14:1 – 33 The Murder of John the Baptist and Jesus’ First Withdrawal
This has got to be a pivotal point in the story; so too with Mark’s story. Things start to get really serious at this point; there is blood on the mat. In 11:1ff., the question had been asked: “Are you the one who is to come or should we look for another?” This provoked comparison between Jesus and John: now the choice is down to one – the Son of Man who will soon go up to Jerusalem.
John is put to death (14:1-12)
The issues of interpretation that jump out of this text include: which Herod do we have here, does the story fit in with history and all those parallels between the death of the Baptist and the death of Jesus.
Herod the Great was great at building/restoring, significant buildings, great at having children and great at killing them. We know of at least 15 of his children, of which 10 were sons. Five of his ten wives produced children who outlasted him. Three of this next generation of Herods, Archelaus (Judea), Antipas (Galilee) and Philip (Ituraea), inherited a share of the Kingdom. The will was immediately contested before Caesar Augustus who divided the former kingdom, making Archelaus “Ethnarch”(ruler of the nation) of Judea, Samaria and Idumea. Within a very short period of time, his Jewish and Samaritan subject appealed to Augustus over his brutality. His decision reduced the area to a province under a “Procurator” (one of which was Pontius Pilate). Herod Philip, son of Herod and Cleopatra, was made “Tetrarch” (ruler of a fourth) of a group of small areas and we don’t hear much about him.
Herod Antipas, the “Herod” of the Gospels, was Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. He founded Tiberius, his capital, on a burial site and hence had to populate the city with Gentiles.
Herod and his women. Herodias, daughter of Aristobulus, was originally married to (the other) Herod Philip, the son of Herod and Mariamne II, with whom she had a daughter Salome, the dancer in the story. Antipas had divorced his first wife and married his brother’s (former?) wife while the brother was still alive. Salome later married her uncle Philip the Tetrarch! (“Like sand through the hourglass, so …”)
Confusion with the Baptist. The “mighty words” done by Jesus are attributed to the powers of (the raised) John the Baptist. The parallels between the stories of Jesus and the Baptist will be set out below.
John’s imprisonment. (i) Where was he imprisoned? Josephus says it was in the fortress palace at Machaerus, northeast of the Dead Sea. (ii) Why was he imprisoned? Again, Josephus gives a different reason: he incited the people to riot. The Gospels say it was because he married his (living) brother’s wife (Lev. 20:21). Are they incompatible?
The birthday party. Which palace hosted the guests? Not necessarily Tiberius. Matthew omits Mark’s guest list and the reference to Herodias’ grudge against the Baptist. Suffering, no doubt, from a sudden rush of blood to the head, Herod makes a promise from which he cannot back down. (It has allusions to the stories of Jezebel and Esther.) Omitted also is Mark’s reference to Herod’s “fear of John” and his fondness for listening to him; Matthew just says he was grieved but wanted to put him to death. For Matthew, the whole action against the Baptist is ultimately attributable to the fact that “he was a prophet” and “a prophet is without honor …”(13;57).
The execution of John. Where did this take place? We don’t know. The story seems to assume that it was somewhere close at hand. What was going on with the whole “head on a platter” thing?
The story time of the story within a story (within a story?). There is a flashback from the story of Herod hearing reports about Jesus, to the previous story of the birthday bash execution. While we as readers hear the report of the circumstances of the killing, while we are present at the trade off of the Baptist’s life for an alcoholic/lustful boast, we are intended to see the implication that this event occurred some time ago. This has implications for 14:13 (“when Jesus heard this …”). Matthew has been less than smooth in assembling his sources.
The passion of John the Baptist. Davies and Allison set out the parallels between John and Jesus
Jesus withdraws and feeds 5000 or so with 5 loaves and 2 fish (14:13-21)
The first withdrawal was to a lonely place on the edge of the Sea of Galilee.
This is the first of Mark’s two feeding miracles, performed on the Jewish side of the lake. He alone will repeat (15:32-39) Mark’s second feeding (4000 men, 7 loaves) that Mark balances off on the Gentile side of the lake (Mk. 8:1-10).
The feeding by Jesus contrasts with the banquet of Herod Antipas: healing, trust and sharing of feed so that everyone has enough contrasts with the arrogance and scheming of the ostentatious and overfed.
The feeding story of Jesus has overtones of the feeding by Elisha (2 Kgs 4:42-44), the four-fold action of the Christian liturgy (take, bless, break, share) and the Messianic banquet of Is. 25:6.
An epiphany, a rescue and a confession (14:22-33)
The separation of the disciples from Jesus allows Jesus to dismiss the crowd and also to “appear” to the disciples in the storm. The exact details of the destination of the journey across the 5 mile-wide lake are not essential to the story. The epiphany of Jesus echoes Scripture at several points: (i) Jesus walking on the water, is a creation theme of God walking on the spirits of the deep (Job 9:8); (ii) the picture of Jesus effecting a rescue at sea and subduing the storm echoes Psalm 107; (iii) “It is I” identifies the divine figure (Is 43:10f); (iv) Peter’s walking on the water is his attempt to share in the powers of the divine one; (v) Peter’s cry for help echoes the call to God to rescue his people from the perils of the deep (Ps. 69); (vi) Jesus, in stretching out his hand and rescuing Peter, does what God does (Ps 144:7). The narrator shows this epiphany, manifests Jesus doing what God does, for the benefit of Matthew’s group. Their claims for Jesus are set forth in this story. Matthew’s heroes, the “little ones”, take their first steps and then fall over. They are rescued to see another day. Jesus is their “Lord”, the anointed of God.
14:34 – 15:39 Controversy over True Purity and Jesus’ Second Withdrawal
Mark’s Transitional Summary (14:34-36)
The landfall of Jesus and his ones of “little faith” at Gennesaret is met by the crowds who “recognize him”. He is outed! What is recognized is not what we have been privy to in the epiphany but his ability to do sheer works of power. The fringe-touchers are healed. The transitional summaries typically show Jesus providing “bang for the buck” (so to speak) to “all”.
Clean and unclean (15:1-20)
We have not yet reached Jerusalem but this “official-like” delegation brings Jerusalem and the impending passion out to Jesus, or at least the concerns of these champions of the new ways. The “tradition of the elders” is code for the growing collection of interpretation, explanation, application of the written Torah (“teaching of God”). They way the story was beginning to be told was that there was a two-fold Torah given to Moses on Sinai. The written Torah was the five books of Moses. The oral Torah would first be codified as the Mishnah in the late 2nd century and would be associated with Rabbi Judah the Prince. The Mishnah would in turn itself be adapted and codified as the Gemorah of the Palestinian and Jerusalem Talmuds.
Two issues relating to this young tradition come under debate here: the rinsing of hands before eating and the practice of “korban”. What is at issue with the “rinsing of hands” before eating is not a matter of personal hygiene but of ritual cleanliness, the removal of defilement, from the hands of those, who at the table in the house, would come to represent the priests at the Temple altar. Jesus and his disciples don’t follow this particular tradition. It may not be a mainstream Pharisaic practice prior to the Gospel of Mark (7:1-4) and Matthew does not accept that it is a defining issue of what it is to be Jewish. He removes reference to this being a widespread practice amongst Jews (“and all Jews”) as he also does with Mark’s abolition of Jewish food laws (7:19 “this he declared all food clean”). Matthew and his Jewish-Christian group were in a different place from Mark and his community. In Matthew, these matters are very much still under discussion.
His “you might but we don’t” defence is followed by a refutation of this new “korban” practice. “The charge is that the custom of declaring something sacred and a gift to God has become a device for depriving parents of what they should rightfully expect from their children” (Harrington, 229). Rather than honoring and exemplifying the command of Torah that parents be supported during their “long days in the land which the Lord your God gives you”, this new practice of separating off assets so that they go to the Temple and not to the support of parents makes the commandment null and void. The claim that the assets are “given to God” avoids the claim of the parents “that their days might be long …”. (This smells of a secret trust fund!)
The distinction between what goes into the mouth and what comes out of the mouth allows for the precedence of moral over ritual matters. What comes out of the heart. By way of the mouth, is what defiles. Matthew’s “vice list” seems to have some connection with the Ten Commandments. The image of the shoot planted by God (Is. 60:21), prized within some 1st century Jewish groups is here denied to Matthew’s debating partners: they will be uprooted. Eating with unwashed hands is not a cause of ritual defilement.
The Canaanite woman (15:21-28)
Matthew changes Mark so that the woman is now a Canaanite, she may now be accompanied by her daughter and (most importantly) Matthew’s Jesus now issues a programmatic statement that he “is sent to the lost sheep (of) the house of Israel”. Matthew also removes the reference to feeding the children first. As in Mark, she bests Jesus in the argument; the dogs get fed along with the children. The Gentiles are included within those who come to Jerusalem (Zech 8:20-23), and within Matthew’s group, but there is a precedence for the Jews.
The second withdrawal and a transitional summary (15:29-31)
The generalized healing scene is placed within Israel (“Tyre and Sidon” are removed) illustrating the precedence of Israel but Gentiles might be amongst those healed who “glorify the God of Israel”.
Feeding of the four thousand (15:32-39)
Matthew takes over Mark’s second feeding story (the feeding on the Gentile side of the lake) and makes it his own. We note the key role of the disciples in the feeding; they know how much/little food there is and they are responsible for distribution. Matthew also has the fish drop out of the story altogether instead of forming the substance of a second distribution (Mk. 8:7)
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
