3rd Sunday in Ordinary Time (A)

Readings:

1. Isaiah 8.23-9.3
   Psalm 27.1, 4, 13-14  Response:  “The Lord is my light and my salvation.”
2. 1 Corinthians 1.10-13, 17
3. Matthew 4.12-23 (or the shorter form, Matthew 4.12-17)

Reflections on the Gospel Reading

Today’s gospel reading follows Matthew’s account of the temptation of Jesus in the desert¹ and precedes the Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5 through 7), which we will listen to in the next six Sundays of ordinary time.  As a bridge passage it serves both a literary and a theological purpose.

Literary Function

These twelve verses signal the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry by providing a brief sketch of his practice of preaching, gathering disciples, teaching, and “curing every disease and illness among the people.” (Mt 4.23) In addition, Matthew notes the enthusiastic response of the crowds.

This passage also serves to relocate Jesus in two ways.  He comes into Galilee, presumably after being with John the Baptist along the Jordan River in Judea or Perea.² Instead of going back to Nazareth Jesus relocates in Capernaum on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee – a place ideally suited for travel by boat to the various parts of Galilee.

Finally, this passage serves “to introduce in summary fashion the content of Jesus’ proclamation, namely, “the gospel of the kingdom.” (See Davies & Allison 1988, 404.)

Theological Function

Theologically, Matthew articulates several of his favorite themes at the end of chapter four.  First, Matthew sees Jesus’ movement from his home in Nazareth to dwell in Capernaum on the shores of the Sea of Galilee as the fulfillment of one of Isaiah’s prophecies.³ This dovetails with another theme – the salvation of the Gentiles.  The reference to “Galilee of the Gentiles” (éthne) forms an inclusion with the end of Matthew’s Gospel where the risen Jesus appears to the eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee and instructs them to make disciples of all nations (éthne).

In the last part of today’s reading Matthew stresses the connection between Jesus and John the Baptist.  After John’s imprisonment Jesus takes up John’s ministry; makes exactly the same proclamation as John did (“Change your way of looking at things for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”); and gathers disciples around him as John did.  Also, great crowds of people flocked to both of them.

A major difference between Jesus’ ministry and John’s was that Jesus moved about Galilee.  People had come to John where he was baptizing in the Jordan, but Jesus went out to where the people were – gathered each week for the Sabbath assembly.⁴ Another notable difference between them was Jesus’ healing ministry.

The final verse summarizing Jesus’ mission of teaching, preaching, and healing is part of the preparation for the Sermon on the Mount.  “Before the crowds hear the Messiah’s word they are the object of his compassion and healing.  Having done nothing, nothing at all, they are benefited.  So grace comes before task, succour before demand, healing before imperative.  The first act of the Messiah is not the imposition of his commandments but the giving of himself.  Today’s command presupposes yesterday’s gift.” (Davies & Allison 1988, 427)

A Question       

The opening verse of this Sunday’s Gospel raises a question.  Why did Jesus “withdraw” (Greek: anachoréo) to Galilee?  Did Matthew’s Jesus “withdraw” to Galilee in the sense of taking refuge there?  If so, is there a lesson for us in his flight?

Perhaps the answer lies in other uses of the Greek verb anachoréo both in Matthew’s Gospel and in the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (called the Septuagint) widely used in the Roman Empire at the time Matthew’s Gospel was being written.⁵ It frequently seems to have the meaning “go away” in the sense of “flee,” “retire,” or “take refuge.”

In Exodus 2.15 we read:  “When Pharaoh heard of it [that Moses had killed an Egyptian], he sought to kill Moses.  But Moses fled from Pharaoh.  He settled in the land of Midian.”

In Matthew 2.12 we read that the Magi, after being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, “left for their own country by another road.” After that the angel of the Lord tells Joseph:  “‘Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee [pheuge] to Egypt . . . for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’  Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt . . .”  (Matthew 2.13-14) A little later the angel told Joseph to return to the land of Israel, but “when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there.  And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee.”  (Matthew 2.19-22)

Later in his Gospel, after Jesus cures the man with a withered hand, Matthew tells us that “the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.  When Jesus became aware of this he departed.”  (Matthew 12.14-15)  When Jesus heard that Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, thought he [Jesus] was John the Baptist raised from the dead (Matthew 14.1-2), Jesus “withdrew from there in a boat to a deserted place by himself.”  (Matthew 14.13)

After relating how Jesus denounced the Pharisees and scribes who had come from Jerusalem as “play actors” and “blind guides,” Matthew continues:  “Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon.” (Matthew 15.21)

A Pattern?

There seems to be a pattern here.  In the tradition behind Matthew’s Gospel it seems that the Magi, Joseph, and Jesus dealt with murderous rage not by confrontation but by flight out of range of the respective authority’s anger.  In several cases this meant flight into Gentile areas:  the Magi back to their own land; Joseph to Egypt; Joseph and Jesus to what Isaiah called “Galilee of the Gentiles;” and Jesus to Tyre and Sidon.

The Apostle Paul seems to have followed this practice of flight rather than fight.  According to Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s regular practice when he came to a city was to preach first to the Israelites who followed the Judean customs.  When controversy broke out and they rejected him (sometimes violently) from their assembly, he did not stay and fight but withdrew and preached to the Gentiles.⁶ (Antioch of Pisidia [Acts 13]; Iconium [Acts 14]; Athens [Acts 17]; Corinth [Acts 18]; and Ephesus [Acts 19])

The followers of Jesus in Jerusalem seem to have followed this advice.  Sometime before the Romans destroyed the city in the year 70 they fled.  Eusebius of Caesarea writing in the fourth century says:  “Furthermore, the members of the Jerusalem church, by means of an oracle given by revelation to acceptable persons there, were ordered to leave the City before the war began and settle in a town in Peraea called Pella [on the east side of the Jordan river].  To Pella those who believed in Christ migrated from Jerusalem . . .” (The History of the Church, Book 3, Ch. 5)

Some scholars feel that the flight of Jesus’ followers from Jerusalem accounts for some of the tensions between the Israelite followers of Jesus and other Israelites in Matthew’s Gospel.  Other Israelites saw the flight of the Jesus followers from Jerusalem as cowardice.  This may have been one of the factors that led to the exclusion of members of the Jesus movement from the local assemblies.

Jesus’ “withdrawal” to Galilee fits into this pattern.   After John the Baptist’s violent death and with the threat of persecution of his followers, his disciple Jesus flees to Galilee where he begins preaching John’s message.⁷ After Jesus’ violent death and the threat of persecution of his followers, his disciples flee to Galilee from where they eventually proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.  Facing the prospect of a violent assault on the city of Jerusalem, the early Israelite followers of Jesus flee to Pella, Galilee, and other places to escape the conflict.  They brought the message of Jesus with them.  It seems very likely that some of the traditions of the Jerusalem community found their way into Matthew’s Gospel, which many think was written in Syria, just north of Galilee.

Another Aspect:  Avoidance of Sin

It seems that this “flight instead of fight” pattern was more than just a tactic – withdrawing from conflict in order to “fight another day” under more favorable circumstances.  Matthew’s Jesus seems to be saying:  Don’t fight at all.  Don’t sin by using violence to defend your honor, and don’t provide your adversaries with the opportunity to sin by using violence against you.

“Flight instead of fight” fits in well with Matthew’s presentation of the Sermon on the Mount and with Jerome Neyrey’s analysis of the destructive honor games that Jesus denounced as contrary to the commandment against killing.

To be a disciple of Jesus, a typical male would have to forswear the pivotal value of his cultural world.  He would be prohibited from seeking honor, especially in the ways defined by eastern Mediterranean culture:  by physical assault, sexual conquest of women, or lying.  Should he already have challenged another or participated in a family feud with outsiders, he must call off those challenges.  Nor may he defend his own honor or seek honorable satisfaction and revenge for injury and insult.  This disciple, then, will be considered a weakling, a wimp, a worthless no-account who cannot defend his honor, a person of whom one takes advantage, a man to be ashamed of.  This, we maintain, is the ‘cross’ of following Jesus: the loss of honor. (1998, 211)

It also seems that that Jesus thought it was important to avoid sin in the sense of not letting sin happen.  This ties in with his command to love enemies.  By removing oneself from the threat of violence, one preserves one’s enemy from the sin of murder.  An example of this can be found in the passage in John’s Gospel about the woman accused of adultery (a floating synoptic story that docked for a while in Luke and ended up in John 8).  Jesus not only preserved the wrongly accused woman’s life but also preserved his enemies (the scribes, Pharisees, and elders) from sinning through false witness and murder.⁸

It seems to me that this pattern is pervasive enough in the Gospels to lay claim to having come from Jesus himself.

A Modest Conclusion

It seems quite possible, then, that the historical Jesus fled into Galilee not only to escape Herod Antipas’ rage but also to preserve Herod from another sin of murder.  Today’s Gospel challenges our religious imagination to come up with a contemporary way of living out Jesus’ command to love our enemies, even when they threaten us with violence.  When peaceful efforts to resolve conflict fail and violence threatens to spiral out of control, fleeing the conflict might still be the most Christian option.

---

In preparing these reflections, in addition to the biblical texts, I consulted the following works:

BAG – William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, A translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (fourth revised and augmented edition, 1952) (Chicago:  The University of Chicago Press, 1957), pp. 62-63 s.v. anachoreo.

BAG gives three meanings for anachoreo:  1) go away; 2) return; 3) withdraw, retire, take refuge.  The latter sense is applied to Matthew 2.14.

Brueggemann et al. 1995 – Walter Brueggemann, Charles B. Cousar, Beverly R. Gaventa, James D. Newsome, Texts for Preaching:  A Lectionary Commentary Based on the NRS, Year A. (Louisville, KY:  Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), pp. 109-117.

Davies & Allison 1988 – W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exigetical Commentary on the Gospel According To Saint Matthew, Vol.I [Chapters 1 – 7], The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Granfield, and G. N. Stanton, General Editors (London: T&T Clark, 1988), pp. 374-416.

Davies and Allison (following BAG?) note that anachoreo means “withdraw” or “take refuge.”  They ask whether Matthew meant to say that Jesus fled because his life was in danger in the south or that his use of the word lacked the connotation of fear and flight.  On the redactional level, a decision, one way or the other, seems impossible to them.  However, on the historical level, they say that it seems plausible “that Jesus, a follower of John the Baptist, became cautious or even went into hiding after John was arrested; and he may have felt safer in Galilee.”  (1988, 376)

Eusebius 1965 – Eusebius of Caesarea , The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, translated with an introduction by G. A. Williamson (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965), p. 111.

Fuller 1984 – Reginald H. Fuller, Preaching the Lectionary.  The Word of God for the Church Today  (Collegeville, MN:  The Liturgical Press, 1984), pp. 112-114.

Harrington 1991 – Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., The Gospel of Matthew , Sacra Pagina Series Volume 1, A Michael Glazier Book (Collegeville  [MN]:  Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 70-75.

Malina & Pilch 2006 – Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul (Minneapolis, MN:  Fortress Press, 2006)

Malina & Rohrbaugh 2003 – Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Second Edition  (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), pp. 37-39.

Meier 1990 – John P. Meier, Matthew , A Michael Glazier Book [1980] (Collegeville [MN]:  Liturgical Press, 1990), pp. 31-36.

Meier specifically comments on the meaning of anechóresen in Matthew 4.12.  "'He withdrew' is not the best translation of anechóresen here.  Jesus can hardly be seeking refuge as he marches into Galilee, the territory of Herod Antipas, who has just imprisoned John.  Jesus is consciously taking up John's fallen banner and continuing in the teeth of opposition." (1990, 32)

However, in Matthew 2.14 anechóresen is clearly parallel to pheuge (flee) in the previous verse.  Also in Mt 2.22 Matthew says that Joseph withdrew [anechóresen] to the district of Galilee to get away from Archaelaus, even though (as we now know) Archaelaus originally had authority over Judea, Samaria, and Galilee.

Although there are indications that Matthew’s knowledge of the geography of Palestine could be quite accurate (Davies & Allison 1988, 379), it would not be surprising if he were confused about historical details half a century before he wrote.  Perhaps Matthew confused the respective jurisdictions of the various Herods.  We know that at the time of Jesus' ministry a Roman procurator ruled over Judea, and that Herod Antipas had jurisdiction over Galilee and Perea.  But, did Matthew know this?  Although Herod Antipas had jurisdiction over Galilee, he might have spent most of his time in Jerusalem.  (See, for example, Luke 23.6-12)  Perhaps, regardless of who had jurisdiction where, in Jesus’ time it was just safer in Galilee far away from the civil and religious authorities in Jerusalem.

Meier 1994 – John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew:  Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 2 Mentor, Message and Miracles.  The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 19-233.

Murphy-O’Connor 1996 – Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Why Jesus Went Back to Galilee,” Bible Review, February 1996, pp. 22-29, 42-43.

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor thinks that Jesus was baptizing in Judea while John the Baptist was baptizing in Samaria.  Since things weren’t going well for John in Samaria he went into Galilee and came under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas.  When John was imprisoned, Jesus deliberately went into Galilee to take John’s place. 

“Jesus’ sense of noblesse oblige drove him to minister in the Galilee despite the danger.  The mantle of the imprisoned Baptist had fallen on him.  He felt that he had no choice but to continue the reforming mission of the Baptist in the place he [the Baptist] had been preaching.” (Murphy-O’Connor 1996, 42)

Murphy-O’Connor’s position seems to me to be based on a number of conjectures which run counter to John P. Meier’s historical reconstruction of the relationship of John the Baptist to Jesus in the second volume of his A Marginal Jew.  As far as I can tell, there is no basis in any text, biblical or otherwise, for a baptizing ministry of John in Galilee.  This seems to be a very speculative historical reconstruction on Murphy-O’Connor’s part.  (Malina & Rohrbaugh, for example, take it for granted that John was arrested in Judea. [1998, 37])  There is ample evidence of John’s ministry in Perea, which was also under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas.

Neyrey 1998 – Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew  (Louisville, KY:  John Knox Press, 1998) passim.

NRSV = NRSV 1994 – New Revised Standard Version – Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, Editors, The New Oxford Annotated Bible [with the Apocrypha] containing the Old and New Testaments.  New Revised Standard Version.  (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1994)

Pilch 1995 – John J. Pilch, The Cultural World of Jesus, Sunday by Sunday, Cycle A.  A Liturgical Press Book (Collegeville [MN]:  Liturgical Press, 1995), pp. 25-27.

---