“A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; it 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!” (Matthew 10:24-25, NRSV)

1) At the risk of missing the forest for one or two particularly fascinating trees, I was intrigued by the mention of the name “Beelzebul” in verse 25. The passage mentions the one “who can destroy both soul and body in hell” in verse 28, but this is the only other reference to any sort of demonic activity in the passage. According to the footnotes in the New Oxford, the name Beelzebul originally refers to the god Baal and appears in 2 Kings 1 (even though the NRSV translates it here as “Baal-zebub”), but the name also appears as an alternate title for Satan in the Gospels (such as Matthew 11:24). Given Jesus’ proclivity for Hebrew Bible references in the Gospel of Matthew (in this discourse, he also references Sodom and Gomorrah in verse 15), could it be that Jesus is intentionally invoking the image of Baal in these verses, and if so, why?

2) According to the article on Beelzebul in the New Interpreter’s, the name originates from the term Ba’al-zevuv (translated “Baal of the Flies”), which was used a pejorative for other gods in biblical texts. In the New Testament, the name takes on slightly different significance since “be’el” means a prince or ruler in Aramaic, and the name was connected to Satan. Also, in Hebrew, “zevul” means a residence, so in a conflation of Hebrew and Aramaic, the term might become “ruler of the household” and might refer to Satan as a ruler of a household of demons.

Carter divides this discourse into four sections on page 232:
10:1-4- Call and Commission of an Alternative Community
10:5-15- Four Aspects of the Mission
10:16-23- The Hardship of the Mission: Inevitable Persecution
10:24-42- The Courage, Impact, and Reward of Faithful Mission

According to Carter, verses 1-23 all carry the theme of disciples imitating their master, and this verse extends that theme. Rather than being a reference to the specific character of Beelzebul/Baal, the use of the title here is meant to recall the accusations against Jesus (that he receives his powers from Beelzebul) by the Pharisees in 9:34. Carter focuses quite a bit on the idea of the household, and elsewhere, in the parables, “the head of the household” usually represents Jesus (e.g. 13:27, 52; 20:1, 11; 21:33’ 24:43), so it is possible that Jesus is merely using these verses to repeat the accusations that have been leveled against him. (Carter, 239) I hadn’t made the connection to the Pharisees’ earlier accusations and found this to be a pretty reasonable assessment of what’s really going on here. Rats, I wanted an excuse to delve into Canaanite religion and early Christian demonology. Oh well, that’s what explanatory footnotes are for.

Witherington omits an explanation of the term Beelzebul and focuses instead on the household, noting that servant and master are interchangeable with disciple and teacher in these verses. Witherington also suggests that Jesus’ use of household language is similar to the language used by Jewish rabbis to describe students who came to study with them. (How does the possible meaning of Beelzebul as “ruler of the household” affect this interpretation?) The use of the name Beelzebul here is mostly just to indicate that Jesus’ students will be persecuted along with him. (Witherington, 224) Of course, if I were really determined to get my fire and brimstone kick, Witherington does provide a more lengthy explanation of Satan and Gehenna from verse 28, but I think I’ll stick to the Beelzebul stuff for now. (Witherington 224-225)

3) Although the term fascinates me, it almost seems that Jesus’ mention of the name Beelzebul is more a matter of convenience or a reference to an earlier accusation by the Pharisees than it is a direct reference to the figure of Beelzebul. As much as I want to make this an allusion to Baal or some strange invocation of the Old Testament, that element might be absent from this passage. The later mentions of Hell/Gehenna in verse 28 might allow comparison to demons or Satan in this verse, but I think I agree with Carter and Witherington that Jesus is largely just answering an accusation and preparing his disciples to face the same charges when they are sent out. Still, I think there is a strange interplay here between the name Beelzebul and the concept of a head of the household, and this merits further exploration.

10:22a (nrsv): "and you will be hated by all because of my name."

The tenor and sweep of Mathew increases in apocalyptic energy as the mission discourse wears on. A chapter that started with a gentle admonishing to "proclaim the good news" (v.7) and instructions on what to do when entering into a house are now replaced by something that sounds more at home in Revelation or in Daniel than it does in Matthew - or, at least, the popular assumptions about Mathew which we harbor. This is not "the hug me Jesus" to be sure.

And while Leslie Houlden (in the Oxford Bible Commentary) does well outlining the way in which the descriptions of what is to come in the later half of chapter ten mirror Christ's own future sufferings (and in this way, she mostly echoes Chrysostom's analysis in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture) what is left out of her (and Chrysostom's) commentary is a discussion of who this "EVERYONE" is. Is Jesus meaning to say "a lot of people" when he uses this word? Does he mean to say that "everyone" = "the world"? Does he mean to say everyone outside of he and the 12? Or does he mean that even the disciples will come to hate (and be hated) by one another? In other words, taken literally, that indeed everyone will hate you? What if we suppose the last of these options to be the case? What kind of picture would we then have? Certainly we would then have here, in the later half of the mission discourse (especially in v. 22a), direct parallels to Exodus 20, Job, as well as to Abraham's near sacrific of Isaac. In what sense do I mean? In the sense of v. 22a's recapitulation and redescription of the extremity of the 1st (and, in a sense, only) commandment - that of following THIS God, and following this God all the time, all the way through this life, indeed past this life.

It's a verse (22) and a word ("everyone") that the commentaries mentioned above seem to wish to skip over, and it paints a horrific picture where in which everyone abandons you - except God. If nothing else, this seems to be an accurate image of death itself - whereby the entire world reveals itself as not having the power to save thus causing one to fall into oblivion, only to be rescued at the last minute by the one true God, the God who created death and therefore is beyond death.

If we take Jesus at his word that indeed all people will (potentially at least) hate us if we are to follow him, then this has immense ramifications for how we think about ministry - especially the "signs" of those we suspect as most redeemed and closest to Christ.

Matthew 10:22b “but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.”

Tying in with our study of Ephesians 2 and being saved by grace through faith, verse 22b caught my eye with Jesus addressing who will be saved. I was surprised that the point of who will be saved is not addressed more, especially with a comparison to Paul’s extensive discussion on being saved. Jesus seems to emphasize a remaining faithful until the end, whereas at times Paul addresses being saved based on belief and confession, which he does not clarify as continuing until the end as Jesus does here.

Luz points out that the end is referring to the end of the world, and even possibly Matthew is referring to the near anticipated end, which will be experienced in the lifetime of some of these disciples when read with verse 23 (p.90-91)

Davies and Allison point out the surprising outcome that the disciples who seem to struggle are actually the ones who are saved. (p.187)

Hauerwas references the disciples’ reward of living in the kingdom of God (p.107). When Hauerwas refers to the kingdom later, he refers to “the kingdom brought by Jesus” and “has come near,” currently, by Jesus, therefore, he is likely not referring to “the end” here (p.108). Hauerwas also addresses the disciples’ reward in being saved (p.112).

It is possible that this issue of being saved is not addressed more because the passage here in Matthew 10 is focused much more on the missionary journey of the disciple and not on the requirements of being saved. Also, given verse 39’s attention to us losing and saving our lives, merely asking the question of who will be saved after looking at verse 39 seems somewhat irrelevant.

Matthew 10.16a illustrates Jesus sending out his disciples as sheep in the midst of wolves. Alone, such a notion seems innocent, yet frightening, enough; however, in 7.15 we read about false prophets parading around in sheep’s clothing. Both Jesus’ disciples and the false prophets seem to have the appearance of sheep. What, ultimately, differentiates the true from the false sheep?

Davies and Allison offer no significant help in solving this issue, only stating that the false prophets are truly wolves, while the disciples are the authentic sheep (180). For Luz, the repetition of sheep and wolves signifies the fact that violence had been a factor in the area ever since Jesus began to preach (87-8). Stanley Hauerwas does not make a connection to 7.15, but referring to 10.16a, states that Jesus calls the disciples to embody the innocence found in the beatitudes of Mt. 5 (107).

We may be able to put forth a couple of answers to the question. First, one might try to connect Hauerwas’ line of thought back to 7.15, stating the false prophets have not fully embodied the required innocence, and thus are not true disciples of the Kingdom of God as set forth in the beatitudes. Since they only appear as sheep, they do not maintain the vulnerability of true sheep (Hauerwas, 87-8). Second, we see in 10.1 that Jesus gives the disciples authority, which originates from God (7.29; 9.6, 8). As such,, they proceed with true authority, while embodying, with full sheep-ness, the Kingdom of God. Bleeding these two answers together, we may find that even though the disciples are the legitimate sheep, in possession of the authority of Jesus, such authority does not excuse them from the vulnerability of being sheep in the midst of wolves.

-Daniel

1) Jesus instructs the disciples not to fear those people who can only kill the body, but rather to fear God who can destroy soul and body in hell (10:28). What does this mean for our doctrine of hell? Moreover, a number of commentators make reference to Epictetus in their analysis of this verse. What is to be made of the apparently Stoic tone that this verse suggests-- especially given the physical body's high place Jewish theology? As a question regarding the internal dynamics of the passage, Luz puts it best: "One of the major problems in understanding the entire gospel (is): How are the merciful shepherd and the Lord of judgment... to be understood together?" (Luz, 65).

2) The commentators disagree as to whether or not vs.28-31 form a unified "logion." Luz argues that 28-31 are unified (Luz, 99) whereas Davies & Allison believe that 28 was itself an original saying distinct from 29-31 (Davies & Allison, 202). Thus, the two commentators vary slightly as to the function of v.28 in the whole of Matthew 10. Luz states that the aim of the logion is to encourage the disciples who surely faced persecution (Luz, 101). Almost no explicit comment is made by Luz to explain what is meant by "hell." In fact, Luz states that "Our text does not intend to make statements about... life after death" (Luz, 102).

Like Luz, Davies & Allison suggest that v.28 is written to a people who faced martyrdom. However, unlike Luz, they address the question of hell by suggest that Matthew held "the prevalent view that the wicked would suffer for ever" (Davies & Allison, 207).

Hauerwas does not address hell explicitly but does argue that despite its ability to be communicated in manipulative ways, "the language of reward and punishment is clearly central to what Jesus says" (Hauerwas, 112). Carter does not mince words when it comes to hell: "Decisions have consequences" (Carter, 241).

3) I don't mean to focus too much on the question of hell, if Jesus' words are meant simply to remind the disciples that they belong entirely to the God who created them. On the other hand, the themes of judgment and hell play heavily in the history of Christian theology-- not to mention in the very words of Jesus. So, it seems difficult to abandon some notion of hell and punishment based on this passage.

Finally, it is clear that the words of Jesus are intended to remind all who follow him that the death of the body is not final (as Jesus demonstrated), and neither is bodily safety our highest good.

(As a brief aside, I find it pretty funny that Jesus instructs the disciples to pray for workers in the harvest field in the last verse of Mt 9 and then sends the disciples in Mt 10. He set them up!)

1. In Matthew 10:5, Jesus forbids the Twelve from preaching and performing miracles in Samaria or areas containing Gentiles. In v 18, however, Jesus instructs the Twelve that their persecution will serve as a testimony to the Gentiles. The Twelve themselves are not the ones who are to share this testimony, but the Holy Spirit through them is the one who will share this testimony. Though Jesus forbids the disciples to go into Samaria and areas containing Gentiles to spread his message, does Jesus intend for the Gentiles to be reached?

2. Carter suggests on page 237 that though the Twelve are instructed to refrain from preaching and performing miracles among the Gentiles, that the Twelve will still serve as a witness to the Gentiles. Carter also suggests that the Twelve’s mission to the house of Israel is merely the first stage of the mission. The second stage is to continue into areas containing Gentiles (Acts 1:8), which follow the same pattern found in v 18 (first to Israel, then under persecution to the Gentiles).

Davies and Allison agree with Carter that the Gentiles will learn of Jesus and his message through the suffering of the Twelve. Davies and Allison go further than Carter and assert that the Twelve serve as witnesses of Jesus to the Gentiles only after being handed over for persecution. (Davies and Allison 184)

3. An important distinction must be made between what Jesus commands the Twelve and what we interpret him to command the Twelve. Upon first reading this passage I understood Jesus as commanding the Twelve not to bear witness to the Gentiles or Samaritans. Upon further reading, however, this is not Jesus’ intent. The Twelve are forbidden to travel among the Gentiles and the Samaritans, but they are not forbidden to bear witness to these groups. In fact, they are told that they will bear witness to the Gentiles through their suffering.

Initially one important exegetical issue is found in 10:23, “you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” What does it mean for the “Son of Man” to come? It is important, if in fact the statement refers to the second coming of Christ, then Jesus seems to make a false prediction, which is obviously problematic.

Luz, on pages 91-94, provides the most complete answer, though it is hardly appealing. He believes the emphasis of the phrase should be in the comforting aspects of fleeing to a safer area (a.k.a. Jesus is with us, even when we are running for our lives). Carter, on pages 238-239, interprets ‘Son of Man’ as referring to Jesus’ second coming yet he does not recognize how this statement contradicts with 23a. Hauerwas fails to address the issue on page 106 & 107. My NIV Study bible states that Jesus’ statement refers to the Temple destruction of 70 A.D., however this seems forced.

Unfortunately, it seems that a majority of the commentators have chosen to negate the issue entirely or have given interpretations that lack coherence and at times seem artificial (how could the coming of the Son of Man refer to Temple destruction).

1) In Matthew 10:23b, as in the final comments on the inevitable suffering of the disciples, Jesus remarks on the Son of Man’s appearance before all towns of Israel have received the disciples’ gospel message. Such a statement seems rather odd in comparison with the earlier vv 5-6, in which Jesus initially commissions the disciples strictly to the “house of Israel.” Upon reading, one may sense the urgency of the Israel directive, particularly with regard to the command to pack lightly and move swiftly throughout the pericope (vv 9-14). Does this indicate Jesus presumed the eschaton to occur shortly after his lifetime? And, is this a later scribal addition to the narrative? Most importantly, however, the presence of the Son of Man is rather historically ambiguous. Does this refer to Christ’s resurrected appearance and ascension, or does it refer to the eschatological return further along (cf. Matt 16:28)? What may be, depending upon the timing of the Son of Man “event,” the implications for how the Israel directive is to be applied for the primitive (i.e., pre-resurrection) or apostolic (i.e., post-resurrection) missions?

2) According to Lutz, the verse in question is likely authentic to Jesus’ words, but only much later when the persecution had been manifest to the disciples (91). Also, if the Israel mission is uninterrupted, one must confront the (a) apparent change of plans away from exclusivity, or the (b) apparent misapprehension of Jesus with regard to the initial Israel mission and eschatological timing (92-3). Therefore, it appears Matthew amended the discrepancies later on with the later Great Commission (94). According to Davies & Allison, the hypothesis of a Matthean redaction to earlier sources is also unlikely, such as the eschatological similarity within v 22 makes the addition unnecessarily redundant (188). Also, the words seem to apply within the context itself, for the suffering disciples would understandably receive comfort in the promissory words of Jesus (189). (Although, none of these reasons are definitive proof.) The phrase does not appear to be a fulfilled prophecy in the form of the resurrection or some erstwhile moment in history. If consistent within the Matthean interpretation, the “Son of Man” is synonymous with the actualized “kingdom of God.” This would indicate the continuance of pre-resurrection evangelistic work among the Jewish community—as the Israel directive did not conclude with but expanded upon in the Great Commission—until the “parousia” or Christ’s second coming (190).

3) At this point, we will consider the words to be authentic. It is likely the promise to the disciples brought initial comfort among them in their suffering. Obviously, the statement appears to have served at least a prophetic function. At first glance, I considered v 23b to refer to Christ’s resurrection as the triumphant “Son of Man,” viable considering the inability of the disciples to cover all of Israel until after Christ’s ascension, especially in their post-resurrection zeal. If Davies and Allison are correct with regard to consistent use of the terminology “Son of Man,” then the eschatological second coming appears most likely. However, Lutz’s point about the odd timing of the eschatological return is troublesome. However, if Matthew "corrected" the discrepancy of vv 5-6, 23b with 28:19 according to Lutz, one might cynically ask why the author did not remove the text from the gospel in the first place. Last, I wonder what the difference may be for the theological understanding of “house of” (v 6) versus “towns” (v 23b), if any. Might v 6 have a more profound sight than that mentioned in v 23b?