CONTEXT
The very first line is based on Old Testament revelation by drawing on the Toledot formula of Genesis (βίβλος γενέσως in the Septuagint), as well as on the promised Messiah (Χριστός), his ancestor and the greatest king of Israel (Δαυίδ) , and the progenitor of all the Jewish people through whom would come the seed of promise (Ἀβραάµ). What follows is the God-guided genealogy of Jesus Christ and a children's story that contains the first four of the ten explicit Old Testament fulfillment passages in Matthew.2 Prominent in the. Via's The Revelation of God and/as Human Reception in the New Testament focuses on 6:22-23, and Pennington shows that all of the sermons, including the sermon, share the twin themes of revelation and separation.
Through, God's Revelation and/or Human Expectation in the New Testament (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997); Jonathan T. But this is entirely secondary, because understanding is emphasized as a gift; it is an act of God toward a man, as patience is God's judgment toward a man." Gerhard Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law," in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, ed. The first and last stanzas are united in implying God's initiative in discerning revelation, while the second and third stanzas directly declare that initiative.
Editorial critics who have noted how Matthew seems to portray the disciples' ability to understand more positively than e.g. Markus, has usually answered in the affirmative.15 But Jeannine K. The implied reader encounters three exhortations—a hortatory particle and two verbs in the imperative mood—all of which call for human action leading to understanding. The paradox produced by passages like this in Matthew and elsewhere in the New Testament, which juxtapose the giving and receiving of revelation in ways that are difficult to reconcile, has been explained by Dan O.
Through the paradoxical title of his book, The Revelation of God and/as Human Reception in the New Testament. When we speak of God's self-manifestation as human reception, we suggest that the human response is not merely passive and has no content of its own, but is a positive and constitutive factor in the actualization of revelation.
13 draws attention to itself, also with the fact that "it is placed at a key turning point in the entire narrative of the first Gospel".20. His general explanation in the center of this section (vv.. 17) contains the clearest information in this chapter about the author's implicit view of. 20 Technically, Pennington offers several ways in which Matthew 13 "serves as a guide to our understanding of Jesus' parables in Matthew." But Jesus' parables are so closely related to the twin themes of revelation and separation, which are themselves at the heart of the debates, that to be central to Jesus' parabolic teaching is to be central to the Gospel itself.
Pennington, "Matthew 13 and the Function of the Parables in the First Gospel," The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 13, no. Jesus had two bitter, long-lasting conflicts with the religious leaders of the day over the issue of Sabbath keeping. Besides being merely a sharp theological dispute, it appears to be the turning point of the book." Pennington, "Matthew 13 and the Function of the Parables," 14.
Matthew's appropriation of this text does emphasize the human reception of revelation, as does his softened negative statement in verse 11 that had the secrets of the kingdom. As Matthew 11:25 makes clear, the implied writer would not differ theologically with the Hebrew version of the Isaiah passage (God "hid" . as well as "revealed"), but by using the Septuagint's version, he emphasizes the human side of revelation. discernment. These are not instances in which Jesus promises blessing to those who manage to understand, but rather statements of current fact to those who are divinely enabled to understand.27 Again, therefore, the implied reader witnesses the combination of divine given and human reception that is typical of the implied author's point of view.
27 This is part of Pennington's larger argument that the macarisms of the Beatitudes are declarations of the disciples' present blessing, not enticing promises of potential blessing. Again, there is no promise of blessing to those who have open ears and clear eyes; the whole point of the explanation is that some get this and others don't (cf. 11:25–30).
The third is a larger section and is both the highest peak and the climax of Matthew's entire story. Jesus directly says that Peter came to discern something of the Savior's identity not by human help, but rather by divine gift. There is disagreement among scholars as to whether or not the disciples develop in their understanding over the course of Matthew's story.
Review of Literature," many critics of the redaction, following Barth, regard Matthew's portrayal of the disciples as largely positive and his portrayal of their understanding as progressive and developmental.29 However, the disagreement that exists at this point is not simply between the redaction . and narrative critics as groups, but also between narrative critics and themselves. Edward's narrative-critical study of the disciples argues that Peter's account “shows how far the disciples have come. 29 This is not a universal consensus among critics of the redaction, and some see a more mixed presentation of the disciples.
Because the redactor made significant changes in the presentation of Mark's disciples, some redactional critics have suggested an inconsistency in the gospel based primarily on the difference between the traditions that the redactor did not modify and those that were either changed or inserted. As a result, there are positive and negative features of the disciples in Matthew's redacted account." Richard A. Edwards, Matthew's Narrative Portrait of Disciples: How the Text Connoted Reader Informed (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), 1.
Brown, in her study of the disciples, concludes quite differently in this section, asserting that. She is right that Peter misunderstands the nature of the messiah, yet Jesus considers Peter's ability to at least understand that he is the Messiah a basis for him.
This can be explained by the fact that, for the implied author, God cannot fail to impart understanding, but the recipients of it.
TEXT
Brown, The Disciples in Narrative Perspective: The Portrayal and Function of the Matthean Disciples, Academia Biblica 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. The prominence of these acts, their repetition and the way in which the implied author portrays Jesus as the commission of the disciples in them, all help explain the seriousness with which Jesus rebukes his disciples for their misunderstanding in 16:5–12 No matter what one thinks about how positively or negatively Matthew portrays the disciples in general regarding their understanding no, no one can deny that in 16:5–12 the disciples do come to an understanding through Jesus.
His instructions are simply negative, saying that the disciples' interpretation of his image is incorrect. This leaves a gap between Jesus' instruction and the disciples' correct understanding, which they themselves must bridge. While Jesus is portrayed as the obedient son, the disciples are portrayed as having reached a considerable height, not through their insight or strength, but through openness to the Father's influence. 4.
The implied author does not seem to examine the cases where the disciples understand them as thoroughly as Brown does. And while Brown's comments about the limitations of the formula in 16:12 and 17:13 are technically true, this does not prove that the implied author intended an overall negative portrayal of the disciples in these passages. There is certainly more indirect than direct characterization of the disciples in Matthew's Gospel, but Powell is right to call the indirect characterization "less accurate" than the direct, even if it is.
I conclude then that the implied author of Matthew 16:12 portrays the disciples there as having the true understanding through the agreement of human acceptance and divine giving. Jesus' appeals in the preceding verses make it clear that the disciples must obtain understanding by their applied efforts.
But the context of the verse – both broad and narrow – ensures that the implied reader also sees in the tôte of this formula an act of divine providence. What is the significance of this structural and thematic parallelism for Matthew's portrayal of the disciples. The implied reader is informed by the context that the disciples' successful discernment involves both their own effort (receiving) and a divine act (giving).
All that remains in this thesis is to argue for the function of the formula in Matthew 16:12 and 17:13. In turn, the 'speech' of Matthew or a character is a good indicator of the evaluative point of view that he or a character advocates. Because OT scripture counts as the word of God, the result of the fact that the formula quotes form an important part of.
First and foremost, the author uses the formula in 16:12 and 17:13 to pre-inform and convince the reader of the meaning of Jesus' puzzling words. Bauer, The Gospel of the Son of God: An Introduction to Matthew (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Kindle. Howell, Matthew's Inclusive Story: A Study of the Narrative Rhetoric of the First Gospel, Library of New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplementary Series 42 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990).
Connecting the formula thematically with Jesus' response to Peter in 16:17 shows that it is a positive example of discerning revelation; its central location in Matthew's structure indicates that it is a. Matthew portrays the disciples as being able to understand Jesus when their efforts are enabled by God, and the formula in 16:12 and 17:13 provides one of the best applied examples of this fact. This thesis is a narrative-critical analysis of the formula τότε συνῆκαν (οἱ μαθηταὶ) ὅτι as it appears in Matthew 16:12 and 17:13.
Next, the portrayal of the disciples through the formula at 16:12 and 17:13 is discussed, followed by the function of the formula.
