« July 2014 | Main | September 2014 »
From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.’ 23But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. 26For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life? 27 ‘For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. 28Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’
Translation: From then on, Jesus began to show his disciples that it is necessary (for) him to depart into Jerusalem, and to suffer greatly from the pastors and chief priests and lawyers, and be surely killed, and on the third day be raised up. And Peter, taking him aside, began to censure him, saying, "Mercy to you, Lord. Surely this will not happen to you." He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan. You are a stumbling block to me for you do not understand the things of God but the things of humanity."
Then he said to his disciples, "If anyone desires to follow after me, let that one deny themselves and raise up their cross and follow me. For if that one desires his life saved he will destroy it, but the one who might destroy his life on account of me will eventually get it. For what will it benefit them if they might gain the whole universe but their life might suffer loss? Or what will a person give in return for their life?"
For the son of man intends to be coming in the glory of his father with his angels, and then he will deliver each according to his doings. Truly, I say to you, some are standing in this place, the ones who will surely not be tasting of death until they might see the son of man coming in his kingdom."
Background and situation: Matthew has three statements concerning the passion of Jesus--16: 21-28, 17: 22-33, 20: 17-19. His source was Mark--the parallels are Mark 8:31-38, 9: 31-32, 10: 33-34.
This section of Matthew's gospel, which began in 14:1, is characterized by increasing controversy, and a darkening mood. The cross, which has been looming in the background ever since Herod's rampage against the innocents (2:16), now comes increasingly to the fore.
The issue of the cross: It seems odd to say, but the cross was an issue for the people of the early church. For Jewish Christians, to be "hung on a tree" was associated with an ancient curse. Paul refers to it in Gal 3: 13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’" (The reference is Dt 21:23.)
That was one thing. The other was that the Romans used crucifixions as a campaign of domestic terror against anyone plotting against Rome's interests. It was a humiliating and gruesome way to die. No Roman citizen could be crucified. It was only for slaves and political rebels. The message was clear: This is what happens to people who rebel. Do so at your supreme peril.
The cross did not become a popular image for Christianity until the 5th century. The earliest image of Jesus portrays him as the good shepherd, not the crucified. The earliest known image of the cross is a piece of grafitti making fun of the very idea of the divinity dying on one.
The cross needed explanation. Mark and Matthew have Jesus trying to break his own disciples in on the idea. It is said here first, has to be repeated twice, and they still don't get it. (This week's lection says Jesus "began to show" his disciples that the cross was coming, apparently with the idea that it would take some repetition.)
Mark and Matthew say: It was not as it appears. It was not the inglorious and humiliating death of our leader, our master, our lord, and our movement! It was, rather, "necessary" (dei) that this happen. The messiah is the messiah precisely because he suffers and he loses all. (The phrase regarding "suffering" is explicit and emphasized in the Greek text. The Greek "be killed"--apoktanthenai--carries the sense not only of death, but also annihilation and "complete perishing.")
Peter as Satan: In Mark, both Peter's confession and his subsequent rebuke by Jesus are held together closely. Matthew generally follows Mark, but, in this case, softens the anti-Petrine position of Mark by inserting a paragraph on the new name, Peter, that Jesus gives Simon, and then asserting Peter's central role in the church (16:13-20).
When Jesus says that he will suffer and be killed, Peter speaks (unlike in Mark) and says: "Mercy to you, Lord. Surely this will not happen to you." The NRSV has "God forbid it." NIV has "Never, Lord!" The word is helios, which means "mercy"--more specifically, God's mercy. Peter is calling for God to protect Jesus.
In Mark, Jesus is specifically said to "rebuke" Peter. In Matthew, Jesus does not rebuke Peter. Instead, he simply "said" to Peter: "Get behind me, Satan"--yupage opiso mou, satana.
The temptation to power and glory was Satan's idea in the first place (4:8). It was the last of three temptations in the wilderness. The temptation, we remember, was to assert divine perogative in order to make things come out well for Jesus. (He could be the benevolent dictator of the cosmos, which, actually, most of us would favor.)
Already in the 4th chapter, the idea of avoiding suffering and the cross so that Jesus himself would be better off is associated with the "satanic," which is why Jesus refers to Peter as satan here. He "must" (dei) go to Jerusalem (16:21). This is a divine imperative, and he is not to be diverted by appeals on behalf of his personal safety.
While Matthew's view of Peter is, over-all, more positive than Mark's, it should be noted that Peter does not get off the hook in Matthew. As Peter was taking Jesus aside, Jesus "turned" and, it would appear, called Peter a "stumbling block" right to his face--from "rock" (16:18) to "stumbling block" (16:23) in only five verses!
The cross is laid on every person: In Mark, Jesus addresses crowds at this point. In Matthew, he addresses only the disciples. If any want to follow Jesus, he says, they should take up "their cross." I interpret ton stauron autou--literally, "the cross of him"--in two ways:
(1) Earlier in Matthew, Jesus had said that his followers can expect no different fate than that of their master. Most of chapter 10 is about the difficulties that will be faced by his followers.
They will "hand you over" (10:16)--the same phrase will be used about Jesus when he is "handed over" to his persecutors. They will "flog" you. You will be hated. "A disciple is not above the teacher," he says in 10:24. His followers can expect the same treatment as Jesus.
Later, in 10: 38-9, Jesus says, "And whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it." (Those words will be stated again in this context.)
This is rather classic exhortation to a beleaguered minority. Hang in there. Stay loyal. No matter how bad it gets, keep the faith!
(2) The word "him" (autou) is genitive--literally, "cross of him." "Him" could refer to Jesus, in which case the reference is to the cross of Jesus. On the other hand, the context seems to infer "him" as the individual follower--not Jesus' cross, in this case, but the burdens that come with being a human being. Every person has issues. They are to be dealt with, not swept under the rug.
Take up the struggles of your life, yes, but note as well that Jesus never glorifies suffering simply for the sake of suffering. Life is tough enough as it is. Besides, buying in to that kind of logic is eminently a human way of thinking, to wit: "If it takes suffering to be a great Christian, I'll be the champion sufferer of all time." Suffering is not an achievement. There are crosses enough in life without making them on purpose.
The "things of God" vs. the "things of humanity": Human standards are about striving and achieving, becoming king of the hill, or having the most money. One should resist making a moral judgment about this. The impulse to strive and achieve has at least some evolutionary advantage. The ones who did so tended to survive.
That's one reason a lot of what Jesus had to say went right over peoples' heads. He talked to them about a different way, one that was not, it appeared, in one's social or financial interests, and one that was not, it was sure, in one's survival interests. Who helps the poor? There's no advantage in that.
It took some creative thinking for people to begin to realize that maybe "the way we've always done things" is not really life-giving. It took a real leap of insight--then and (especially) now--for some of Jesus' ideas to even begin to sink in.
In human ways of thinking--the default survival mechanisms embedded in our ways of thinking and acting--the one who saves their life saves it. The one who gains the whole universe gains the whole dang universe, and everybody else has to figure out a way to get their own universe.
Jesus completely upends all customary conceptions of gain and loss. True life is not in getting but in giving. Trying to save your life--looking out for yourself--is the path of destruction. The one who lives like Jesus--one who gives for others--will "receive" life. Where's the benefit if you own everything, but have no life?
The promise: Jesus is going to come with the angels "in the glory of his Father." Power and majesty are on their way--Oh frabjous day!
And when he comes, he will "repay everyone for what has been done." Clunk. (Or better: Lutherans will feel a clunk. We get neuralgic at the merest hint of any reward being given to any human effort.)
This is not about that. Matthew means these words as words of reassurance. There will be a reward for the sacrifice of Jesus' disciples. Even though there may be dark days ahead, calling for every reserve of emotional, physical, and spiritual strength, nevertheless God knows their trials, and God will reward their endurance.
The lection concludes with these puzzling words: "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew is writing in AD 80, or thereabouts. He knew full well that some people had indeed died before Jesus came in the fullness of his kingdom.
He is not talking about timetables regarding the so-called second coming. He's talking about the transfiguration of Jesus, which immediately follows, and, more broadly, the resurrection itself. "Some standing here" would have included Peter, James, and John. In six days--and in the very next verse!--these three of the disciples will see Jesus in his glory on the Mount of Transfiguration.
Image: Follow me, Anthony Falbo
Andrew Romanoff accepts the cheers and well-wishes of his supporters at his 48th birthday party last evening. His race against incumbent Mike Coffman in the 6th congressional district is one of the most-watched across the country.
The 6th congressional district is, basically, the city of Aurora, CO. It includes a bit more than that--Centennial, for example--but the district could well be thought of as "Aurora's seat" in Congress.
The old 6th CD was only about 2% hispanic and was one of the most solidly red seats in the history of the world. With the change in district boundaries following the 2010 census, the district became much, much more competitive.
The current 6th is 22% hispanic, which is why the words "immigration reform" have been spoken, apparently for the first time, by Cong. Coffman.
I haven't seen any polling, but I would imagine that only a point or two separate the two candidates. This itself is a remarkable achievement for Romanoff, who is likely running even, or better, against an incumbent congressman, and doing so without taking any PAC money. (Coffman has raised nearly a million through PAC sources, so far.)
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’ 14And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ 15He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ 16Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ 17And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’20Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
Translation: But when Jesus came into the region of Caesarea of Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Who do the people say the son of man to be?" But they said, "Certainly John the Baptist, but others Elijah, but yet others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say I am to be?" But Simon Peter answered, saying, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God." And Jesus answered him and said, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father in the heavens. And I say to you that you are Peter and on this rock, I will build up my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you might bind on the earth will be bound in the heavens, and whatever you release upon the earth will be released in the heavens." Then he distinctly instructed the disciples so that they would surely not say that he is the Christ.
Background and situation: Caesarea Philippi is at the far north of the land of Israel. It was originally named Paneas, after the Greek god Pan, the god of music. This far northern region was known as "the panion"--the region of Pan.
In 198 BC, the Seleucids (the Greeks of the middle east) defeated the Ptolemies (the Greeks of Egypt) at the Battle of Panian. This re-established Seleucid control over the region, which lasted until the Maccabean revolt about thirty years later. The Seleucids built a monument to Pan in the city.
Rome, of course, later conquered the entire region. In 20 BC, Caesar Augustus gave the town to Herod the (so-called) Great. Upon Herod's death in 4 BC, his son, Phillip, inherited the city and renamed it after Caesar and himself. With this Roman city mentioned in the introduction to the pericope, Matthew intends the following story to be read and heard in light of Roman power.
The main source is Mark, but Matthew adds several Matthean touches. Where Mark has, "Who do people say me to be?" Matthew has "Who do the people say the son of man to be?" The more formal-sounding "son of man" adds a bit of gravitas to the question. The phrase "son of man" comes from Daniel 7--"...one like a son of man..."--which adds a typically Matthean touch of eschatology and apocalyptism.
The parallels for Matthew 16: 13-16 are Mark 8: 27-30 and Luke 9: 18-20. The latter portion of the reading, verses 17-20, is Special Matthew.
Who do the people say the son of man to be? John the Baptist, Elijah, and Jeremiah are specifically named. Jesus had obviously attracted a lot of attention and people were searching for ways to think of him. To whom can we compare the extraordinary Jesus of Nazareth? He is like John the Baptist or Elijah!
The mention of John the Baptist is quite clear. His name is preceded by the Greek word men which means "truly" or "certainly," hence my translation: "Certainly John the Baptist." (In 14: 2, Herod Antipas--Philip's brother--had said that Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead.)
This again underlines Jesus' continuity with the ministry of John the Baptist, this despite the fact that the actual message of Jesus was quite different from, though not necessarily in conflict with, the message of John.
In political terms, one suspects that Jesus was an early follower of John's, but branched off at some point, drawing some supporters away from John--Andrew, for example. When John was killed, many of his followers moved to Jesus. (Some of John's supporters continued in John's name. To this day, there is a group called the Mandeans, located now in southern Iraq, who trace their "religious lineage" to John the Baptist.)
Elijah was the classic prophet, and, like Jesus, was from northern Israel. Elijah is also an eschatological figure. In fact, the very last two verses of the Old Testament, Malachi 4: 5-6, say: "Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes."
Matthew adds "Jeremiah." (Jeremiah is not mentioned in Mark or Luke.) The inclusion of the "suffering prophet" makes sense. Jeremiah and Jesus have some important connections. Both opposed the religious and political establishment of their day, and both suffered for it.
Jesus says, "OK, that's the talk at the filling station and the grocery store, but what do you think?" Peter answers, "You are the Christ." For a more complete identification of Jesus as "son of man" and "messiah (xristos)," Matthew adds to Mark, "the son of the living God."
The phrase "living God" asserts God as the source of life and the Life Principle itself. (See Hosea 1:10: "...in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people’, it shall be said to them, ‘Children of the living God.’")
Peter's "confession" is not the first. The disciples had proclaimed Jesus as "son of God" when Jesus stilled the storm, and saved Peter from a dose in the drink. Then, all the disciples had said, "Truly, you are the son of God" (14:33). Peter's "confession" is the first to be made by a named individual in Matthew.
"Blessed" Peter: In the first use of makarioi since the beatitudes, Jesus calls Peter "blessed." (Don't get too excited. He calls him "satan" in just a few verses.) Jesus also identifies him as "Simon, son of Jonah." In the fourth gospel, however, Simon is called "son of John." Perhaps bariona (son of Jonah) is a variant of ioannes (John).
More likely, in my view, is the use of "Jonah" as an image of resurrection. As Jonah was three days in the whale, so Jesus would be three days in the earth (12:40). To call Simon Peter the "son of Jonah" was another way of calling him a "son of the resurrection." It is with eyes informed by God's power that Peter is able to make his confession. Jesus says as much when he says that "flesh and blood" has not informed Peter, but rather direct revelation from God.
On this basis, Jesus gives Peter another name and title, that of "Petros," or "rock." This recalls Old Testament figures, such as Abram and Jacob, who were likewise given new names. As God can give new names, so can Jesus. This is yet another way that Matthew affirms Jesus' equality with God.
"Petros," incidentally, was not used as a person's name in those days. It was simply the name for "rock." The word is not so much as a name but as a title. "You are rock, and on this rock, I will build my church."
Roman Catholics say that Jesus means to confer primacy upon Peter. They then go from that to saying that Peter was the first Pope, and that all subsequent Popes are "Peter" as well--all of them "vicars of Christ" on earth, as Jesus himself said.
Protestants counter that Jesus was not referring to Peter the man, but rather to Peter's "confession." That "confession"--not Peter himself--is the "rock" upon which the church is built.
As to Matthew's intent, I agree with the Catholics. The plain sense of the passage is that "rock" refers to Peter, not his supposed "confession." Frankly, you'd have to go through some serious mental paroxysms to make "rock" refer to Peter's words and not himself.
On the other hand, the primary source, Mark, has nothing about Peter being a "rock." Considering Mark's view of the disciples as a whole, and Peter in particular, such an assertion would be laughable. All the disciples are clueless in Mark's gospel, and Peter is the most clueless of all.
The section is Special Matthew. Matthew clearly added it in. Why? My view: The church to which and for which Matthew was writing felt threatened on two fronts: the rise of gentile Christianity (Paul), and the increasing friction between Christians and Jews.
Jewish/Christian conflict was minimal prior to the Roman-Jewish War. Then, most Christians were Jews. After the war, however, each side tended to blame the other and relations began to break apart.
This was especially true in the north of Israel where many refugees from the war settled, and local pharisees took the lead in organizing their communities. It was in this region, and during this time, that followers of Jesus were kicked out of synagogues. (Matthew's church is likely in this region, and these evictions began to happen during the time of his writing. One notices that Matthew had nothing good to say about pharisees.)
Matthew may be promoting Peter because Peter was associated with what you might call "the Jewish wing of Christianity." As leader of the disciples, and thoroughly Jewish, Peter might have had special appeal for Matthew's Jewish Christian community. (Moreover, Peter, Jesus' right-hand man, is more than a match for Paul.)
There were several major factions within the early catholic church--the gentile Christians associated with the ministry of Paul, the community of the Beloved Disciple, the "Jewish Christians," another "dissident" faction represented by the community around "Mark," and the "head office" in Jerusalem. (That's for starters. Several other groups, some now considered heretical--the ebionites and the proto-gnostics, for example--also considered themselves followers of Jesus.)
There was some friction in all of this. This is not to say that these factions were enemies of each other. That would be too strong. The Beloved Disciple, for example, has some things to say about Peter, but never is there a sense that relationship had been broken between the two. Mark is likewise quite critical of Peter, but nevertheless always recognizes Peter as the leader of the disciples--(not that that's particularly a good thing, in Mark's view).
The "gates of Hades": The word ekklesia--"church"--literally means "the called-out gathering." It recalls the worshipping community at Mount Zion at the end of time. Precisely because it is an end-times image, and because Jesus identifies the church as "my church," death has no power over it. "Church" assumes resurrection.
"Hades" was the Greek god of the underworld. It sometimes translates the Hebrew word sheol, which was a vague and shadowy place that was the abode of the dead. In general Biblical usage, it refers to the grave, or even hell. In Greek mythology, Hades, along with Zeus and Poseidon, claimed to rule the cosmos.
Jesus isolates Hades in the underworld, however, and asserts that its "gates" will not prevail against the church. We often take this to mean that the assaults of hell cannot doom the church. Gates, however, are a stationary image. They do not attack; they defend. Pardon the martial language, but, in the power of the resurrection, the church does not defend against hell, but rather attacks and defeats it.
The reference to "keys" recalls Isaiah 22: "...and I will place on his shoulder (Eliakim, in this case) the key of the house of David." Binding and loosing also recalls Isaiah: "...he shall open, and none shall shut; he shall shut, and none shall open (22:22)."
John Meier says that "binding and loosing," seen in the context of rabbinic sources, means the authority to decide between what is permissable and not permissable, or also even to include or exclude people from the community. It may indeed have been Matthew's agenda to devolve that authority onto Peter.
The "messianic secret": Why would Jesus tell people not to say anything about him? Why the so-called "messianic secret"?
It could have been what we call "reverse psychology," i.e. tell people not to something, and they'll fall all over themselves to try to do it. This is indicated by Mark 7:36: "Then Jesus ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it."
Another reason may be that, as of yet, we only know part of the story. We have heard authoritative teaching from Jesus--the Sermon on the Mount!--and have been told of his miracles and majestic power. We have not yet been through his death and resurrection. Then, his authority and ministry will be affirmed and ratified by God himself in the most powerful way possible. (Indeed, then he will have "all authority".) Until then, better not to say anything at all than to tell only half the story.
Yet another possibility is that Jesus was opposed by the various authorities of the day, and just maybe he didn't want them to know what he was doing or where he was going.
Image: St. Peter the Aleut, Fr. Ray Bucko
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat.’3He answered them, ‘And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, “Honour your father and your mother,” and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.”5But you say that whoever tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is given to God”, then that person need not honour the father. 6So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said:
8“This people honours me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
9in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.” ’
Translation: Then pharisees and scribes came from Jerusalem to Jesus, saying, "In this, why do your disciples go by the side of the instruction of the elders, for they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." But he answered them saying, "And in this, why do you go by the side of the commandment of God because of your instruction of elders, for God said, 'Honor the father and the mother' and 'The one speaking evil of father and mother will die completely.' But you say that whoever says to the father and the mother, 'A gift from me by which you might have been assisted,' that person will not honor his father; you have rendered void the word of God because of the instruction of your elders. Hypocrites, Isaiah prophesied beautifully about you, saying, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. In vain they worship me, teaching precepts of men.'"
Background and situation: The context for understanding the story of the Canaanite woman's encounter with Jesus is contained in the first twenty verses of the text. In this section, Jesus counters a pharisaic argument, goes them one better, then abrogates all food laws, the major barrier to inclusion of gentiles. With exquisite timing, the (gentile) Canaanite woman then bursts upon the scene.
The original source is Mark (7: 1-12), though, as John Meier puts it, "Matthew abbreviates, adds to, and inverts the Markan text." That's because Matthew has similar priorities, but takes a somewhat different tack to advance his argument.
Rabbinical argumentation: Chapter 15 begins with an investigative team which has been sent out from the head office in Jerusalem to look into the "transgressing"--parabainousin--of the oral law. An "oral law" is a law not contained in the scriptures themselves but rather one that was formulated by the early pharisees. The particular one mentioned here stipulated that hands should be washed before eating in order for people to purify themselves from any object they might have touched that was unclean.
The pharisees, incidentally, claimed that, in addition to the written law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, God had also given an "oral law" to Moses, an "oral law" which only they, the pharisees, knew.
In true rabbinical style, Jesus counters their argument by accusing them of "transgressing"--same word--not merely oral tradition, but the very "commandment of God". These pharisees are not breaching some "oral law" of the pharisees' own definition, but breaking a commandment of God, a commandment recognized by every faction within Judaism as being part of the "ten words," what we call the "ten commandments."
The specific commandment Jesus has in mind is the injunction to honor father and mother. Jesus then refers to the practice of someone dedicating property to the temple, and thus withdrawing it from 'secular' use." This would have the effect of not letting your parents benefit from its value. (The Greek phrase is difficult, but it means something like: "A gift from me (to God) by which you (the parents) might have been assisted.")
It is a deft argument. Who would not put the needs of their parents above the financial needs of the already rich Temple? Moreover, it puts the pharisees on the side of the argument that must have made them uncomfortable. The pharisees, too, were critical of certain practices of the Temple. Jesus' rejoinder has manuevered them onto the same side as the Sadducees and the wealthy families of Jerusalem.
This is yet another variation on a common theme of Jesus, namely: That ritual and religious actions are, or should be, trumped by compassion and mercy. In this case, the compassion and mercy is on behalf of one's own parents.
Matthew ups the ante from Mark. Mark says that the commandment about honoring parents comes from Moses, but Matthew says the pharisees, by making mere oral traditions more important than the law of God, have "voided" the word of God in scripture.
Then, Jesus launches into a rousing condemnation of the pharisees--"hypocrites," he called them, and topped it off by citing the prophet Isaiah about the nature of hypocrisy, which is saying one thing while their heart, their understanding of reality, is in a different place. Their worship means nothing--mere "vanity"--because they teach human traditions. Matthew has found the pharisees wanting both in terms of law and prophets.
Preparing the way for inclusion of gentiles:
10 Then he called the crowd to him and said to them, ‘Listen and understand: 11it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.’ 12Then the disciples approached and said to him, ‘Do you know that the Pharisees took offence when they heard what you said?’ 13He answered, ‘Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.’ 15But Peter said to him, ‘Explain this parable to us.’ 16Then he said, ‘Are you also still without understanding? 17Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? 18But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.’
Translation: And he called the crowd to him and said to them, "Hear and comprehend: It is not what goes into the mouth that renders a person unclean, but what comes out of a mouth that renders unclean." Then, drawing near, the disciples said to him, "Do you know that the pharisees, hearing the word, were scandalized?" But he answered, saying, "Every plant which my father in heaven has not planted will be uprooted. Forgive them. The blind ones are leaders of the blind. If a blind one might lead another blind one, both will fall into a pit." But Peter answered him saying, "Explain to us this parable." But he said, "And you do not have understanding? Do you not perceive that all that goes into the mouth proceeds into the belly and is cast out into the toilet? But the things that come out of the mouth come forth from the heart and this makes the man unclean. For out the heart comes evil intentions, murder, adultery, illicit sex, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."
At this point, Jesus summons the crowds, saying, "Hear, and bring this together in your minds: Not food going in, but evil coming out is what defiles a person." Defilement meant being unfit for fellowship with God and his people. Only evil can do this, Jesus says, and certainly not food.
The disciples came to Jesus and told him that the pharisees had totally freaked when they heard what Jesus had just said. One senses worry on the part of the disciples. After all, Jesus has just said that what you eat doesn't matter. The pharisees would have been stunned at the very idea. The disciples themselves must have considered this exceedingly dangerous territory upon which to tread. They report that the pharisees are "scandalized."
The pharisees were indeed "scandalized" because they immediately, and correctly, understood what Jesus had done. Not only had Jesus undermined the necessity of washing hands as mere oral tradition, which, from their perspective, was bad enough, but he seemed to use that as a swingboard for something far more sweeping, the setting aside of all the food laws.
The food laws, unlike oral tradition, were actually in scripture. Not only that, the food laws were among the most central aspects of Judaism.
This was a necessary step, however, because the food laws created an absolute barrier to contact with gentiles. In order to reach out to gentiles, something would have to be done about the food laws, so Jesus cancelled them out entirely. Having done this, the stage is now set for outreach to gentiles.
In response to the worry of the pharisees (and disciples), Jesus, cryptically, tells the disciples not to worry too much because what God plants will last, and what God doesn't plant will be uprooted. The church at the time of Matthew's writing (c. AD 80) would have understood this to mean that the church, the community of Jesus, was the planting of God, but pharisaic rabbinical Judaism--the tradition that won the power struggle in Judaism after the fall of the Temple in AD 70--was not the planting of God.
But don't worry about it too much, Jesus says. In fact, "forgive them." (The NRSV translates aphete as "let them go," which is probably about right, but I'm of the view that aphete ought to be translated as "forgive" where possible.) Let them go. Forgive them. They are merely the blind leading the blind.
Peter wants an explanation. Matthew changes Mark again here. Where Mark says the disciples ask the question, Matthew makes it Peter, which is consistent with the generally prominent role played by Peter throughout Matthew's gospel.
Jesus focuses on the mouth. What goes in the mouth proceeds on through the body. What comes out of a mouth comes from the heart and proceeds out into the world where it does evil. (Jesus appears to anticipate Freud's formulation of the id by about 1800 years.)
The sins Jesus ticks off basically follow the order of the Ten Commandments, except that illicit sex and lying both get mentioned twice. These are real problems and real offenses, says Jesus, not like something as insignificant as whether or not you washed your hands.
Inclusion of the gentiles:
21 Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.’23But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, ‘Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.’ 24He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ 25But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ 26He answered, ‘It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ 27She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.’ 28Then Jesus answered her, ‘Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed instantly.
Translation: And leaving that place, Jesus went back to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came forth (and) cried out, saying, "Have mercy for me, Lord, Son of David, my daughter is possessed by a bad demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came requesting him, saying, "Send her away for she cries out after us." He answered, saying, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt to him, saying, "Lord, help me." He answered saying, "It is not excellent to take the bread of children and throw to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord, and for the dogs eat from the crumbs, the ones falling from the table of their lords." Then Jesus answered and said to her, "Woman, your faith is great. Let it happen for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed from that hour.
Having cleared the way for contact with gentiles by removing the largest barrier toward their inclusion, Jesus went to gentile territory. Tyre and Sidon were both ancient phoenician ports. After Alexander's conquest, c. 332 BC, Tyre became a predominantly Greek city.
"Behold!" says Matthew. A woman seems to burst on the scene, crying out the correct liturgical words: Kyrie eleison, "Lord, have mercy on me." She even tops it off with "Son of David," an acknowledgement that she recognizes Jesus as Jewish, perhaps even the Jewish messiah.
Mark has "syrophoenician" woman, which Matthew changes to "Canaanite." The Canaanites were the ones living in the land of Israel when Joshua led the Hebrews into what, for them, was the Promised Land. For the temerity of resisting this intrusion, the Canaanites became bitter enemies of the Hebrews.
But that had been long before. Several centuries had passed since the Canaanite-Hebrew struggles. The word "Canaanite" had long fallen out of general use. Matthew deliberately resurrects that word in order to underline the outsider status of the woman--not only is she a woman, not only a foreigner, not only unclean, but an ancient enemy besides!
Jesus did not answer her a word--nothing, zip, nada. (In the honor/shame culture of that time, acknowledging the woman would also acknowledge that she had some kind of claim on you.) The disciples are often troubled by these kinds of interruptions and their default position always seems to be to get rid of the interruption. Naturally, they want to send the woman away.
Jesus responds with a statement that sounds formulaic: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." It reads like a formal statement of self-understanding. The woman replies with a plea from the heart. She falls to her knees and begs, "Lord, help me!"
Jesus is not yet moved. Jews of the day often referred to gentiles as dogs, and Jesus does so here. "It is not good--kalos--to take the bread of children and throw it to the dogs." Ouch!
In his version of this story, Mark says, "Let the children be fed first," which implies that maybe, just maybe, there might be some bread for others. Matthew drops this introductory sentence, which makes Jesus' remark come across even harsher than in Mark.
The woman, however, will not be dismissed so easily. "Yes, Lord," she says, appearing to agree with Jesus. She even appears to grant the primacy of Israel. Then, however, she moves beyond that to turn Jesus' analogy in her own direction. Let's go with that table image, she says. Eventually, some crumbs are going to fall to the floor. We'll take those.
Jesus responds. For the first time, he is now said to be speaking directly "to her". He says, "Woman, great is your faith." This is the only time in Matthew's gospel where anyone's faith is termed "great." The disciples (read: the church) are quite regularly informed that they are people of "little faith." But the Canaanite, the ancient enemy, the foreigner, the woman--her faith is megale, "great." Her daughter was healed "from that hour."
It is the only time in scripture that Jesus loses an argument, and he loses it to a woman who was a triple loser herself--woman, foreigner, and ancient enemy.
Image: Young Canaanite Woman, Abdel Rahman Al Muzain, 1979.
