“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.” (Matt 10:34–36).
Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, lover of all, and patron of the close-knit nuclear family … where are you? The words of Jesus we are given by the lectionary for this coming Sunday (Matt 10:24–39) seem to come from a very different person from the stereotypical “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world”. Who exactly is this Jesus?
“Go nowhere among the Gentiles” (10:5), he has told his disciples, establishing what appears to be a very exclusivist, racially-driven undertaking. “Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff” (10:9–10), on what will undoubtedly be an incredibly ascetic experience for the disciples. “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town” (10:14), says Jesus, anticipating a divisive and difficult time for his followers.
And then, “I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves” (10:16), for “they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues” (10:17). Yes, this sure to be an experience that the disciples will not forget—for all the wrong reasons! “You will be hated by all because of my name” (10:22) is hardly an enticing invitation to take part in this mission; indeed, the advice, “do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (10:28) bodes no good; are there not only persecutions, but also deaths, on the horizon?
What is going on? How did Jesus manage to entice a group of men and women to take part in this enterprise? And why was he so clear and direct about all the dangers that lay ahead of them?
As I noted in last week’s blog on Matthew 10, we know that Judaism was in a state of flux after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Evidence indicates that there were a number of sectarian groups contesting with each other for recognition and influence. During this period, the Pharisees were becoming increasingly important as an alternative to the Temple cult, and emerging as the dominant Jewish religious movement. Their power base was moved from Jerusalem and spread throughout the area.
It has been claimed that a Jewish Council was formed in Jamnia, a city on the coast of Judea. This is taken to demonstrate that the Pharisees had laid claim to be the dominant group amongst the Jews; it might also indicate that it was possible to legislate for the formal separation of some communities (such as the Matthean one).
Note: this story is now regarded as more likely that this story of Jamnia was a ‘foundation myth’, developed in later years, with the aim of showing that there was unity in formative Judaism from the earliest times.
The area of Galilee is extremely important in Matthew’s Gospel (2:22; 3:13; 4:12–25; 17:22; 19:1; 21:11; 26:32; 28:7). As the Galilean Pharisees figure prominently in the narrative of Matthew’s Gospel, it seems reasonable to suppose there was a strong Pharisaic presence in Galilee, and that this group provided the main opponents for the community of Matthew.
The power of the Pharisees was rising, and with the destruction of the Temple, it was common to find new ways of interpreting how Judaism should exist. From this time on, Pharisees evolved into the “Rabbis”, and they developed the kind of Judaism that became dominant through to the present time.
Nevertheless, many Jews, particularly in the Diaspora, were not yet “Pharisaic”—they did not see their faith in the same way as the Pharisees. There were many disputes amongst Jewish communities as to the correct way of seeing things, and some of these disputes were quite bitter. Many groups claimed to be the ‘true Israel’ as distinct from other groups, who were false leaders and teachers, and who failed to follow the Law correctly.
The Law became the most accessible means of revealing God’s will for Israel after the destruction of the Temple, and most of these groups focused on what they believed to be the true interpretation and application of it.
Matthew’s Gospel reflects one such debate; scholars suggest that it should be read alongside of other literature from after the time of the destruction of the Temple—books such as 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and the Psalms of Solomon. This literature is trying to envisage what Judaism should be like in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple.
Thus, although Matthew’s Gospel has been seen to have played an important role in the formation of early Christian theology, a more natural interpretation is to locate this Gospel within the post-70 Jewish debates about the survival of Judaism without the Temple. The polemic in Jesus’ debates with the Pharisees, and the warnings that are uttered to Israel, show that Matthew still had hope that his ideas would become normative for all Jewish people.
I think it likely that Matthew’s Gospel was created to insist on the centrality and priority of the teachings of Jesus, the Torah-observant Jew, whom God had chosen as the anointed one; it was his teaching, not that of the local synagogue leaders, which was to be given priority.
In such a context, the opposition envisaged by Jesus and the warnings that he gives in this polemical speech to his earliest followers, starts to make sense. Matthew sets out the teachings of Jesus concerning discipleship within the context of an apocalyptic view of reality. This view looks at the present time in relation to the ultimate end of time, and calls for a way of living that will ultimately show responsibility for decisions made.
What ultimate end does Matthew have in view? Each Gospel writer tends to emphasis something slightly different. In Mark, the focus is on the resurrection of Jesus (Mark 14:28; 16:7). In Luke-Acts, carrying the good news throughout the Roman Empire fulfils the story (Luke 24:47–48; Acts 1:8). In John, it is eternal life which is emphasised (John 20:31).
Matthew’s Jesus has in mind the coming eschatological deliverance, a deliverance which is expected imminently and that will vindicate the community as faithful and righteous to the will of God. So he tells his followers that “you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (10:23). The mission that his followers undertake amongst Jews only is urgent; the end of time is coming soon, and they will not have shared “the good news [that] the kingdom of heaven has come near” (10:7) before “the Son of Man appears in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ with power and great glory” (24:30).
In this way, Matthew is typical of one type of Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple; that of apocalyptic hope. Most of the post-70 sectarian groups express hope that God will remember his covenant with them, the faithful few of Israel, and save them; for example, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra write that God will provide consolation for their suffering and vindicate them, whilst also punishing their enemies on the Day of Judgement (2 Baruch 6:21; 82:1–2; 4 Ezra 8:51–59; 12:34).
In these sectarian documents, the kingdom of God is eschatological is nature; it has not yet arrived on earth, though signs telling of its coming can be detected. These communities also agree that much of Israel no longer truly follows the Law of God, and that the dominant Jewish leadership is unfaithful and wicked, and that they are the ones alone representing the true Israel. Therefore, entry to the kingdom is dependent upon faithfulness to the Law as interpreted by the community.
Much of this sectarian understanding can also be found in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew redacts his sources and shapes his material so that this eschatological end is prominent—even in the mission discourse. The words of Jesus about persecutions (10:17–20) are very similar to words in the closing apocalyptic of Jesus (24:9); his words about divisions and hatred within the family (10:21–22 and 10:34-37) mirror the later declaration of betrayal and hatred (24:10).
The “false messiahs and false prophets” that are foreseen (10:24) evoke the false message of “those who will lead you astray” (24:4–5) whilst the words that the Spirit will speak through the disciples (10:19–20) provide the substance for the future “testimony to all the nations” concerning “the good news of the kingdom” (24:14). The instruction to flee in the face of persecution (10:23) foreshadows the apocalyptic command that “those in Judea must flee to the mountains” (24:16–18).
The urgency of the mission (9:37–38; 10:11–14) is because “you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (10:23). And the note that the Son of Man is expected to come soon (10:23) presages the cataclysmic scene described in the closing speech of Jesus (24:29–31)—for “this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (24:34). This later causes Jesus such frustration, when he berates his disciples, those of “little faith”, “you faithless and perverse generation, how much longer must I be with you? how much longer must I put up with you?” (17:17).
The mission discourse (10:5–42) thus contains many of the key elements of the apocalyptic discourse (24:3–44): opposition, persecution, division, fear, assurance, and urgency. Jesus, in this Gospel, is particularly clear that there are two ages: the first is the current time for the evangelist, and the second is the age to come (Matt 12:32, from Mark 3:29). In this Gospel, the first indication that we have of the nearness of the second age is the announcement of John the Baptist, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (3:2).
This succinct message has set the tone for the rest of the Gospel. Jesus repeats, word-for-word, John’s call for people to repent (4:17). He intensifies the need for faithful people to be obedient to God’s law (5:17–20) and demonstrate an intensified righteous-justice (5:21–48), as the end-time of God’s judgement is fast approaching. This is the centrepiece of the message that the disciples are to proclaim, when sent out on mission: “as you go, proclaim the good news, ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons” (10:7–8).
In Matthew’s understanding, the kingdom is imminent, but not yet arrived; however, signs of its imminence break in to the present times to demonstrate its nearness. The ministry of Jesus is set at the end of the first age; the second age will commence very shortly with the triumphant return of Jesus after his death, within the lifetime of his disciples (10:23; 16:28; 24:34).
Matthew does not reflect the notion that the kingdom has already arrived on earth, even though it can be seen in Jesus (12:28), and in the continuation of his ministry by his followers after his death. Jesus and the disciples both preach that the kingdom of heaven is near, or at hand (4:17; 7:21–22; 9:35; 10:7), but it has not yet established itself on earth.
A number of the parables of Jesus address the nature of this kingdom. The kingdom of heaven will be established “at the end of the age”, when the final judgement of righteous and unrighteous will take place (13:39–40, 49; 24:3). Before the coming of the Son of Man, it remains hidden and mysterious (13:31–33, 44–45), too small to be observed, but the day is coming when it will grow and become the “greatest of all things”, and the righteousness of God will triumph.
And entry into this kingdom—or not—will be determined by a person’s readiness (24:45–51; 25:1–11) and by an assessment of the way they lived their life (25:31–46). So Jesus gives his followers this assurance: “whoever welcomes a prophet … and whoever welcomes a righteous person … and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward” (10:41–42).
He also issues this severe warning: “whoever 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; 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.” (10:37–39).
Matthew takes source material about the mission of the disciples (Mark 6:7–13), modifies, intensifies, expands, and reshapes it, in the light of the context in which he is writing the Gospel. The events of the 50s and 60s, the onset of the war with the Romans in 66, and perhaps even the destruction of the Temple in 70CE, have all guided the way that the author of Matthew’s Gospel retells the instructions that Jesus gave to his first disciples, decades earlier.
Just as he and his community are experiencing intense difficulties and confronting entrenched conflict, so the Jesus of earlier times had foreseen such a situation, and had sent his followers out forewarned, and thus forearmed. What was taking place in the early 70s (or perhaps even in the late 60s) amongst a group of Torah-abiding, Messiah-following Jews, was an outworking of what Jesus is presented as speaking to his disciples.
In other words, the mission discourse of Matt 10:1–11:1 reveals much about the strife and contention amongst Jews in the local area where Matthew’s community was located, and the intensified expectation that the end was coming soon, that they felt. It was a word for his time; placed on the lips of Jesus, but speaking with clarity and insight into the lived experience of the people of Matthew’s community. For them, this was what obedience to the Gospel and following the way of Messiah Jesus, their Rabbi, entailed.
This blog draws on material in MESSIAH, MOUNTAINS, AND MISSION: an exploration of the Gospel for Year A, by Elizabeth Raine and John Squires (self-published 2012).
John Squires is the Editor of With Love to the World. This piece originally appeared on his blog, An Informed Faith.
