Matthew 10.39- “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.” (RSV)

Although this verse may seem straightforward, I suggest Matt 10.39 illustrates the precarious nature of the Kingdom of God and conundrum of those willing to live in its rule. Without noticing, we probably synthesize Mt 10.39 with Luke’s cleaner version: “Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it” (Lk 17.33). Now, both versions may lead to a similar conclusion, but in Matthew, the emphasis focuses on the means of finding life. In finding life, one will lose it, and in losing one’s life, one will find it. One can find life in two ways. While Luke seems to clean up this rather circular idea, the repetition we find in Matthew, however, deals with the utter precarious journey of life within the Kingdom of God. To find life, one must first lose it. One can find life only by relinquishing the lust to secure the foundations of one’s life. The means by which the Christian finds life, therefore, comes through the forfeiture of a security that accompanies our greed to make things come out right.

-DJR

1. Jed has already said some really useful things about the wider significance of the Disciples' miracles of healing. I'd like to focus particularly on the relationship in verse 1 between "authority over unclean spirits" and "[the authority] to heal every disease and every infirmity." Today it would be a basic category mistake to even think that these two things could be related, but Matthew puts them together without even pausing to lift his pen. What does this mean about ancient Palestinian/Greek ideas about healing? Are spiritual health and physical health viewed as being related? (If you haven't guessed already, I imagine that this little blurb would be useful for the cultural background part of our text analyses.)

2. The commentators are unhelpful in answering questions related to this issue. Witherington (217-8) and Davies & Allison (150) emphasize that the disciples' sharing in the authority of Jesus makes possible a kind of Imitatio Christi; Carter stresses that the disciples authority gives them the ability to proclaim in acts of healing "God's liberating reign" in squalid, miserable places (233); Luz notes that the miracles the disciples' are empowered to perform are "eminently important for the formation of the church" (67); Hauerwas simply notes the fact that the disciples were given the authority to cast out demons and to heal (105). None of these commentators explicitly note any relation between the casting out of demons and the healing of disease.

Helpfully, Davies and Allison note that the phrase "healing every disease and every infirmity" also occurs at Mt. 4:23 and 9:35 (153). In both of these passages, the healer is Jesus. At 4:24 a list is given of the sorts of people brought to Jesus to be healed: "all the sick, those afflicted with various disease and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics..." (RSV). Notably, this list includes among what would be considered purely "medical" afflictions the category of "demoniac."

3. I think we should be careful of making too much of this last bit, but it seems fair to say that, for Matthew, there is no categorical distinction between someone who suffers from a purely physical disease and someone who is possessed by a demon; these afflictions are distinct, yet insofar as they create a kind of brokenness, they are one. Interestingly enough, in 4:23 and 9:35 the phrase about healing is preceded by another phrase: "preaching the gospel of the kingdom" (RSV). This tells us that the gospel and healing are intimately connected. The gospel cannot be heard by a broken person; wherever the gospel is proclaimed there is healing force. Where there has not been healing, physical or spiritual--where those who are broken have not been made whole--the gospel has not truly been preached.

In the mission discourse, the disciples are sent out to deliver a “hospitable” message, but are certain to encounter inhospitable reception (vv 16-18, 22-25). They are not to possess the everyday necessities to sustain their call, but to rely upon the generosity and material sustenance of mere strangers (vv 9-10). This is a ragtag bunch with nothing but the promises and riches of the kingdom (vv 1, 7-8). In their venture to the towns of Israel, the disciples will encounter those deserted by the halls of power, by the money-hungry and by the superstition of prejudice. Among these towns, the Twelve bear good news primarily to the sick and poor, and in solidarity with them, are to rely upon their provisions (and God’s of course) for the gospel to spread. Christians may initially place themselves within the disciples’ own mission, but what if we are to place ourselves among those who are to receive the wanting and willing evangelists in our own town? Are we the ones worthy to receive the peace of their message, as well as to provide for their needs (vv 11-15)? Are we among those to whom the disciples primarily minister, so as to receive the reward that awaits us (vv 40-42)?

As vessels of Christ, we are those who have chosen to extol the Gospel above those things which we value on this earth. By taking up our "cross" and following Christ, we seemingly accept a life of ridicule and marginalization by the standards of the world.

This is the message that leads to Matthew 10:40-42, where Christ offers a positive slant on the life of a Christian disciple. When the disciples were given their commissioning in vv. 5-15, Jesus reminded them that they are to be these vessels of Christ's teachings, and when they effectively evangelize, though they may face strife, those who accept what they say not only receive that message, but also Christ and God who sent him. The acceptance of the Christian and the Christian message carries with it a reward for both the one evangelizing and the one receiving the Gospel. God will reward each his/her due for serving Christ and the Kingdom of God.

For the disciples this charge was clear, but for those of us entering into ministry, are we spreading Christ's message in order to receive our reward or so that the Kingdom of God can grow and produce? The question of motive drives us to a self-awareness of how we evangelize to others, especially in a world where evangelizing is often tainted by money and greed. In Matt. 10:8b Christ reminds the disciples that, "You received without payment, give without payment"; thus, the reward Christ envisions for faithful discipleship should remain secondary as long as the work of the Gospel remains incomplete.

In verse 26 Jesus states, “So do not be afraid of them.” This verse works well in the context of 17-25, and 28-31; however, 26b-27 states, “There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ears proclaim from the roofs” (NIV). So, verses 26-31 create ambiguity on the subject of why the disciples might fear. Verses 17-25 clearly demonstrate that declaring the Kingdom of Heaven will result in personal affliction and loss. Then, 26b-27 seems to indicate some fear other than personal antagonists who denounce the Kingdom of Heaven message. Finally, verses 28-31 shift the focus back to personal assurance of perseverance in the face of suffering. The options for fear seem to be: loss of personal safety (based on what will happen in 17-25), potential failure of the message (26b-27 seems much more concerned with the promulgation of their proclamation), or perhaps they would fear that their tormentors’ actions may go unnoticed, and therefore unpunished?

-

Matt. 10:32-33, “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.”

Jesus is speaking to His disciples, so what does it mean to “acknowledge” Jesus as His servant? Is Jesus concerned that His disciples will cure sickness, feed the poor, and cast out demons (verse 8) and then take all the credit for themselves? Why do we need Jesus to acknowledge us before God in heaven? Does how we live deserve to be acknowledged or denied by God? If we are ashamed of God and what He has done, what on earth could we possibly take pride in?

It is a shame to be ashamed of Him.

In Matthew 10, the disciples are called to witness to a kingdom which is brought into fullness through vulnerability and suffering (vv. 9-10), in contrast to the Judean political and religious elites’ attempts to secure their people’s fate through collusion with the Roman Empire (vv. 17-8). This new kingdom is breaking forth at the margins of the social body (vv. 1, 8), amidst the poor and impure which the rulers have suppressed or excised. Jesus instructs his disciples to be laborers in the harvest (9:37-8) through going to the towns and villages of these hoi polloi and relying on their hospitality; in effect, they are to be community organizers for the kingdom whose very mode of presence exemplifies it. The proclamation and embodiment of this radically different way will inevitably lead to conflict, as it is a fundamental reconfiguration of the society which Judean elites have painstakingly constructed. They will drag the disciples before Roman governors and client kings (v. 18) and seek the power to put them to death (v. 28) in an attempt to eradicate the Jesus movement and restore stability to the social order. This family drama within Israel (vv. 21, 35-37) will thus play out before the nations; it is incumbent upon the disciples to maintain a mode of vulnerable presence (25: 31-46) despite persecution in imitation of their Master (vv. 24-26) and his cross (v. 39) that their witness may serve to bring the Gentiles unto Israel.

Through Matthew 10 (vv. 1&8), there should come for the community of faith a deeper realization of the physical and spiritual needs of all God’s children who suffer, the neglected and ostracized victims of numerous diseases of physical body, mind and soul; suffering social and even legal disabilities because of their disease, and often regarded with revulsion and fear. There should be a comprehension of God revealing the injustice, which must be put right through God’s servants. The injustice of the injunctions of approaching and touching and talking with those inflicted by defilement, the weak, the dead, the lepers and the demon infected as stated in Matthew 10:8. Defilement is not necessarily a physical or physiological impairment but rather simply a human being in need, an outcast, the underprivileged, all who suffer because of society’s attitudes. Sickness and weakness is not just physical and mental suffering, but being neglected by fellow humanity and the discrimination of society. Christ commands the ‘Twelve’ to ignore the sanctions placed upon those deemed ‘unclean’ and to heal, cast out, raise and cleanse. There is no supernatural mystery to what Christ authorizes. Matthew 10:1,8 recognizes that Jesus shows concern and deep compassion for those who are sick, weak and afflicted. Simply, Christ treated the ‘unclean’ as human beings in need.

Sources: Browne, Stanley Leprosy in the Bible, (Christian Medical Fellowship: London, 1970)

Cochrane, R.G. Biblical Leprosy: A Suggested Interpretation, (The Tyndale Press, Lowestoft, 1961).

Luz 66-71

“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.

Verse 34 seems like a contradiction to much of Christian teaching, especially as found in the New Testament. Is Christ speaking here solely to the difficulty facing his disciples? This affects the way we live out our lives as we attempt to follow Christ.

The HarperCollins Bible Commentary argues that Christ refers here to the divisions that will emerge as people choose between him and others. It notes that it cannot in any way advocate violence since it is the “most pacifist book in the Bible” (882). Chrysostom came to a far different conclusion. He argued that the peace of Christ comes only “when the cancer is cut away” (Ancient Christian Commentary, 210). Christ must preserve peace the same way a military commander does, “by cutting off those in rebellion” (210).

It seems unlikely that Christ here would be advocating some sort of violent revolution. However, I am aware that at least some of his disciples wanted such a revolution so I think it is possible that the original author of this passage intended something along these lines. However, if we look at it within the context of the canon I do not think that this is the proper reading any longer.

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.

Why are the disciples told to take no gold, silver, or copper in their belts; no bag for their journey; no extra tunic and sandals; and forbidden to carry a staff? How could such restrictions possibly lead to a successful completion of their task? Ultimately, what kind of mission is Jesus sending them on?

Warren Carter (235) holds that the disciples are told to receive no payment both to ensure the access of the poor to their mission and in order that they might embrace the margins of poverty and powerlessness. Jesus instructs them to travel light so as to be inconspicuous, to minimize the expected opposition from political and religious elites (cf. 10:16-17). Not carrying bags and staffs serves to minimize signs they are on a journey and increase their safety on an already perilous endeavor.

W.D. Davies and Dale Allison Jr. (170-174) hold that they are not to receive payment for healing acts because God freely gave them the power to heal. The travel prohibitions they are given demonstrate that ‘they have unloosed their ties to the present age.” By going without possessions they “put themselves beyond suspicion” and “become examples of trust in God’s providential care.” The lack of a staff can be interpreted as a sign of pacifism, as they were often used to ward off attackers.

Although I am quite sympathetic to Carter’s concerns and overall project, I think Davies and Allison are correct that these prohibitions ultimately serve more to dramatize than minimize the difference between Jesus’ disciples and ‘the world.’ Neither of the commentators, though, note an interesting connection between the Mission discourse in ch. 10 and The Judgment of the Nations discourse in ch. 25 (which Douglas Harink mentioned almost off-handedly in his recent lectures on 1 and 2 Peter; http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/2010/03/01/audio-of-harinks-ekklesia-lectures/). In 10:11-15, Jesus says the towns and villages will be judged by how they receive his disciples. In 25:31-46, the Son of Man judges the nations based on how they have treated his brothers who were hungry, thirsty, strangers, sick, naked, and/or imprisoned. Harink points out how this is precisely the state of disciples sent on mission. In other words, the precarity of Jesus’ disciples is a central and indispensable part of mission; it is the ‘pre-existing condition’ for the evangelization of the world and its standing before apocalyptic judgment.

Jesus' claim that he came to bring a sword, and not peace, is troublesome. He has said in 5:9 that peacemakers are blessed and called sons of God. It would be ironic if Jesus himself were not a peacemaker, for by his own mouth he would not then be a son of God! Likewise later in Gethsemane (26:52) he explicitly rebukes a companion for attempting to defend him with a sword, saying 'them that take the sword shall perish by the sword.' What then does Jesus mean by 'sword', and how does it characterize his own description of his own mission?

Luz (111-2) rejects these verses as revealing a crypto-zealot Christ. Rather, they point to the character of the result that Christ's mission will bring about. Acceptance of the Gospel (this is inferred as the 'sword') will cut down the otherwise most intimate ties of family. Davies & Allison (217) read it is as eschatologically-oriented suffering in store for the disciples, including suffering and martyrdom. He claims that Jesus here fulfills the eschatological prophecy of Micah 7:6.

Luz's account makes sense especially in light of v 37, in which Jesus demands that he be loved more than family. He has told his disciples that the Gospel will instigate a crisis of loyalty and obedience between Jesus and family, and he is emphasizing that the choice must be in his favor. The Davies & Allison reading, on the other hand, fits better with what has gone before in vv 16-24: the disciples will face persecution; also the 'cross' of v 38. I don't think that it is necessary to choose between these readings--if one must, however, Luz's might be preferable because its exegetical account works internal to the verses examined. But note that it is crucial for both of these readings that 'peace' NOT be read eschatologically--it must be used here in a 'common', 'loose and popular' sense. Not, say, the peace in John 27:14 as explicitly and uniquely Jesus' to give to his own.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." How does such a statement reconcile with the image of Christ as Prince of Peace who praises peacemakers in Matthew 5? Has Jesus come to unite or to divide?

This sentiment of bringing the sword and dividing family members appears also in Luke 12:51, 53 as well as in the story of the second horse in Revelation 6. Similar language appears in the OT in Micah 7:6. This striking language, then, is not unique to Matthew. Davies and Allison speak of v. 34-36 in an eschatological fashion. Jesus is making it clear that his presence on the earth does not immediately usher in the promised time of eschatological peace. Rather, his coming exacerbates tensions and drives a time of intense tribulation (218-19). Jesus comes and divides the faithful from the unbelieving in shocking ways, as if familial ties were being destroyed with a sword. Luz focuses again on this dividing of family members. The image presented in v. 34-36 is one of the most radical love, in which home, family, possessions are counted as nothing in comparison with Christ (111). The most intimate of human bonds will be strained and must be counted as secondary in importance to the Lord.

These interpretations certainly shed light on the intensity of these verses for me, the absolute primacy of Christ above all things. However, I still find the image of the sword and the tossing aside of peace troubling. Earlier in this very chapter (v. 13), Jesus was speaking of the disciples' peace during their travels! If the author of Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience who has been waiting for a military Messiah, to what degree must we look at this passage in that light? Could such an image of sword have been incorporated into Jesus' discourse in order to appeal to these Jews?