bring peace. He came to bring a sword. His ministry as the Messiah to the nations would necessarily divide the land of Israel because the leadership of Israel had become idolaters just like the Canaanites long before them, worshiping a god of their own imaginations. But the rulers of Israel had actually done much worse than the Canaanites. Not only had they been worshiping a god of their own imaginations, but they had also repeatedly rejected the God who tabernacled in their midst. Jesus came to bring a sword against them. He came to set a man against his own biological father, and a daughter against her biological mother, and a daughter-in-law against her legal mother-in-law. The boundaries which defined God's people were being divided, chopped up with the sword of the Spirit, wielded by the Word of God dwelling in their midst. 

Jesus could assure his Twelve apostles that enemies would indeed be those of one's own household because he understood that God's family transcends the legal and blood-related households of Israel. God's family is more important than legal family ties and blood-relationships which bind the twelve tribes of Israel together; and in that sense, water really is thicker than blood. The waters of baptism which John the Baptist brought to the lost sheep of the house of Israel would be taken much more seriously by God than those who refused it. As noted by Luke 7:30, which stands in very close connection with the narratives of chapters 10 & 11 in Matthew's gospel, "the Pharisees and teachers of the Law rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by John." Jesus had come to bring a sword against those rulers and their disciples, for they were enemies of God's household; they were priests of Baal's Zebul.

1.  For a detailed explanation of "Priests" being "attendants" or servants of God's "house," see Peter. J. Leithart, The Priesthood of the Plebs [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003] pp. 48-86; See also L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus [Leuven-Paris-Walpole, MA: Peeters; 2012], pp. 258-270; and G. K. Beale, The Temple an the Church's Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; 2004], pp. 66-70.

Matthew 10: The End Was Near (Cosmic language & the old covenant age)

In this post, I would like to identify two important aspects of biblical literature which I have not yet touched upon in this series: 1) Scripture's non-literal cosmic language of judgment & deliverance, and 2) its related themes about the end of tabernacle/temple worship and the old creation/old covenant. These are important for understanding Jesus' prophecy to his twelve apostles in Matthew chapter ten: "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

In order to appreciate this statement a bit more, let's start with the first aspect mentioned above. 

Throughout the Old Testament we find multiple references to Yahweh coming in judgment and/or deliverance for His people: Isaiah 19:1-4; 31:1-7; 64:1-4; Psalm 18:1-19; 144:1-8. Perhaps the most important example among these is Psalm 18, which speaks in very clear cosmic and apocalyptic language:

A Psalm of David, the servant of the Lord, who addressed the words of this song to the Lord on the day when the Lord rescued him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul. I love you, O Lord, my strength. The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. I call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from my enemies. The cords of death encompassed me; the torrents of destruction assailed me; the cords of Sheol entangled me; the snares of death confronted me. In my distress I called upon the Lord; to my God I cried for help. From his temple he heard my voice, and my cry to him reached his ears. Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations also of the mountains trembled and quaked, because he was angry. Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him. He bowed the heavens and came down; thick darkness was under his feet. He rode on a cherub and flew; he came swiftly on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him, thick clouds dark with water. Out of the brightness before him hailstones and coals of fire broke through his clouds. The Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Most High uttered his voice, hailstones and coals of fire. And he sent out his arrows and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare at your rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of your nostrils. He sent from on high, he took me; he drew me out of many waters. He rescued me from my strong enemy and from those who hated me, for they were too mighty for me. They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but the Lord was my support. He brought me out into a broad place; he rescued me, because he delighted in me.

Let's stop and think about this imagery for a few moments. David describes the Lord "coming" down to deliver him according to his prayer. He also describes the earth rocking and the mountains shaking at the anger of the Lord. Glowing coals shoot out of the Lord, and smoke rises out of his nostrils. The Lord even rides on a cherub (an angel) that flies, and he "comes" swiftly on the wings of the wind. Thunder, hailstones, and coals of fire shoot down through the thick, dark clouds which surround Him. The Lord shoots out arrows of lighting, and by the breath of His nostrils the sea parts so that the ocean floor is laid bare before everyone. And all of this, as David says at the beginning of this Psalm, is a description of the Lord rescuing him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of King Saul. Obviously, this apocalyptic language is not literal, nor was it ever intended to be interpreted as literal occurrences at the time of the Lord's deliverance. Such language is describing a mighty deliverance --a deliverance so mighty that extraordinary cosmic language suits it best-- but it is not a description of literal cosmic events. 

This is but one Old Testament example cosmic and apocalyptic language which describes the Lord's judgment upon His enemies and the deliverance of His children. This, I contend, is virtually identical to the cosmic and apocalyptic language mentioned in Matthew 24, Luke 21, Acts 2, I Peter 3, and Jude 17. 

Second, we find themes surrounding the end of tabernacle/temple worship and its relationship with the old creation/old covenant. These themes become very apparent through a comparison of multiple new covenant references about the “last days,” “last time,” and end of the Old Covenant "age": I Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:1-2; 9:1-10, 23-26; 10:19-25; Acts 2:14-21 (referencing Joel 2:27-32); II Tim. 3:1-5; I Peter 1:3-9, 20; 4:7-11; 5:4 (w/ reference to I Jn. 2:28-29); I John 2:18; Jude 17-23. Perhaps the most important examples among these are found throughout the book of Hebrews:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he framed the ages. (1:1-2)

Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place, having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section,1 performing their ritual duties, but into the second2 only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is a parable for that time into the present).3 According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (9:1-10)

...Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. ...He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (9:23-26)

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain... let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith... Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who is promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (10:19-25)

In these passages, the author of Hebrews sees a certain "Day" drawing near, and the people of God are encouraged to stir up one another to love and good works, and to meet together regularly, and to hold fast the confession of their hope without wavering because that Day is drawing near. Before that the author speaks of Christ appearing at the "end of the ages." What ages? The ages which led up to the New Covenant and the inauguration of the Kingdom of heaven on earth. This "end of the ages" is also described as a "time of reformation" in which Jesus would pass through the first "tent" and into the real "Holy of Holies"; and these laws pertaining to the Old Covenant priesthood (with the high priest passing through the first "tent" into the "second" tent) are said to be "a parable of that time into the present." 

In I Cor. 10:11, the apostle Paul uses similar language when he references God's judgments upon the disobedient people of Israel in the wilderness. And Paul says that "these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come." Clearly then, according to the apostle Paul, his own generation was living in the time when "the ages" would "end." But what "ages"? Well, in the mind of the author of Hebrews (and many people have argued that Paul was it's author), the answer was simple. The Mosaic tabernacle and it's laws taught the people of Israel that its own system of worship had to end and a better system had to be inaugurated at the end of that age. Ages would pass operating under the old covenant and it's tabernacle/temple system of worship, but a "time of reformation" was promised, according to the Mosaic Law's own "parable."

All of these references, I contend, are describing the end of the Old Covenant along with it's essential tabernacle/temple, sacrificial, and priestly structure. Furthermore, I contend, that the cosmic and apocalyptic language of Matthew 24, Luke 21, Acts 2, I Peter 3, and Jude 17 describe the end of the old creation as it is symbolized and foreshadowed in the destruction of the temple/tabernacle system and it's laws which are structured with cosmic symbolism.4

1.  i.e. the Holy Place was the first section, or "tent," of the Tabernacle

2. i.e. the Most Holy Place (or "Holy of Holies") was the second section, or "tent," of the Tabernacle. According to the Law of Moses, the High priest was the only priest allowed into the second "tent," and he had to walk through the first tent to get to the second "tent." The author of Hebrews argues that this symbolism engraved in ceremonial law was "symbolic of the time now present."

3.  The Greek text says ἥτις παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, which, if woodenly translated  would say: "which is a parable into the time then-to-now-present." That is why I translated the passage as saying: "which is a parable for that time into the present." The ESV translates this parenthetical remark as "(which is symbolic for the present age)." The NASB translates it this way: "which is a symbol for the present time." The NIV translates it this way: "This is an illustration for the present time." And finally, the NLT translates it this way: "This is an illustration pointing to the present time." 

4.  See L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus [Leuven-Paris-Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2012]; G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God [Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004]; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996]; Peter J. Leithart, A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000]; James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing A Biblical View of the World [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999]