There is a widespread belief that only a small portion of the canonical Gospels preserves accurate historical information about the words and deeds of Jesus and his companions. This has led to the development of tradition criticism and its “cri- teria for authenticity” for tracing the growth of the Jesus-tradition. In this view the tradition ranges &om tily authentic sayings and f&tual narratives to the more com- plex combinations of history and legend or myth found in the final form of the
4See, most recently, L. W. Hurtado, “Gospel (Genre),” in Dictfonu y ofJesus and the Go@&, ed.
J. B. Green, S. M&night, and I. H. Marshall (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 19921, 276-82; and J. A.
Baird, A Comparative Analysis of the Go.@9 Genre (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1991).
50n the Gospels as biographies, see esp. D. E. Aune, Y&e New Testament in Its Litera y Environ- ment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 19871, 17-76; and R. A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? SNTSMS 70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). On Lk l:lA, see T. Callan, “The Preface of Luke-Acts and Historiography,” N7X 31 (1985): 576-81.
6R. Guelich, “The Gospel Genre,” in 7&e Gospel and the Gospels, ed. P. Stuhlmacher (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 19911, 206. _
328 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
he alone has chosen to record. The student should apply this procedure to indi- vidual passages, to major sections of narrative, and to the Gospels as complete units.
Thus, for example, the reader will discover that Matthew’s version of the parable of the wicked tenants uniquely stresses the transfer of God’s kingdom from Israel to the Church (Mt 21:43), a theme that reappears throughout his Gospel (e.g., 8:10- 12; 11:20-30; 13:10-12; 22:1-14; 25:3146; and 10:5-6 vs. 28:18-20). In the resurrection narratives, only Mark highlights the fear and misunderstanding of Jesus’
followers (Mk 16:8), a motif he, too, distinctively underlines elsewhere (e.g., 4:13;
4:40; 652; 8:21; 8:33; 9:14-29; 10:3545). And a reading of all of Luke discloses his particular interest in showing Jesus as the fiiend of sinners and outcasts in Jew- ish society-most notably Samaritans, Gentiles, tax-collectors, prostitutes, poor people, and women. See, for example, the otherwise unparalleled stories of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37), Mary and Martha (10:3842), the Prodigal Son (15:11- 32), the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31), the nine Jewish and one Samaritan Leper (17:11-19), and the Pharisee and tax-collector (18:9-14). Interpretation and application of a given passage in the Gospels should stress the particular emphases of the Gospel in which the passage occurs, rather than blurring its distinctives by immediately combining it with other parallels. God chose to inspire not a harmony of the Gospels but four distinct ones, and we should respect his choice rather than undermine it by our interpretation.17
+ H O R I Z O N T A L L Y + t
M a t t h e w M a r k L u k e J o h n1 1 1 1 t
V A A
+ V
E E
R &l-15 5mofed R
1 63244 5OOOfed
I 9:10-17 5ooofed T
c 14:19-21 5ODOkd Cf
A A
L L
L L
Y
+ + + + y
28 18 24 21 1
“It is still widely believed that Mark was the first Gospel written, that Matthew and Luke both relied on Mark as well as other sources including “Q” (other material common to Matthew and Luke), and that John was not as directly dependent on any of the other canonical writings. This approach to
“source criticism” means that Matthew’s and Luke’s differences from Mark and from each other are more likely to be significant than Mark’s or John’s differences from either Matthew or Luke or each other. But these views have increasingly been challenged. The methods we encourage here do not depend on any one particular source-critical hypothesis. Readers interested in pursuing the debate should compare, e.g., R. H. Stein, fie Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids: Baker, 19871, who defends Markan priority, with B. Orchard and H. Riley, ne Order of the Synoptics (Macon: Mercer, 1987), who believe Matthew came first, Luke second, and Mark third. For good, recent, concise overviews of the distinctive theologies of each of the evangelists, see the four articles in 7bemelios 14/2 (1989). For detailed studies. see n. 22 below.
_-
Genres of the New Testament 329
May we assume the first readers of an individual Gospel would have recog- nized these distinctives before they had the other written Gospels witi which to compare them? Yes, we may, because a common body of information about Jesus circulated by word of mouth (ofien called the kevyvgma, from the Greek for “procla- mation”). Thus Christians among one Gospel’s readers would have easily recog- nized some of the ways in which that Gospel differed fi-om the “standard” kerygma.
This also means that the Gospel writers could assume that the people to whom they wrote already had a fair amount of prior knowledge about Jesus and the Christian f&h (cf. also Lk 1:4). So it is appropriate in thinking horizontally to use one Gospel to interpret another, so long as one does not mask the distinctives of each. For ex- ample, by comparing Mt 27:56, Mk 15:40, and Jn 19:25, it is reasonable to deduce that Zebedee’s wife’s name was Salome and that she and Jesus’ mother, Mary, were sisters. Jesus would then have been cousins with his two disciples John and James.
This information, if true, might well have been widely known in early Christianity so that no one Gospel writer felt a need to spell it out. But we cannot prove any of this.
Any application of the stories of Jesus’ death that focused more on these possible relationships than on the actual information in the Gospels would be misguided.
Thinking vertically should, therefore, take priority over thinking horizontally.
By this we mean that any passage in the Gospels should be interpreted in light of the overall structure and themes of that Gospel irrespective of the nature of any parallel accounts that appear elsewhere. In other words, it is more important to read down the columns of a synopsis than across them. Frequently the Gospel writers group passages topically or thematically rather than chronologically. If we overlook these connections we risk reading in a false interpretation. For example, Luke places the story of Jesus’ preaching in the Nazareth synagogue at the beginning of his description of the Galilean ministry (Lk 4: 1630), even though chronologically it happened much later (cf. Mk 6:1-6a; Mt 13:53-58). This is probably because he sees the episode as programmatic of the nature of Jesus’ ministry and the response it would receive. Luke 4:14b-15 makes it clear that much time had already elapsed since Jesus began preaching in Galilee. Luke 5:1-l 1 moves (backward in time) to the calling of some of the disciples (cf. Mt 4:18-22; Mk 1:16-20) with the temporally indefinite introduction “while the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God . . .” (v. 1). But the modem reader, accustomed to strict chronology in biogra- phies, could easily make the mistake of assuming 4: 16-30 took place before 5 : l-l 1 and conclude that Jesus called his disciples as a result of his rejection in Nazareth!”
Similar examples occur throughout the Gospels. Matthew 8-9 present ten of Jesus’ miracles fi-om various stages in his ministry. Luke 9:51-18:14 is probably not the “travel narrative” or “Perean ministry” it is so often labeled; rather, it is a the- matically structured collection of Jesus’ teachings all spoken “under the shadow of the cross,” which he knew would soon end his life (9:51).19 Mark 2:1-3:6 groups
‘80n Luke 4:16-30, see esp. W. W. Klein, “The Sermon at Nazareth (Luke 4:1&Z?),” in Christian Freedom, ed. K. W. M. Wozniak and S. J. Grenz (Lanham: University Press of America, 19861, 153-72.
19Cf. esp. C. L. Blomberg, “Midrash, Chiasmus and the Outline of Luke’s Central Section,” in Gospel Petxpectiues ZZZ, ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT, 1983), 21741. *
330 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
together a series of pronouncement and conflict stories (on which, see below). In fact, thematic groupings in the Gospels are so common that it is best not to assume that two episodes that appear next to each other are in chronological order unless the text actually says so (by specifying, e.g., “After this . . .“). And English Bibles may not always help because they sometimes translate Greek words for “and” or
“therefore” as Wienn or unow.n
In other instances, even when passages occur in chronological order, the Gospel writers seem likely to have included and omitted material because of thematic parallels or contrasts. Thus Mk 8:31- 9:32 presents, in turn, Jesus’ predictions of his coming suffering, his transfiguration, and the failure of his disciples to exorcise a demon. In so doing Mark appears to juxtapose the theme of Jesus’ imminent death with a fore- taste of his coming glory and to contrast Jesus’ sovereignty and authority with the disciples’ weakness and misunderstanding. Or again, the sequence of three parables in Mt 24:43-25:13 graphically illustrates the point of 24:36 that no one can know when Christ will return. He may come back entirely unexpectedly (24:44), or sooner than people think (24:48), or much later (25:4). Even as straightforward a chronologi- cal account as Matthew’s infancy narrative (Mt l-2) seems more interested in excerpting those events that show Jesus as the fuhillment of Scripture (1:23; 2:6,15, 18,23) and as the true king of Israel (as against Herod the usurper) than in presenting anything like a comprehensive survey of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth20
Thinking horizontally and thinking vertically amounts to studying the Gos- pels along the lines of modern redaction criticism. Redaction criticism is best de- fined as the attempt “to lay bare the theological perspectives of a biblical writer by analyzing the editorial (redactional) and compositional techniques and interpreta- tions employed by him in shaping and framing the written and/or oral traditions at hand (see Lk 1:14).“21 When we compare parallel accounts and find a particular evangelist’s distinctives and then see those same themes emphasized throughout that Gospel, we may feel rather confident that we have discovered a key point the gospel writer wished to make. To be sure, redaction criticism has been widely abused, turning “distinctives” into “contradictions,” but this is a problem with its practitio- ners not with the method itself.22
%f. especially C. L. Blomberg, “The Liberation of Illegitimacy: Women and Rulers in Matthew l-2,” B773 21 (1991): 145-50.
*‘R. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticbm (Richmond: John Knox, 1977), 142-43.
**See esp. D. A. Carson, “Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19831, 119-42. The most well-balanced studies of the distinctive theologies of the synoptic evangelists appear in the Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series: R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972); R. P. Martin, Mark: Evangelist and 7heo- logiun (Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972); and I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and 7%eologian, 2nd. ed. (Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989). Equally useful on the Fourth Gospel is S. S. Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978). Evangelical commentaries particularly sensitive to the theological outlines of the Gospels include C. L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC (Nashville: Broadman, 1992); W. L. Lane, me Gospel according to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); I. H. Marshall, 7&e Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978); and G. R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco: Word, 1989).
Genres of the New Testament 331
The Gospels’ First Audiences
I Thinking about the theological emphases and distinctives of each Gospel leads I! naturally to a consideration of the people to whom they were originally addressed.
LI Presumably, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each highlighted different aspects of 1. the life of Christ mainly because those aspects were particularly relevant to the indi-
viduals and congregations to whom they were writing. Redaction criticism has ex- pended much effort in trying to reconstruct the situations of these early Christian communities. This enterprise is by nature more speculative than that of comparing I parallels to determine theological distinctives. Probably, certain parts of each Gos- pel were included simply because they formed part of the common kerygma or because they were important for all Christians (or interested “inquirers”) irrespec- tive of their specific circumstances at the moment.23
Nevertheless, numerous proposals about the evangelists’ original audiences seem probable. For example, Mark’s emphasis on the disciples’ fear and misunderstanding was most likely intended to reassure and encourage a Gentile-Christian audience, j possibly in Rome, as imperial persecution against Christians intensified. This hy- pothesis dovetails with the meager external evidence we have concerning the com- position of Mark. If Jesus’ disciples were prone to failure yet still able to be used mightily by God, Christians feeling weak and inadequate in another time and place could take heart, too. Preachers and teachers today may thus choose to focus particularly on Mark as they seek to encourage beleaguered Christian communities.24
Similarly, John uniquely plays down the status of John the Baptist ( 1:19-28, 29-34; 3:22-39). Now Acts 19:1-7 describes a strange group of “disciples” in Ephesus, the traditional location of the churches to whom the apostle John later wrote, who knew only of John the Baptist and not of Jesus. Later Christian writings (most notably the third-century Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions) speak of a second- century sect in the same area that worshipped John. Quite plausibly, the Fourth Gospel’s information about the Baptist was designed to temper any improper exal- tation of John, at the expense of worshipping Christ, which might have crept into Ephesian churches. And if it was wrong to glorify the human leader of whom Jesus j had said, “among those born of women there is no one greater than John” (Lk 7:28), then surely it is inappropriate to exalt human leaders of God’s people in any I/ age. Contemporary Christians might choose, therefore, to highlight the Fourth I Gospel’s portrait of John the Baptist when struggling against church leaders who y direct too much attention to themselves and too little to Christ.25
I *‘Good, recent studies of the possible nature of the communities to which the four Gospels
Ii were addressed appear in: G. N. Stanton, A Gospelfor a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T.
t & T. Clark, 1992); M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 19851, l-30; P. F.
p Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, SNTSMS 57 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987);
1i and G. M. Burge, me Anointed Community: 7%e Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids:
L Eerdmans, 1987).
*%ee especially E. Best, Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel according to Mark
/) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986).
i:
*%Cf. further R. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist,
19791, 69-71. *
ib
332 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
Recognizing that the disciples in the Gospels represent believers in any age also helps us avoid certain hermeneutical errors of the past. For example, medieval Catholicism sometimes argued that Jesus taught a two-tiered ethic. His more strin- gent demands, such as vows of poverty, were reserved for fulltime Christian work- ers like priests, nuns, or monks-the religious elite. The contemporary Russian church sometimes struggles with the view, made understandable by decades of per- secution, that the Great Commission (Mt 28:18-20) was intended only for the apostles and not for all believers. Dispensationalists, particularly in the U.S., have sometimes maintained that because Jesus’ disciples were Jewish one cannot assume his instructions to them also apply to Gentile Christians. But Scripture provides no support for any of these contentions, and the vast majority of Christian interpreters of all theological traditions down through the centuries have rightly rejected them.
Key
Theological IssuesAs discussed earlier, every text must be interpreted in light of its historical background and literary context. Those parts of Scripture that contain numerous writings by the same author (notably with the epistles of Paul) or multiple accounts of the teaching of one individual (as with the Gospels) must be interpreted in light of larger theological contexts. To interpret the Gospels correctly in view of the ba- sic message of Jesus’ teaching, we must correctly understand two theological issues:
Jesus’ views on the Kingdom and the nature of his ethic.
The Kingdom of God.
The central theme of Jesus’ teaching is the announcement of the arrival of the Kingdom of God. This Kingdom refers more to a power than to a place, more to a reign than to a realm.
to rule.n “Kingship” perhaps better captures this sense of “authority But interpreters continue to debate to what extent Jesus believed that God’s kingship had actually arrived during his lifetime and to what extent he saw it as still future. Others differ over whether God’s rule concentrates on empowering his people or on redeeming the cosmos. A related question asks whether the Christian’s primary task is to encourage personal transformation or social reform. A correct understanding of the relationship of the Kingdom to the Church and to Israel also seems vital.
Space prevents consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of each major position adopted on these questions. Suffice it to say we agree with a fair consensus of interpreters who believe that the Kingdom of God arrived in part at Christ’s first coming but awaits its full consummation at his return (cf. e.g., Mk 1:15; Mt 12:28;
Lk 1720-21 with Mt 6:lO; 25:1-13; and Acts 16-8). This is the view often known as inaugurated e.rchatology.26 Like an inauguration at the beginning of a president’s
‘This term is associated especially with the numerous writings of G. E. Ladd. Perhaps his best work on the Kingdom is 7%e Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).
Genres of the New Testament 333
term of office, Jesus inaugurated God’s Kingdom at the beginning of his reign, even though much more awaits fulfillment. Because he could personally preach to only a handful of the world’s population, Jesus’ priority during his lifetime was to gather around himself a community of followers who would live out the principles of God’s Kingdom. These followers, as they made new disciples, could eventually demon- strate God’s will for all the world concerning human life in community and society.
Personal conversion-repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord-alone prevents eternal punishment and separation from God; so it must take priority over social transformation (Mk 1:15; Mt 9:2; Lk 9:23-27; Jn 3:16).
But challenging sinful, systemic structures forms a crucial part of God’s purposes for his world as well and must not be neglected (Lk 4: 18-19; 7:22-23; Mt 8: 17).
The Kingdom does not equal the Church. The Church is the group of believers in all ages over whom God reigns, who demonstrate to the world the presence of His Kingdom. Nor was the Kingdom something offered exclusively to Israel, rejected, and then replaced by the Church. What Jesus referred to as the mystery of the Kingdom was not a shift from Israel to the Church but the surprising fact that the Kingdom of God had arrived without the irresistible power many had expected.27
Andrew Kirk ties together these strands of thought with a comprehensive for- mulation of Jesus’ kingdom priorities:
The Kingdom sums up God’s plan to create a new human life by making pos- sible a new kind of community among people, farniles, and groups. [It com- bines] the possibility of a personal-relationship to Jesus with man’s responsibility to manage wisely the whole of nature; the expectation that real change is pos- sible here and now; a realistic assessment of the strength of opposition to God’s intentions; the creation of new human relationships and the eventual liberation by God of the whole of nature from corruption.28
All these aspects must be kept in mind when one interprets Jesus’ teaching and actions, including those in which Jesus does not necessarily mention the Kingdom explicitly.
Consider, for example, the beatitudes of Mt 5:3-12 and Lk 6:20-26. It is
probably significant that both versions begin and end with present tense blessings I (“yours is the kingdom of God”), but sandwiched between these are future tense I promises (“you shall be satisfied”). People who live in the way Jesus describes in the
beatitudes (poor, mourning, meek . . . ) are spiritually blessed in the present through l&e in Christ and his Church, but they can expect full compensation for their suffering
only in the life to come. Or again, a correct understanding of Kingdom theology I prevents driving an improper wedge between Mt 5:3 (“Blessed are the poor in spirit”)
and Lk 6:20 (“Blessed are you poor”). Those who are blessed are both the materi- ally and the spiritually poor. The probable Hebrew concept underlying the Greek
271n addition to Ladd, cf. esp. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986). Cf. more briefly, I. H. Marshall, “The Hope of a New Age: The Kingdom of God in the New Testament,” 7%emelios 11 (1985): 5-15.
BA. Kirk, 7&e Good News of the Kingdom Coming (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1983), 47. -