RTS Papers / Gospels / Summer 2016
An Exegetical Paper on Matthew 10:1-15
The full title is "Kingdom Authority and Activity in the Sending of the Twelve."
New Testament scholars of all stripes would agree that the kingdom is an overarching theme in Matthew’s Gospel. Unity of opinion tends to break down after that. What does Jesus make essential to the kingdom? Who makes up the kingdom? Is it here now or only in the new heavens and new earth? If it is here now, what does one do with it? Is there any continuity between the church of the first century and that of the twenty-first century? In other words, should we be doing what they were doing? Why do the Gospels repeatedly tell us that Jesus and his followers were to preach a gospel of the kingdom? How is this kingdom in any sense good news?
Matthew 10:1-15 is really a neglected passage in the formation of any answer to these questions. I propose that Matthew’s use of both the commission of the apostles by Jesus, and the instructions about the mission, goes a long way toward providing a basis for answering all of our above questions. Now we will have to work with a convergence of various contexts to see this: the background of Matthew, the text’s literary features, and the redemptive-historical elements that find a passage-way here from promise in the Old to fulfillment in the New. As we will discover, Jesus gives defining description for the legitimate authority and legitimate activity of his kingdom in this commissioning of the Twelve.
Background Analysis
A few words about the Gospel itself will be useful. The disciple of Jesus, named Matthew, wrote this narrative sometime in the 60s AD, likely from Palestine and certainly to a Jewish audience. Critical scholarship will object to such an early date. Interestingly they will do so because of something that is featured even in this very passage. They cannot allow that 10:1-42 is an original literary unit. Verses 16-42 must have been a redaction from a later author.
Their rationale is rooted in the same naturalistic bias that demands a later date of the Olivet Discourse. Since martyrdom was predicted of the disciples here—as the destruction of Jerusalem was predicted there—and since predictive prophecy is out of court, it follows that these portions of Matthew could not have been written by the author in the generation that Jesus walked the earth.
That is a summary of their approach. Naturalistic presuppositions notwithstanding, the early date and Matthean authorship are well established.
There are legitimate textual questions. Scholars committed to biblical inerrancy can piece together the following: 9:35-11:1 is generally seen to be a composite unit, “arranged by the First Evangelist out of diverse materials,” however, “There is as yet no agreement about the structure of Matt. 10” (Talbert, 128). The disciples were sent “two by two” (Mk. 6:7). Matthew omits, or neglects, this detail. More strikingly Matthew omits anything of how they fared. Is any of this a problem? Not at all. The more we examine the differences between the Synoptics with an appreciation for multiperspectives, the more we begin to see a divinely designed approach.
Parallel passages (Mark 6:7-13 and Luke 9:1-6) are both shorter than Matthew’s account. Mark and Luke give accounts of Jesus selecting the twelve. That is not happening here. Matthew focuses only on the commissioning of the twelve.
Hendriksen favors Luke as the giver of chronology (cf. 6:12, 13, 20), adding that the time of the choosing of the Twelve was “just previous to the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Mark 3:13, 14)” (449). Matthew is taking that detail for granted and included it in the event of Jesus sending them “out on a mission tour” (449). The one-dimensional-critical eye thinks that chronology and maximization of unity in details is the whole point of writing. But why should we accept this modernist perspective?
As a matter of fact, there is something paradigmatic about Matthew’s emphasis of the commission. One scholar counts “nearly 100 lines of Greek text (as found in the UBSGNT) as compared with 13.5 lines in Mark and 12 lines in Luke” (Morosco, 324).
Most of the commentators agree that Matthew pulled together material without respect to chronology. That argues for a systematic approach. Morosco offers that, “Matthew seems to have operated on the principle of a thematic arrangement of sayings material. The unifying theme in this case is that of missiology” (328). That is one way to say what I am driving at. Matthew’s choice of angle is a doctrine of the kingdom, particularly with regard to the nature of its authority and activity.
Hendriksen points out that “the background material begins at 9:35-38” (447). The connection is clear. The laborers in God’s harvest are few. Consequently Jesus begins to draw forth the structure and the motion of his “labor force.”
For our text, the immediate first century scene will be of more help to us than either the ancient Jewish or Greek realms of ideas. There are a few cultural practices with which we should be familiar. The practice of scribes searching for teaching opportunities and depending on local hospitality was normal (cf. Watson, 312). That will make a lot more sense of the instructions on how to relate to those households that entertain the disciples on their mission.
There is also context concerning their attire. The belt referred to “a long cloth wrapped around the waste several times, in which one would fold money” (Talbert, 130). Note that in verse 9 there are three kinds of coin “for your belt.” Hold that thought and that picture.
To the modern mind — unbelieving critics as well as genuine believers struggling to see the relevance of such instructions — the cultural background can illuminate qualities of this mission that are not so confined to the first century after all. Take the connection between the restrictions Jesus puts on their travel wardrobe and the freedom He gives to their itinerary. The obvious value set forth is simplicity. Further down we will also see the value of purity emerge.
Begin with the simplicity dimension. Aquire no gold, nor silver, nor copper (v. 9), says Jesus. These were the standard metals of Roman coinage in their order of value. The verb ‘Aquire’ seems to signify no new purchases. He is not saying to “have” nothing. The value is utter simplicity and freedom to move for the kingdom. The value is not an immobilizing poverty that makes one useless. So Jesus is not saying to have none of these things with you: i. e. to walk naked and barefoot. It would be reasonable to conclude from this that Jesus is also highlighting dependence on God to supply all of the missionary’s needs. This context is also important to grasp when harmonizing Matthew’s account with the other Synoptics.
There is a second value noted by commentators. When the apostles settle into a village to deliver their message to households, Jesus instructs them to stay there until you depart (v. 11). Chilton says that the significance of this has to do with purity (cf. Chilton, 877). That is the purity concerned in the ceremonial law. Whatever the owners of the house served was to be considered automatically clean. This was a way for them to live out the truth that Jesus had declared all foods clean (cf. Mk. 7:18-19, Acts 10:15). And even the command to not take those basic items back in verses 9 and 10, Chilton sees as a purity statement: “But if we understand the commission to treat every village they might enter as clean, as purely Israel as the temple itself, the perplexing structure of the commission makes eminent sense” (Chilton, 878).
There is another kind of purity that is at stake here — the purity of integrity in their task — as another commentator puts it: “The message of the kingdom is not for sale” (Turner, 271). The idea is that this is the chief aim in the admonition to “give without pay” (v. 8). The kind of missionary lifestyle instituted by Jesus protects one from bribery. On the other hand the gospel preacher’s simplicity and the church’s hospitality are expected to come together — cf. Deut. 25:4, 1 Cor. 9:3-12, Gal. 6:6, 1 Thess. 2:9, 1 Tim. 5:17-18 — and this charge of Jesus anticipates them both.
One more piece of the puzzle must set our background for how these disciples understood the instructions being given to them at that time. Was the inquiry into ‘who in it is worthy’ (v. 11) primarily about ordinary Near Eastern hospitality? Or was it about gospel receptivity? Clearly it was the latter, as evidenced by the reaction that Jesus says is proper. The expression ‘shake the dust from your feet’ (v. 14) speaks of “a dramatic gesture of repudiation still in use in the Middle East” (France, 1985, 185). The judgment this evidences cannot be due to poor hospitality, but rather points to the evil of rejecting so great a treasure as the kingdom.
One more background element that I think can be gleaned regards the biggest opposition these apostles will face: namely the demons. What is the meaning of the adjective in the ‘unclean spirits’ (1)? Hendriksen suggests that it is “because not only are these spirits themselves filthy but among men they are also the instigators of filthy thoughts, words, and deeds” (449).
(#Matthew #Gospel #Jesus #discipleship #simplicity #kingdom)
Comments