Gospel of Matthew, Part 2

Comment #5:

As the introduction in the NAB mentions, Matthew’s Gospel is structured around five discourses that Jesus says. A discourse is a fancy way of saying a sermon. We discussed the Sermon on the Mount. That was the first. Chapter ten comprises the second discourse. It is sometimes identified as the Discourse on the Apostle’s Missions.

Some striking things in that discourse. Jesus instructs them to not “go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town” (Matt 10:5). Their mission is to preach to “the lost sheep of Israel” (6). The Gospel of Luke I think had a more international outlook. Matthew is much more concerned with the Jewish people.

Verse seven (“As you go, make this proclamation: ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”) is the mission, and I believe it is the same in all the Gospels, though I’m not sure if it’s explicitly stated in John. And does is the kingdom of heaven comprise of? For Matthew: “Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons” (8). Now this is supposed to be all our missions, though my skill at raising the dead is a bit lacking.

The first half of the discourse considers the mission. The second half considers the reactions the apostles will have to face.

Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.
But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues,
and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans. (16-18)

There seems to be a disconnect for me between the first and the second half of the discourse. If the mission is to cure the sick and the like, why would they be persecuted? Who would persecute anyone that is cleaning lepers and chasing out demons? Now is Jesus predicting his own persecution? Everything He mentions is what will happen to Him.

So why would anyone want to go through these persecutions? In the Sermon on the Mount discourse, people were “blessed” by God if you followed Christ. In this discourse you will tortured. Why would anyone want to do this? Christ tells us: “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (39). And He further explains it with “Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is righteous will receive a righteous man’s reward” (41). While it’s not spelled out here, that reward will be salvation.

But then the last verse again seems disconnected from something. “And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple—amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward” (42). I don’t understand the context. Does anyone?

Kerstin Replied:

Heavenly reward and human reaction, that's the distinction. In other words, following Christ will earn you eternal reward, but don't expect worldly humans to approve.

My Reply:

Yes, but how this "little one" suddenly come into the picture? And why cold water? I understand the reward but the child and water seems to connect to something that is missing. It confuses me.

Kerstin Reply:

Explanation from Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament:

10:42 these little ones: i.e., the apostles. They must rely on the hospitality of others for daily necessities during their mission (10:9 - 11). Service rendered to them is service to Jesus himself (10:40; 25:34 - 36). Children are elsewhere used as examples in Jesus' teaching on the faith in 18: 1 - 4 and 19: 13 - 15).

Oh, I forgot the verse is translated a little differently:

Mt 10:42: "And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."

My Reply:

I never knew that. I'm actually shocked. I took "little ones" for children. OK, that makes sense. Thanks Kerstin.

PS, that is a strange phrase for apostles. Did anyone know this on their own?

Kerstin Reply:

No, LOL! I wonder though, if it is some kind of endearment.

My Reply:

In searching around, I think it means lowly. Children were considered the lowest on a ladder of hierarchy. They essentially had no power or wealth. If that is so, I think a better translation in today's diction would be, "these lowly ones..."

###

Comment #6:

Chapter 13 comprises the third discourse in Matthew’s Gospel, this on the nature of parables.  It’s a very active chapter.  By my count there are fourteen sections to the chapter of a chapter of 58 verses.  I’m amazed at how compressed each section is, averaging a little over four verses per section.  Here’s how I see the chapter divided.

1. Introductory stage directions.

2. The Parable of the Sower.

3. Why He speaks in parables.

4. The privilege granted to disciples.

5. The explanation of the Parable of the Sower

6. The Parable of the Weeds and Wheat.

7. The Parable of the Mustard Seed.

9. The Parable of the Yeast.

10. The fulfillment of prophesy in parables.

11. The explanation of the Weeds and Wheat.

12. Four parables on the nature of heaven.

13. Jesus concludes his discourse.

14. Jesus is rejected in His home town.

Jesus here too as in the Sermon on the Mount sits as He delivers His discourse.  Interestingly here He sits twice, first by the sea and then in a boat.  I imagine the boat is docked or grounded and He uses the boat as a sort of pulpit while the large crowd gathers up to Him.

The discourse alternates between a parable and an explanation, either explanation of a parable or an explanation of why He speaks in parables.  We always speak about how vivid a parable is or how memorable because it’s in story form, but that doesn’t seem to be the reason.  Jesus explains that it has been prophesied in Isaiah that those converted will understand and those not will not (13-15). 

The simplest of parables are nothing more than a simile.  “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast” (33) or “like a buried treasure” (44).  One step up in parable complexity from a simile is an allegory.  The Parable of the Weeds and Wheat is an example.  A parable that is a straight allegory.  The weeds represent the damned and the wheat represent the saved.  On earth the two are intermixed but in heaven they will be sorted out. 

Still another step in complexity from an allegory is a story that seems to alter reality or dislocates the focus.  The parable of the sower is such a complex parable.  For instance there are two dislocations in focus.  At first you think the story is about the sower, and then you think the story is about the seeds, but in fact it’s about the soil.  Could we set up an allegorical equation?  The sower would be a preacher, the seeds are the Word, and the soil would be general population.  In some the seed (the Word) will grow and some not.  The story also alters reality, pushing the conceit to a contortion of sorts.  In this case we could ask, why would a sower of seeds randomly spread seeds about in unknown soils?  A farmer would never do that.  If anything one prepares the soil or even grows seeds in a seedling pack with perfect soil.  The twist in these complex parables are enough to make them startling, mysterious, and perhaps even impenetrable.  These fulfill Isaiah’s prophesy. 

But even the simple similes are in a way dislocating as a means of communicating.  I count about eight parables in chapter thirteen, and they are in one way or another about the nature of heaven.  Now if I were to describe the nature of an island in the south pacific, which could be as close to heaven as we might imagine, I would tell you about the ideal temperature, the pleasing breeze, the fresh sea air, the wonderful trees, and such.  You would get some sort of an idea.  But in these eight parables or so, I don’t see any real sense of what heaven is like.  It’s a pearl, it’s yeast, the weeds won’t exist, it’s like a fishing net.  Frankly I don’t have a clue what heaven is like.  And yet when Jesus asks them do they understand, they say yes.

“Do you understand all these things?” They answered, “Yes.”

And he replied, “Then every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old.”  (51-52)

Do they really understand?  I think they’re just “yessing” Him as one does a teacher you don’t want to disappoint.  And for good measure, Jesus gives them one last parable.  A scribe (which is a teacher) who has been instructed on heaven who as allegory teaches the new (Christ’s Word) and the old (Torah) is compared to “the head of a household.”  How is that?

Irene Replied:

I don't believe that these parables are about heaven, but about the Kingdom of God which Matthew calls the Kingdom of Heaven because it is impermissible to use the name of God for his Jewish readers. The Kingdom of God/Heaven is unfolding among us here on earth. It is not simply a future reality in another realm. Reading these parables that way makes them more accessible for me.

My Reply:

Irene’s comment sent me on a wonderful search for the distinctions between the “Kingdom of God” and the Kingdom of Heaven.”  It never dawn on me that Christ was referring to the earthly kingdom here, the kingdom we are supposed to establish.  I found those that support Irene’s position, but there were others that disagreed. 

For me I don’t know.  Irene’s point is well taken and fits every single parable except the one with fish and nets.  Here’s that entire parable:

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea, which collects fish of every kind.

When it is full they haul it ashore and sit down to put what is good into buckets. What is bad they throw away.

Thus it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from the righteous

and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. (47-50)

Clearly there Christ is speaking about a time of judgement, which would be in the afterlife. 

But then the Parable of the Weeds and Wheat actually makes most sense using Irene’s reading.  While yes the harvest is at a judgement time, and therefore in celestial heaven, the sowing occurs prior, and would seemingly only make sense at an earthly time. 

The other parables can go either way.

The one thing that undermines Irene’s point is that according to Wikipedia entry “Kingdom of heaven (Gospel of Matthew)” a certain Robert Foster is quoted as claiming that Matthew uses “kingdom of God” and “God” in several places, so why would he be adverse here?  Here’s quote in Wikipedia:

Robert Foster rejects this view. He finds the standard explanation hard to believe as Matthew uses the word "God" many other times and even uses the phrase "kingdom of God" four times. Foster argues that, to Matthew, the two concepts were different. For Foster, the word "heaven" had an important role in Matthew's theology and links the phrase especially to "Father in heaven," which Matthew frequently uses to refer to God. Foster argues that the "kingdom of God" represents the earthly domain that Jesus' opponents such as Pharisees thought they resided in, while the "kingdom of heaven" represents the truer spiritual domain of Jesus and his disciples.

I tried to follow the link to Foster’s essay but it was not open to the public.  I’m just going to remain neutral on this.  I can see both being correct.  Perhaps Irene can offer an opinion on why Matthew would use “God” elsewhere but not here.  Either way, I want to thank Irene for enlightening me on this. 

Frances’ Reply:

In regard to the term Kingdom of God (please see Irene's comment in Message 30), I want to refer to the remarks of two scholars: Brant Pitre and the Anglican theologian N.T. Wright (who comes to us with excellent credentials, recommended by Bishop Robert Barron).

In The Case for Jesus, Pitre writes: "If there's anything Jesus loves to talk about in the Gospels, it is the coming of the kingdom of God -- or, in Matthew's Gospel -- the kingdom of heaven.

"Now, the question is: What does Jesus mean when he refers to the kingdom of God? And what does he mean when he says that it is 'at hand?' He seems to assume that his Jewish audience will understand what he's talking about. Today, many people think that the kingdom of God is another way of talking about 'life after death.' And while it's certainly true that the kingdom of God is tied to eternal life, there's more going on here. The very fact that Jesus can talk about the kingdom as 'coming' makes clear that he can't simply referring to what happens after a person dies. So what does he mean when he speaks of the time being fulfilled and the coming of the kingdom being 'at hand?'

"In this case the key to unlocking the meaning of Jesus' otherwise mysterious words can be found by going back to the Old Testament." (Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus, pp. 104-105)

Now, I'm switching to N.T. Wright, quoting from his book The Day the Revolution Began:

"Among the things that Matthew is saying in his Gospel, it seems clear that he is highlighting the point that the kingdom agenda set out in chapter 5 is not simply an outline for a bracing ethic for Jesus's followers to attempt; it is the dramatic outline of Jesus's own vocation. . . The long story of Israel, sketched by Matthew in terms of the genealogy from Abraham to David, through the exile, to the Messiah, has come to its fulfillment. . . He would stand there unresisting as people slapped and mocked him. He would be compelled to carry his burden to Golgotha. He would find his clothes stripped from him and divided up. . .

My Reply:

It just struck me from today's Mass readings (Nov. 24, 2019), that the good thief on the cross tells Jesus, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom." So clearly he is referring to the kingdom of heaven there. In front of Pilate, Jesus says "my kingdom is not of this world." So where is the kingdom of God? How do those two references to a kingdom that is outside the earth fit with the references from Matthew chapter 13? If the kingdom of God is at hand, where is it?

Frances’ Reply:

Manny, would this help? I’m going to quote from two completely unrelated sources. First, from N.T.Wright:

“For Jesus, the kingdom was coming not in a single move, but in stages, of which his own public career was one, his death and resurrection another, and a still future consummation another. Note that kingdom of heaven is Matthew’s preferred form for the same phrase, following a regular Jewish practice of saying heaven rather than God. It does not refer to a place, but to the fact of God’s becoming king in and through Jesus and his achievement.”

My second reference is from a scholar we don’t ordinarily turn to, but a good one, the late Mircea Eliade who was a distinguished professor of religious studies at the University of Chicago. His History of Religious Ideas was a classic when I was working on my master’s in theology. Here is what Eliade said about the term “kingdom of God”:

“The kingdom of God has already been inaugurated; it is not automatically universally obvious, just as the Messiah, incarnated in the historic personage of Jesus, was not obvious to the majority of Jews — and the divinity of Christ still is not so for nonbelievers. In short, there is here the same dialectical progression that is well known in the history of religions: the epiphany of the sacred in a profane object is at the same time a camouflage: for the sacred is not obvious to all those who approach the object in which it has manifested itself. This time the sacred — the kingdom of God — manifested itself in a human community that was historically circumscribed: the Church.” (Mircea Eliade, A history of Religious Ideas, Volume 2, University of Chicago Press. 1982)…

My Reply:

Yes Frances it really helps. All excellent quotes. Apparently Wright agrees with Irene on Matthew's use of the Kingdom of heaven as really referring to the kingdom of God. However, wouldn't it be more precise to say instead of "the kingdom came" with Christ that the kingdom was started with His coming? At least that's what I take from the first NT Wright quote you provided. It wasn't complete. There's more to come.

Madeleine’s Reply:

My take on the Kingdom is from the prayer Jesus gave us: "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven..." We become members of the Kingdom by submitting to God's will. " The first phrase can mean the "Kingdom to come" or, keeping in mind that we just celebrated Christ's kingship once again on this earth, wherever there is a gathering of saintly believers, do we not have a piece of God's kingdom available to us now?

Irene’s Reply:

Manny, I can't not think of the 4 places in Matthew's Gospel where he uses "Kingdom of God", so I can't address your question. Maybe as we read through this Gospel we will discover them. I have not heard of the author cited by your wikapedia article. As to your question about the parables that clearly point to a final judgment, I don't think that the kingdom is either earthly or heavenly, either present or future. I understand it to be both. The Kingdom of God/Heaven is wherever God's will is reigning surpreme. Obviously, that is in Heaven. But, it has also been enaugerated on earth and is unfolding through the Church, through Christ's disciples. A parable about final judgment or about its miraculous growth, are equally appropriate, for all is part of the Kingdom.

My Reply:

Irene, that's absolutely brilliant. But of course. It is both! Why didn't I think of that!

My Reply:

Irene I found two. See chapter 19:23-24. Christ uses both, kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God within two verses. The other place is chapter 21:43.