RTS Papers / Gospels / Summer 2016
An Exegetical Paper on Matthew 10:1-15
Redemptive-Historical Analysis
Matthew had already told us about the calling of five disciples (cf. 4:18-22, 9:9). The purpose of listing all twelve together here is different. In the first place there is a transition from disciples to apostles. That is significant to the issue of kingdom authority. We have to understand the Gospel of Matthew as giving us a doctrine of the kingdom. I am not suggesting that this is all that the author has in view, but it is primary.
“In Matthew 8 and 9 Jesus is shown performing ten miracles of the types expected to occur in the messianic age” (Talbert, 128). This is what He is passing on to his apostles.
That Jesus gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction (1) is an extention of the kingdom by representatives. The point is not to suggest that signs are normative, but rather, by these signs, to make their substance normative. One commentator maintains “that it is authority for the apostolic mission that is in mind and not an authority for government of the church” (Bonnard, quoted by Morris, 242).
However such an inference seems to create two doctrinal problems: (1) it separates missiology from ecclesiology; (2) it may also suggest that signs ought to be normative for the whole church age. Both are problems in the contemporary church. My focus, however, is exegetical. What warrant is there in the text, or any amount of context, to sever authority for apostolic mission and authority of the apostolic church? Some norm is being handed to the church here. If it is not the apostolic signs, then what? We should ask it in this way: What is the substance to which these signs point? The answer will be a synonym for “kingdom activity.”
The King and his representatives alike start exclusively with the lost sheep of Israel (cf. Matt. 15:24) - both sayings being from Matthew. The order of “the Jew first and also to the Greek” finds expression elsewhere (cf. Acts 13:46, Rom. 1:16, 2:9-10), but Matthew tells us most about the redemptive-historical reasons. Gathering of “‘the lost sheep of Israel’s house’ (10:6) may refer to Jer. 50:6 (see also Isa. 53:6; Ezek. 34)” (Carson & Beale, 35). There was a priority given to ethnic Israel in redemptive history. That it was a temporary phase is made clear by Jesus’ words further down, that they would “bear witness [to] … the Gentiles” (v. 18).
The core of the mission comes in the “present imperative” (Morris, 246), namely to ‘preach’ (v. 7). Whatever they preached, it was something to be obeyed now and lived out in this age. It is safe to say that this is one norm from the apostles to preachers today. As to the content of the message itself — The kingdom of heaven is at hand (7) — it fulfills Isaiah 40:1-11, where the reign of God is breaking open into human history, bringing down the mighty and exalting the humble. The NIV renders ‘is at hand’ as “has come near.” This is essentially the same message as John the Baptist and Jesus had preached (cf. Mat. 3:2, Mk. 1:15). We can see how Jesus is reproducing in their mission the substance of his own mission up to this point.
Just as the Lord preached the fulfillment of Jubilee in Luke 4:18-19, so these disciples are commissioned both to preach the kingdom and to bring justice for the oppressed (vv. 7-8). While we want to guard against a fashionable redefinition of "justice" to mean social leveling, we also want to avoid the other extreme of removing from the tree this fruit of the gospel. Notice how the grace they received should be extended to the lowly — the connection between salvation by grace and kingdom justice for the poor (v. 8b). This is the basic kingdom activity in this age: “to proclaim good news to the poor … to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.” So it seems that we are better prepared to read Matthew 10:1-15 if we have already grasped the redemptive-historical significance of Luke 4:18-19.
We may still be asking what the signs have to do with the substance of gospel preaching. Of what are the casting out of demons and healing of every disease signs? Evangelicalism has often defended itself against theological liberalism by reducing the miraculous signs to be either authenticating of the apostles or signifying the deeper spiritual need. No doubt these are always in play. However these are essentially signs of the reverse of the curse. Note the list and its order: ‘Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons’ (v. 8).
Death is worse than sickness. But it may be argued that ceremonial uncleanness is worse than both. It is that by which the Jew was alienated from the assembly of the righteous. Now leprosy is a physical ailment, yet it was the condition most associated with one being unclean. So there is a progression in the kingdom signs: from sickness to death to alienation from God to the most conscious enemies of God.
Even if there is nothing to the order, we should at least see how they go together in the kingdom’s advance.
Finally we should note that the just recompense of the King in verse 15 is the ground for their peace in verse 13 and its dramatic expression in verse 14. What is this peace (v. 13) and how may the disciples either extend or withhold it? It must be the peace of the King toward those who are pardoned and included. There is a kind of lesser to greater argument being employed by Jesus. The punishment of those who reject this message is far greater than the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is because of the greater stature of Christ. At Sodom and Gomorrah, darkness was judged; but here in Galilee, darkness was being altogether set to retreat by light. Something greater than fire and brimstone was here.
Concluding Remarks
I think it is safe to say that the Jewish reader of the first century would have understood Matthew to be relaying the authoritative pattern given by Jesus for kingdom authority and kingdom activity.
We have to set the limits to the eschatology of this passage. Morris comments that, “It was not their business to work out the solution to contemporary problems, but to sound out the message Jesus was proclaiming” (246). Agreeing with this statement means being able to clearly define what it means to “work out the solution.” Does this mean that no gospel preacher can engage in biblical ethical reasoning, or that there is none in any event? Or does it only mean that the contemporary dimension of these problems may not be defined by the unbelieving culture?
All Christians should at least agree that there should be a clear line between the specific mandate the Lord gives to ministers to preach the gospel and the more general mandate given to the whole church to be salt and light, with everything legitimately implied by that phrase.
Another general application is this: Jesus made himself poor (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9) — now you make yourselves poor. One kind of poverty is being of poor notoriety. Morris picks up on the fact that, in spite of the fact that church history has held these men in high esteem, “very little is known about most of them; evidentially some of them were not memorable men. If this is so, it would accord with the fact that God has often chosen people the world has regarded as insignificant through whom to do his wonderful works” (Morris, 242).
(#Matthew #Gospels #kingdom #Jesus #disciples #authority #commission #mission)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Robert T., “Samaritan Literature,” in Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2000
Beare, F. W., “The Mission of the Disciples and the Mission Charge: Matthew 10 and Parallels,” The Society of Biblical Literature 1970
Carson, D. A. and Beale, G. K. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 2007
Chilton, Bruce D. “Purity” in Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2000
Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2000
Ferguson, Everett, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing 2003
France, R. T., Matthew, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 1985
France, R. T., “Jesus Christ, Life and Teaching Of” in Marshall, I. Howard, Alan R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 1996
Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 1992
Hendricksen, William, Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House 1973
Keener, Craig S., Matthew, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 1997
Marshall, I. Howard, Alan R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and D. J. Wiseman, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 1996
Morosco, Robert E., “Redaction Criticism and the Evangelical: Matthew 10 a Test Case,” JETS 22/4 (December 1979) 323-331
Morris, Leon, The Gospel According to Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing 1992
Poythress, Vern S. Inerrancy and the Gospels, Wheaton, IL: Crossway 2012
Ridderbos, Herman, The Coming of the Kingdom, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing 1960
Talbert, Charles H., Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 2010
Turner, David L. Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 2008
Watson, D. F., “Education: Jewish and Greco-Roman” in Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2000
Comments