Saturday, March 2, 2013

Salvation from death, part 2

  
...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 post we finished discussing Matthew's introduction to the miraculous story contained within 9:18-26. In that post I discussed such important factors as what the central focus of this narrative is, and what the surrounding  events of this narrative look like. We learned that a Jewish "ruler" of a synagogue bursts into the scene of table fellowship within Matthew's home where Jesus is feasting with tax collectors and "sinners," while, at the same time, being surrounded by censorious disciples of the Pharisees and John the baptist. And this Jewish "ruler" not only interrupts the table fellowship, but he also kneels before Jesus in a posture of worship to proclaim before everyone in the house that Jesus is the only man who can raise his dead, unclean daughter to life again by touching her. This ruler's great faith is bold and self-sacrificial, and it's that kind of faith which Jesus was not at all ashamed or embarrassed to "follow" (Matt. 9:19).

According to Matthew's account, we don't find the detailed description of crowds swarming around Jesus on every side, effectively restricting his ability to maneuver around easily. Those are details which Mark and Luke considered important to emphasize. Matthew chooses instead to omit those details and simply state that Jesus "followed" this ruler, and that his disciples followed as well. As one can imagine, when Jesus got up from feasting at Matthew's table, lots of disciples and wanna-be disciples rose quickly to see if he actually could raise the ruler's dead daughter. And if you can imagine this scene with all of it's surrounding drama, it is here and at this time when everything suddenly comes to a halt because of an unnamed woman who had suffered 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, for she said to herself, "If only I just catch hold of his garment, I will be saved."
According to certain laws which God declared to the people of Israel in the wilderness, Jews knew that they were instructed to be mindful of "bodily discharges" and the ceremonial impurity which could spread contagiously as a result.  Leviticus chapter fifteen contains those specific instructions which God declared to Israel in the wilderness, and Matthew's Jewish audience would have definitely thought of those laws as they heard the shocking news about this bleeding woman. But another thing which would have been shocking is her suffering for twelve years. Matthew did not have to mention her suffering for twelve years. If all he wanted to focus upon was her medical condition, the long time frame of suffering for twelve years need not be mentioned. But it was mentioned, and therefore it was important to help identify with the uniqueness of her suffering. And the more I read and re-read Matthew's account of this story, the more I gravitate toward the view that Matthew is not highlighting her medical condition as the cause of her suffering (contra Mark and Luke); nor is he highlighting a type of suffering caused by the laws of Leviticus fifteen. Instead, Matthew is highlighting a type of suffering caused by the Jewish rulers of her society -- rulers like the scribes and Pharisees in the background of this very scene within Matthew's house. For example, when discussing the interpretation of Leviticus fifteen among first century Jews, Craig Keener describes the way Pharisaical law would have impacted this woman's lifestyle: 
Because of her continual flow of blood, she was not permitted to move about in crowds; anyone she touched or whose cloak she touched became unclean. Those who were most pious seem to have been most concerned to avoid unnecessarily exposing themselves to impurity (e.g. m. Nid.), even if it was impossible for married men to avoid that totally. ...Indeed, at least in theory any strict Jewish man must learn whether a woman who touched his clothing or sat in a boat with him was unclean and therefore had rendered him as unclean. 

... Her condition is desperate for medical reasons and because of its social consequences: her partial ostracism would extend especially to her private life. Her ailment probably had kept her from marriage it if started at puberty, and almost surely would have led to her divorce if it began after she was married, since intercourse was prohibited under such circumstances and childlessness normally led to divorce. The stigma of childlessness, the pain of feeling "left over," the economic consequences of being unable to earn sufficient income, yet having neither husband nor children for long-term support, probably would have made her condition seem almost unbearable.1

With this first century context in mind, there are a number of startling points which are worthy of consideration. For example, why is this woman inside of Matthew's house? Doesn't she know that every Jew within Matthew's house sees her as unclean? And why is she all-of-a-sudden willing to spread her uncleanness upon Jesus by touching him? Doesn't she know she is forbidden to spread her uncleanness upon others? These are only some of the questions we could ask, but to appreciate the depth of suffering which this woman had endured for twelves years, we need to take this woman's ceremonial uncleanness seriously. 

This woman was not ignorant of first century Rabbinical traditions. This woman knew what every Jew in that house would have been thinking had they known that she was sitting among them. This leads me to believe that one implication of Matthew's sudden and dramatic interruption of this unnamed, unclean woman is that she has been hiding her uncleanness from everyone in Matthew's house. (Luke even mentions that she was hiding, Lk. 8:47.) It's as though, out of nowhere, this woman bursts onto the scene with just as much, if not more faith as the Jewish "ruler" of the synagogue; only this woman is not trying to make a huge scene. This woman has been waiting quietly because she doesn't want everyone in the room to know she's unclean. She is simply taking advantage of an opportunity that appears to be advancing towards a sudden loss as she sees Jesus following the ruler further and further away. 

This woman also appears to have been attentive to the doctrinal claims of the Jewish ruler too. Just as he believed in Jesus' unique authority to touch and give life to his dead (and therefore unclean) daughter, this woman also believes in his unique authority to cleanse her from twelves years of uncleanness. She too is a dead "daughter" of Israel (9:22), and so she reaches and tries to grasp the tassle of Jesus' garments before it's too late, before he's out of reach. What is unique to Matthew's account of this story is that there is no indication that her "touch" upon Jesus' garments healed her (contra Mark and Luke). Instead what we find in Matthew's story is that by catching hold of the tassle of his garment, this caused Jesus to pause and turn around toward her, giving her the attention she so desperately wanted and needed, even if it was but for a single moment of time; for she said to herself: 
"If only I just catch hold of his garment, I will be saved." 

And it is to this great faith in Jesus that he "turns" toward her and, without any conversation or publicity about her medical condition, declares:
"Have courage, daughter! Your faith has saved you."  And the woman was saved from that very moment. 
In Matthew's account of this story, the authoritative words of Jesus are what bring healing to her. Her faithful "touch" upon Jesus doesn't heal. His word alone heals. And if Matthew's account of this story was the only available to us, we would be left with the impression that no one else in the room ever became aware of her uncleanness. Her faith led her to Jesus and his comforting recognition of saving faith was all that needed to be mentioned. 

But what did Jesus mean when he said, "Your faith has saved you"? Doesn't this  imply some sort of works-righteousness or salvation by works? Well, as you may have already noticed, most modern translations avoid this implication by translating the word "saved" as "made well" or "made whole." So, for example, when this woman says to herself that if she could only catch hold of his garment, the ESV unfortunately translates the next phrase as "I will be made well." And likewise, Jesus says to her, "Your faith has made you well." And then afterward, as you might have already suspected, it says the woman was "made well." This Greek verb (translated in the ESV as "made well") is sozo, which literally means to "save." That is why I have translated it as "save." In Matthew 1:21, Joseph is told by an angel of the Lord that Mary, his betrothed wife, will bear a son, and he would name her son "Jesus" because "he will save (sozo) his people from their sins."  Matthew 27:40 portrays Jesus suffering on the cross while mockers proclaim to him, "You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save (sozo) yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross!" A couple verses later they chide against him again, saying, "He saved (sozo) others; he cannot save (sozo) himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross and we will believe in him" (27:42). And finally, even within the list of ten miracles recorded in chapters 8 & 9, Jesus' own disciples cry out to him in desperation for deliverance, saying, "Lord! Save us! (sozo) We're perishing!" (8:25).2

Clearly then, when this woman says to herself, "If only I just catch hold of his garment, I will be saved," she's not thinking of spiritual "salvation" in the sense of deliverance from eternal condemnation (and so there should be no worries concerning works-righteousness either). She's thinking of "salvation" in its broadest sense, the sense of full deliverance from her medical condition and its social consequences. Matthew does not portray a woman who simply needs some medical discomfort alleviated. (Mark and Luke both portray that, actually; cf. Mk. 5:26 & Lk. 8:43.) Matthew portrays a woman who has suffered socially for twelve years because of a medical condition which every Jew treated like an unclean corpse. It is only because of first century Pharisaical traditions and their foolish interpretation of Leviticus fifteen that this woman is hiding her ceremonial uncleanness. 

I suppose that since I've already mentioned it, now is as good a time as any to clarify what I mean by their "foolish" interpretation of Leviticus fifteen. I want to take just a few moments to clarify just how unnecessary it was for Pharisees and their ilk to interpret Leviticus fifteen as though it endorsed ostracizing women with long-term conditions like this.3 After a close examination of those particular laws, the literary structure distinguishes between long term and transient "bodily discharges."4 And the ceremonial restrictions for each of those were different. For men, long term problems of bodily discharge would likely be caused by venereal diseases, and they were treated very seriously. For women, their monthly, transient period was taken just as seriously; and when I say "very" seriously, I simply mean those laws were more strict when compared with others in direct relation to them.5 

However, the treatment was not serious at all for men with transient discharges or with women who had long term complications of "bodily discharge" (like this woman in Matthew  9:20-22). Scholars are divided as to why that might be the case, and I certainly have my own opinion,6 but it's not very difficult to figure out from the law itself that women who had long term medical complications of bloody, bodily discharge were alleviated from the stricter ceremonial restrictions placed upon her and others during her ordinary menstrual cycle. Leviticus 15:19-31 are the laws which specifically handle long term medical complications of bodily discharge among women in Israel (under the Old Covenant), and those laws only state that "every bed on which she lies" and "everything on which she sits shall be unclean. ...And whoever touches these things shall be unclean."  (Lev. 15:26-27)

How difficult would it be to avoid touching this woman's bed on which she lays down? And how difficult would it be to avoid touching a chair that she sits on? It wouldn't be difficult at all. And on top of that, even if someone did touch those things, and were therefore deemed ceremonially "unclean," they would only be restricted from entering the Temple because of its ceremonially holy space.7 Furthermore, if they did want to enter the Temple, and incidentally they had become ceremonially "unclean" by touching an unclean chair or bed, there was a provision for that: all they would have to do is wash their clothes, take a bath, and wait until the sun goes down in order to be ceremonially "clean" again (Lev. 15:27). And how awful would that be, seriously? The answer is, it wouldn't be. And that's because the Law of God was not designed to make life miserable.8 It would have required greater self-discipline, but not greater misery.

Now, my hope is that all of this background information is going to help us appreciate Jesus' response even more; and here's what I mean by that. In the Greek text, Matthew portrays Jesus as knowing the existence of her faith in him already. In Matthew's story, this woman gets Jesus' attention, and he then turns around toward her and says, "Your faith has saved you." And when he says her faith "has saved" her, that verb is in the perfect tense. In Greek, the perfect tense is unlike the English perfect. In Greek the perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action. In other words, Jesus speaks as though he knows something which only she has known and has been hiding within Matthew's house, something which otherwise would have remained hidden from her if Jesus had not told her; and what he declared to her was that God had orchestrated all of these events to bring her faith in the past to this point of salvation from death, both medically and socially, in the present. Her faith, Jesus says, has saved and continues to save her. Her faith believes, along with the ruler of the synagogue, that Jesus is the only man who can touch the unclean and deliver from death. And so we read that within that very hour she was "saved."

Salvation from death is the central focus of this narrative, and Matthew isn't entirely finished with it yet. Matthew still has not concluded what he introduced, namely the resurrection of the "ruler's" daughter. However, I intend to show in the next post that Matthew's conclusion to this narrative is not actually focused upon a miraculous resurrection of the ruler's daughter (which is the clear emphasis that Mark and Luke both give in their narratives), but instead is a third illustration of faith which is intentionally juxtaposed with the salvation offered to this unclean woman. And it is that peculiar juxtaposition which launches us into, and helps us interpret, the final two miracles of chapter nine. But I'll save the exposition of those verses for other posts.








1.  Craig Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 2009] pp. 303-304
2.  This use of sozo is especially clear when compared with the wide variety of expressions in Greek used to describe healing. Matthew 4:24 says: "So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed (theropeuo -- lit. "cured") them."  Matthew 8:8 says: "But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say a word, and my servant will be healed (iaomai -- lit. "healed")."  Mark 5:34 says: "Go in peace, and be healed (hugies -- lit. "made whole")"

3.  In Rabbinical studies, Numbers 5:1-5 is often viewed as a standing law. And what I mean by describing it as a "standing" law is that it maintained a permanent legal status as long as Israel was a nation. I do not agree with that interpretation of Numbers 5:15. Instead, I see Numbers 5:1-5 as a temporary provision for Israel at Mount Sinai to help them prepare for their march toward the promised land. It is only a few chapters later (Num. 10) that we find Israel leaving Mount Sinai for the first time, and after that time we find no further reference to people with discharges being "put out of the camp." And so, I see this as a temporary provision, not a permanent provision for all times and all places. 
4.  Gordon Wenham provides a sketch of the Leviticus 15 and it's literary structure which I found to be very helpful. I have tweaked the way it looks a bit, but the essence is the same as his:

Introduction:  “The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron”  (v1)
                              
                              A)  Long Term  (v2-12)  
Male Discharges:               Cleansed by sacrifice  (v13-15)
                                    
                                    B)  Transient  (16-17)
                                                      and intercourse  (v18)
                                    B’)  Transient  (v19-23)  
Female Discharges:                  and intercourse  (v24)
                              A’)  Long-term  (v25-27)  
                                      Cleansed by sacrifice  (v28-30)

Purpose of Law:  Not to defile the Tabernacle   (v31) 

Gordon J. Wenham, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 1979] p. 216
5.  When the transient discharges of women (Lev. 15:19-24) are compared with the long-term discharges of women (15:25-30), one major difference among the transient discharges (for women only) is the restriction upon those who merely "touch her" (v. 19). This could mean touching her skin, her body in general (clothing and all), or it could mean her genitalia.  In a similar manner, stricter restrictions are placed upon men with long term discharges (not short term discharges, like semen excretion). Instead of restricting people from "touching him," the unique restrictions of long term discharges for men are two-fold: 1) "whoever touches the body of the man" (v. 7) and 2) "if the man with the discharge spits on someone who is clean..." (v. 8). The "body" mentioned here in verse 7 is Basar in Hebrew, and it is used euphemistically here and in verse 19 for genitalia, which is what leads many hebrew scholars today to believe that the passing reference about "touching her" in verse 19 also refers to her genetalia. 
6.  There definitely seems to be a clear association of ceremonial death (and it's contagious forms) with the constant reminder of Adam's fall into sin, God's curse upon his biological descendants, and the ultimate curse of death/final judgment for all those united with the first Adam. It is also my understanding that there are only three general categories in which contact with the "unclean" is considered contagious, and this helps me make this association more easily. Those three categories are 1) contact with corpses (i.e. actual death), 2) contact with "leprous" skin diseases (external death), and 3) contact with bodily discharges (internal death). All other laws which infer a contagious uncleanness (like touching the carcasses of unclean animals, living in moldy/disease-ridden houses, and the uncleanness associated with childbirth) are either sub-categories of these three or not actually described as contagious at all. They are simply considered to be unclean. In the case of bodily discharges and the difference between men and women (both transient and long-term differences) I see a direct connection between God's curse upon mankind (death), long term bodily discharges due to sexually transmitted diseases (in men), and the transient menstrual cycle of women (which necessitates the regular shedding of the uterus lining after the life producing time of ovulation). Man's sin, his seed, and ultimate death are very clear associations in my mind when I think of how this might have been understood when the Law was originally given in ceremonial form to Israel.
7.  The purpose of the law is stated at the end of Leviticus 15, which says, "Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my Tabernacle that is in their midst."  The most obvious inference from this purpose clause is that death is the sentence which God would execute (either ceremonially or literally) upon those who draw near to him in His Tabernacle with their uncleanness, thereby polluting His "House." Hence, the very next chapter of Leviticus (Lev. 16) is about purification of the Tabernacle from uncleanness. If they did not draw near to God in their state of ceremonial uncleanness, there wouldn't need to be a fear of death for polluting God's House; but uncleanness taught them, ceremonially, to fear death and to fear drawing near to God (literally, in the Tabernacle) if they were living in a state of "uncleanness." Gordon Wenham interprets this law as meaning: "Those who were unclean could not participate in divine worship in the tabernacle. If they did, they not only polluted the tabernacle but were liable to death at the hands of God." -- Gordon J. Wenham, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 1979] p. 221
8.  It is a common misunderstanding among Christians to think of these ceremonial laws as being impossible to obey and therefore miserable to live by, when in fact, they would have been relatively easy to remember and obey if understood properly. For example, the ceremonial law pertaining to a woman's transient menstrual cycle is often portrayed as a horribly miserable set of laws to live by, when in fact, it would have been relatively easy to live by. Consider, for instance, the fact that many women married godly men when young, had many children, and breastfed all of their children. Then consider the fact that once a woman gets pregnant, she doesn't have to worry about ceremonial uncleanness until she gives birth to her child because she doesn't get her period back until after giving birth; and as long as she is breastfeeding her newborn child and toddler, she won't have her period during that time either; and as long as she keeps on having children, she won't have her period for an even longer amount of time. And after a certain age, that woman would go through menopause and her menstrual cycle would cease permanently. And so, the average woman who got married, had children, and raised children, probably wasn't concerned with her ceremonial uncleanness many times in her life, especially when compared to women who never married or were barren. As Gordon Wenham observed, the "women likely to be much affected by the law of Lev. 15:19-24 would be unmarried teenage girls." -- Gordon J. Wenham, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 1979] p. 224







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