23 The prospect of being driven from town to town by the hostility of the
inhabitants takes us back to the scenario of the mission of the Twelve in
Galilee as set out in vv. 11–15. When they find themselves unwelcome they
should not waste time throwing the pearls of their message of the kingdom
of God before the unresponsive pigs and dogs of the towns which refuse
them (7:6)—a principle which later was central to Paul’s mission and
contributed to the rapid spread of the gospel in the wider world (Acts
13:45–51; 14:5–7, 19–20; 17:5–10, 13–15, etc.).
Given that Galilean setting it is natural to understand “go through all the towns
of Israel” as the completion of the mission of the Twelve; it is hard to see what
else the phrase “complete the towns of Israel” could mean in this context,²¹
where the visiting of “towns” by the Twelve has been specifically mentioned in
vv. 11, 14–15 and where their geographical limits have been set in terms of
“towns” to be visited, vv. 5–6 (see comments there).²² Two aspects of the
wording seem to conflict with this view, however. First, “Israel” may seem to
suggest a wider area than simply Galilee, and there is no indication that Jesus
intended his disciples at this stage to go down to Judea. Note, however, that the
term used in Jesus’ instructions in v. 6 is “the house of Israel;” the narrative
setting shows that “Israel” here means in effect Galilee. Secondly, to speak of
“the Son of Man coming” leads most Christian readers to assume an
eschatological “parousia” setting which is far removed from a mission of the
Twelve in the early thirties AD. As such language will recur several times in
Matthew, and has an important bearing on exegesis, it is appropriate here, where
it first appears, to consider its implications.²³
It is widely agreed that the wording of these passages is based on Dan 7:13, “one
like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven.” The vision of the “one like
a son of man” in Dan 7:13–14 was probably the major source of Jesus’ chosen
self-designation, “the Son of Man,” and the language of that vision recurs
several times in the synoptic tradition, but especially in seven passages in
Matthew (10:23; 16:27–28; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; 26:64; 28:18). Daniel’s vision
is of one who is brought before God’s throne in heaven and there given an
everlasting kingship over all peoples. It is thus a vision of the granting of the
ultimate authority to the people of God, who are symbolized by the “human
figure” in contrast to the beasts which represent the preceding empires (Dan 7:3–
8, 17), and who are thus vindicated after their oppression by the last of those
empires (Dan 7:19–22). In this individual representation of the corporate
experience of the “holy people” Jesus found a foreshadowing of his own
experience on behalf of his people. In Dan 7:13–14 this “son of man” comes
before God to be enthroned as king. There is nothing in the imagery of Daniel to
suggest a coming to earth, as Christian interpretation has traditionally found in
these passages; he comes in the clouds of heaven to God. The verb used both in
Daniel and in the NT allusions is the very ordinary verb “come,” which is not
related to the more technical NT term for Jesus’ eschatological return, parousia.
The term parousia in fact occurs only four times in the gospels, all in Matthew
24, where we shall see that that future parousia is carefully distinguished from
the “coming in the clouds of heaven” described in Matt 24:30. This means that,
despite centuries of later Christian interpretive tradition, when the gospels speak
of “the Son of Man coming” the presumption must be that they are speaking not
of an eschatological parousia but of a heavenly enthronement, the vindication
and empowering of the Son of Man after his earthly rejection and suffering,
when God will turn the tables on those who thought they had him in their power.
This emphasis will emerge clearly in several of the passages listed above where
the vision of Dan 7:13–14 has molded Matthew’s language, perhaps most clearly
in 26:64, where Jesus stands before his supposed judges and predicts that instead
God will make him “from now on” the judge over them.
“The coming of the Son of Man” is thus not a description of a particular
historical event but evocative language to depict his eventual vindication and
sovereign authority. As such it can be applied to different stages in the
outworking of Jesus’ mission. In 28:18 the echo of Dan 7:14 indicates that
already immediately after his resurrection the Son of Man has received his
kingly authority. In several passages the fulfillment of Daniel’s vision is linked
to a specific time-frame within the living generation: “some standing here will
not taste death before they see …” (16:28); “this generation will not pass
until …” (24:34); “from now on you will see …” (26:64). The fulfillment is thus
apparently linked with the vindication and enthronement of Jesus after his
resurrection; it is, to use Lucan terminology, ascension language. In 24:30,
however, even though the time-scale is limited to the living generation (v. 34),
the context links the coming of the Son of Man to the latter part of that period,
when the temple will be destroyed. But on the other hand the same Danielic
imagery is applied in 19:28 to what appears to be a more ultimate situation, “the
regeneration” when the Twelve will join Jesus in exercising authority over Israel,
while in 25:31 it introduces what is generally taken to be a vision of the final
judgment. It seems then that the sovereign authority envisaged in Dan 7:13–14,
first inaugurated when Jesus has risen from the dead, works itself out in
successive phases throughout history until it finds its ultimate fulfillment in the
last judgment.²⁴ Just how each of the seven Matthean allusions to Daniel’s vision
fits into this historical trajectory will be discussed at the appropriate point in the
commentary.²⁵
In the light of this wider usage of Daniel’s language, at what point in the
historical trajectory should we set the uniquely Matthean text 10:23? Is it
speaking of a mission to Israel continuing throughout history until the final
consummation, or of an earlier terminus within history such as the events of the
Jewish War² (to which Daniel’s language will be applied in 24:30) after which it
will no longer be appropriate for Jesus’ disciples to “go through the towns of
Israel,” or of a nearer point in time which would be more immediately relevant
to the mission of the Twelve? In view of the use of Daniel’s imagery (though not
the same part of his wording) in 28:18, could we interpret this text also as
looking forward to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus’ It is interesting that
the claim of 28:18 is immediately followed by a charge to make disciples of “all
nations,” not only of Israel. Are we then to understand the “coming of the Son of
Man” here as marking the end of a mission specifically to Israel, when the
universal kingship of the Son of Man is established after his resurrection,²⁷ and
his church’s mission is accordingly widened beyond the narrow bounds set in
10:5–6? Until then, they will have more than enough to keep them busy in
preaching to “the towns of Israel.”
Perhaps this is to press the evocative imagery of this verse too far, to seek for too
specific a point of reference. But some such scenario makes better sense of the
Danielic imagery in the context of its wider use in this gospel than to assume as
popular (and often scholarly) interpretation has too easily done that this is
parousia language, and therefore either that Jesus mistakenly expected an
immediate parousia²⁸ or that his words here had no bearing on the situation of
the Twelve sent out on a mission among the towns of Galilee around AD 30 and
no meaning for the first-time reader of Matthew who at this stage in the gospel
story has heard nothing about a parousia of Jesus.²
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |