‘A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; 25it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!
Book Two of Matthew's gospel begins. Its focus is on mission. Our lection this week begins with two proverbial sayings, the purpose of which seems to be that followers of Jesus should not expect different treatment than what Jesus himself received. Jesus faced persecution, and, therefore, it should not be surprising that his followers will face persecution as well.
Matthew was writing around AD 85. This is literature from the post-war period. It follows the devastation of the Roman-Jewish War of AD 66-70 when blood ran in the streets of Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed.
Matthew is at a few years remove from Mark, who wrote during or just after the devastation. While Matthew's over-all "mood" is not as dark as Mark's, it is clear that Matthew's church saw themselves as fragile, vulnerable, and under threat. If Jesus himself has been accused of being a demon--"they have called the master of the house Beezlzebul"--then even this charge is likely to be levelled also at Jesus' followers.
John Meier says that the phrase, in Aramaic, is a pun using the words "master of the household" and "Beelzebul." If so, that would add a touch of light-heartedness to a very serious condition, and that could well have been Matthew's intent. The situation is quite serious. There are persecutions. People are hauled before magistrates. One's life may in danger. Nevertheless, as Matthew will stress, there is, ultimately, nothing to fear. Therefore, be bold!
26 ‘So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. 27What I say to you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from the housetops. 28Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.* 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground unperceived by your Father. 30And even the hairs of your head are all counted. 31So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows.
The disciples of Jesus are encouraged not to fear three times in five verses. This is a message for people who feel under seige. Despite the difficulties, their movement cannot be stopped, Jesus tells them. Even if you go to prison, even if you are oppressed, the message will be revealed and "become known"--ginosko, known in the most intimate way.
Jesus continues to speak to his beleaguered community--"what I say to you" is in the present tense--even if "in the dark." This would indicate a community that must speak in whispers to each other, under threat of real violence from those who can "kill the body." Nevertheless, keep spreading the message--"tell in the light."
Do not be afraid of the Romans, but do be afraid of the devil because the devil has the power to destroy both body and "life"--psyche. I continue to think that psyche should be translated as "life" rather than "soul." That said, considering that the Lukan parallel (12: 2-5) refers only to "body," it may be that Matthew has been influenced by Greek dualism--doubtful, in my view, but possible.
Literally: "Fear much more the one having power to destroy body and life in Gehenna." ("Gehenna" was a burning trash heap in the valley of Hinnom outside of Jerusalem.) There is some dispute about to whom Jesus is referring. It could also be that one who has power to "destroy both body and life" is the Father, rather than the devil. Considering that Jesus will soon accent the Father's loving care of creation in upcoming verses, this seems unlikely.
The one who is able to "destroy both body and life"--the devil--means that the struggle of Matthew's community should fundamentally be seen as spiritual. Yes, they were enduring political and social oppression. Yes, they were under the boot of Rome. Nevertheless, these earthly powers are doing the devil's work.
Then, the discourse turns more positive. Sparrows were the cheapest edible birds. Two of them could be bought for an assariou, which is one-tenth of a drachma, or one-sixteenth of a denarius. Yet, "not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father."
The verb is in the future tense--"will fall"--indicating that these sparrows are alive at present, but even when they die, they will not be "without"--aneu, apart from--your father." Matthew reminds his readers of God's providential care of all creation, including them. Again, the exhortation is not to be afraid because--Matthew wryly notes--you are of more value than many sparrows. Therefore, be bold!
32 ‘Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; 33but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.
If Jesus' followers "acknowledge" him--omologesai, literally "speak the same word"--in front of others, then Jesus will do the same on behalf of them "before my Father in heaven." Note that "your Father" has now been changed to "my Father." This hints at Jesus' son-ship, and indicates that it is precisely through his son-ship that his followers also become sons and daughters.
Yet, with the olive branch, there is also a threat: Those who "might deny" Jesus--a middle subjunctive, which I never quite know how to translate--"will be denied" by Jesus to his Father. As John Meier notes: "Failure to witness before the earthly tribunal will mean disgrace before the heavenly tribunal, where Jesus will disown the weak disciple as not being truly his brother and therefore not truly a son of the Father."
34 ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35For 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;
36and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.
37Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
Literally: "Do not think that I came to cast peace upon the earth. I came not to cast peace, but a sword." Matthew kicks it up a notch from Luke. The Lukan parallel has "division." Matthew gives us "a sword," and, moreover, one that is about ready to strike. (The verb balein implies a stronger action than "bring." "Throw" or "cast" would be better.)
Jesus is quoting from Micah 7:6--"for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; your enemies are members of your own household."
Jesus is not advocating violence, of course. He is a bringer of peace, and his disciples are to be "peacemakers" (5:9). It was also true, however, that, especially in the period in which Matthew was writing, there was considerable division within families due to the Christian faith. Will Willimon likes to refer to letters from Roman families that talk of their concern because their son--Celsus, let's say--has run off to join the Christians.
Note also the generational pattern of the division. In each case of comparison, it is the younger generation which is at odds with the older generation. Jesus has come to sever the ties between a man and his father, and a woman and her mother. (The word is dixasai, which means to "cleave in two.")
Jesus was never much on "family values," the way we understand them today. One's earthly family is not particularly important since Jesus will go on to say, in chapter 12, that one's true family is the new community of Jesus.
The message of Jesus is about being formed by the future. The kingdom of heaven is coming, a kingdom in which all relationships will be equal, not heirarchical, as in a family. Traditional power relationships will be upended, including that of the family where father and mother stand "higher" than son or daughter. ("The first shall be last, and the last first.")
To be dominated by one's family, on the other hand, is to be dominated by the past. Indeed, considering that a person's DNA goes back hundreds of thousands of years, we are--in a manner of speaking--in "bondage" to our family and in "bondage" to our past in quite literal ways. The deference we show to father and mother is, partly, the homage we pay to our past.
To the one who had said he wanted to bury his father before he could follow Jesus, Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their own dead" (8: 22). Jesus would not let people be dominated by their past. They are to step out from their past, with its heirarchical power relationships and its "bondage" to tradition. These are "old wineskins" and not able to hold the "new wine" (9:17). To love one's family "more than me" is to be in love with the past, with one's progenitors. To "love son or daughter"--your own gene pool--"more than me" is also to love the past.
38and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.
Literally: "and whoever does not take hold of his cross and follow after me is not..."--and here it gets tricky. The word is axios, and it seems to me that the best expression for it here would be "tried and found wanting." It means "like," "befitting," or "congruent." The sense is "measuring up." I'm avoiding the use of the word "worthy" here, which NRSV has, because we tend to think of that word in terms of moral judgment.
"Tried and found wanting" seems to be the sense that Matthew intends. Jesus has set an example of suffering for the cause. Disciples are not greater than their master and such a fate may come to any follower. Followers should continue to expound the Way of Jesus, and follow it. If they do not, then they are not at the level of their master.
This is, incidentally, the first use of the word "cross" in Matthew's gospel. The phrase is ton stauron autou--literally, "the cross of him." It is not entirely clear to whom the "him" refers. It could mean take the cross of Jesus, and this has been the typical interpretation.
Or, it could mean the disciple taking up "their own cross." We might think of it as taking up the burdens of his or her own life. In the context of first century Christianity, that could, indeed, mean the cross of Jesus. More broadly, it means living according to the Way no matter what one's condition or circumstance. What does it mean to live as a Christian in the context of wealth? What does it mean to live as a Christian in the context of mental illness, or disability, or, conversely, privilege and health?
It is suprising with all your research and study, you missed the fact that the words "Jesus Christ" is not a name. It is a title and it means "I am conscious". Look it up for yourself - get some OLD dictionaries for the verification!
Now Immanuel (the Anointed of his generation) wasn't the weak-kneed namby pamby you've made him out to be. As a suggestion, re-think through what he did in the temple - he wrecked it because of the desecration that was happening! And, he wasn't a turn-the-other-cheek kind of guy in the process!
BTW - the letter "j" didn't EXIST until 1349 and wasn't common usage until MUCH later! Take that one into your innermost belly and digest it well!
Posted by: The Akurians | June 17, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Since the title "Jesus Christ" did not appear in the lection, there's no point in saying anything about it. Actually, the word "Jesus"--"Yeshua"--means "he will save." (It's the same word as Joshua.) "Christ" is the English equivalent of the Greek "christos," which itself is a translation of the Hebrew "anointed."
What do you consider the "desecration" that went on in the Temple?
I agree that Jesus was not "namby-pamby." He was leading a movement of non-violent resistance against the occupying Roman army and their lackeys in the Temple heirarchy. The moneychangers he drove out had "franchises" from the Temple to conduct this highly lucrative business. (The moneychangers themselves were employees of rich Jerusalem families.)
Posted by: John Petty | June 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM