France on the Structure of Matthew: Part 2
I wish to make a few observations on a my previous post I wrote about R.T. France's new Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, which, France advocates a geographical reading of Matthew might be helpful in understanding the (literal )Structure of the Gospel.
Let me make a few observations below. Here's what I think France might be saying (I could be wrong or misread him) as far I can discern. Reading the Gospel of Matthew geographically can provide us with a better perspective on the theology and structure of Matthew. It is not so much about the locations that matter but the (messianic) activities occurred in their milieu. In other words, the noted places in the Gospel have served as dramatic tensions, theological challenge and historical landmarks for Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. I get the impression that such environments are important for Matthew. For example, Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem played central roles in Matthew’s understanding of Jesus’ public ministry and his role as the Jewish Messiah. Jesus’ ministry according to the first Gospel (i.e. Matthew) is set entirely in and around Galilee (4:17) until Jesus announced his plan to travel to Jerusalem (16:21; France 4). The training of the disciples and the new messianic group’s reorientation occurred on their journey between Galilee and Jerusalem (ibid). Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah happened during his Galilean ministry, into the district of Caesarea Philippi, (16:13-20; 16). Also it seems to me Matthew gives us the impression that the latter is a place of (“divine”) revelation.
Moreover, in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus faced intense hostility in the territory of Judea. He paid visit to Jerusalem until the final week of his life, because of the intense conflict with the religious leaders. (However, some elements in Mark’s Gospel give clear indication that Jesus has been there before). Jerusalem was the ultimate place where he will die. Jesus and his disciples were on the road to Jerusalem when he prophesied his death (10:33-34) and declared, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” ( 10:45).
In John’s Gospel, however, Jerusalem also plays a major role in Jesus’ messianic activities. Jesus made three trips to Jerusalem, particularly in connection with the major (Jewish) festivals. According to John, Jesus as Messiah is the fulfillment of the Jewish festivals and the replacement of the Temple situated in Jerusalem (John 2:19). Moreover, in John, some of the major discourses of Jesus took place in Jerusalem.
Frankly, I do not see anything mystical about these geographical locations in the Gospels, nonetheless, it seems to me that the Evangelists, sometimes, might present them as “typology” in connection with the Old Testament and Jesus’ messianic activity and his ultimate fate. As a result, we cannot undermine their importance, especially when it comes to structuring and outlining the Gospels for the purpose of preaching and exposition. These geographical milieus might be helpful in grasping some elements in the Theology of the Gospels.
What do you think? Do you believe geographical locations play any (important)role in understanding the theological voice of any book in the Bible, the Gospels particularly?
Let me make a few observations below. Here's what I think France might be saying (I could be wrong or misread him) as far I can discern. Reading the Gospel of Matthew geographically can provide us with a better perspective on the theology and structure of Matthew. It is not so much about the locations that matter but the (messianic) activities occurred in their milieu. In other words, the noted places in the Gospel have served as dramatic tensions, theological challenge and historical landmarks for Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. I get the impression that such environments are important for Matthew. For example, Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem played central roles in Matthew’s understanding of Jesus’ public ministry and his role as the Jewish Messiah. Jesus’ ministry according to the first Gospel (i.e. Matthew) is set entirely in and around Galilee (4:17) until Jesus announced his plan to travel to Jerusalem (16:21; France 4). The training of the disciples and the new messianic group’s reorientation occurred on their journey between Galilee and Jerusalem (ibid). Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah happened during his Galilean ministry, into the district of Caesarea Philippi, (16:13-20; 16). Also it seems to me Matthew gives us the impression that the latter is a place of (“divine”) revelation.
Moreover, in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus faced intense hostility in the territory of Judea. He paid visit to Jerusalem until the final week of his life, because of the intense conflict with the religious leaders. (However, some elements in Mark’s Gospel give clear indication that Jesus has been there before). Jerusalem was the ultimate place where he will die. Jesus and his disciples were on the road to Jerusalem when he prophesied his death (10:33-34) and declared, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” ( 10:45).
In John’s Gospel, however, Jerusalem also plays a major role in Jesus’ messianic activities. Jesus made three trips to Jerusalem, particularly in connection with the major (Jewish) festivals. According to John, Jesus as Messiah is the fulfillment of the Jewish festivals and the replacement of the Temple situated in Jerusalem (John 2:19). Moreover, in John, some of the major discourses of Jesus took place in Jerusalem.
Frankly, I do not see anything mystical about these geographical locations in the Gospels, nonetheless, it seems to me that the Evangelists, sometimes, might present them as “typology” in connection with the Old Testament and Jesus’ messianic activity and his ultimate fate. As a result, we cannot undermine their importance, especially when it comes to structuring and outlining the Gospels for the purpose of preaching and exposition. These geographical milieus might be helpful in grasping some elements in the Theology of the Gospels.
What do you think? Do you believe geographical locations play any (important)role in understanding the theological voice of any book in the Bible, the Gospels particularly?
Related Articles:
-
Photo Courtesy The State Muslim Brotherhood candidate Muhammad Morsi of Egypt A message from the... Read Full Story » -
Facing a likely loss in federal court, the Giles County School Board voted unanimously yesterday... Read Full Story » -
Jesus Christ images with Quotes are given above. We have added 16 wallpaper sized images of... Read Full Story » -
Last week, Pope William I, the Supreme Pontiff of the Church of Self Actualization revealed... Read Full Story » -
On the great Day of Pentecost, God chose 120 men and women to fill with the Holy Spirit and... Read Full Story »
Comments
