hotcom.net
The Satire According to Matthew
By Kyle Williams
In a delightfully humorous short story, "The Petrified Man," Mark Twain, the writer, gets fed up with the popular mania for petrified objects. He vents his frustration by writing a satire about the discovery of a petrified man. Woven throughout the satire is a description of the position in which the man solidified, and if the reader pays close attention, he will conclude from the scattered clues that the petrified man is thumbing his nose at his observers. This is the mark by which the story can be recognized as satirical fiction. However, in the story, the readers of the satire fail to recognize the satirical nature of the petrified man report, and take it seriously.
This story illustrates the fact that people are gullible. We often fail to notice the details which indicate satire, and take a story seriously while the author thumbs his nose at us. Before chuckling at the credulity of others, however, we should check our own eye for beams. Chances are that you or people you know have accepted at least one satire as gospel truth. If a prize were to be awarded for the most blatantly obvious satire which is nevertheless the most widely accepted as true, a blue ribbon would go to the Gospel According to Matthew.
Matthew's gospel is riddled with satire markers, some of which will now be pointed out in five categories: (1) the genealogy, (2) double vision, (3) phony fulfillments, (4) Zechariah, and (5) general nonsense.
The Genealogy
Several red flags warn us that we cannot take the genealogy in Matthew's first chapter seriously. Matthew grouped Jesus and his ancestors into three groups of fourteen, but those who take the time to count will find that there are only 41 generations. It was probably David who was counted twice – as the fourteenth generation of the first group, and as the first generation of the second (Matthew 1:17).
Another manipulation was necessary in order to come up with three groups of fourteen: by comparing Matthew's genealogy with the books of Kings and Chronicles, we find that Matthew omitted four generations from the royal lineage. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are missing between Jehoram and Uzziah (verse 8), and Jehoiakim is missing between Josiah and Jeconiah (verse 11).
Another probable manipulation involves the last fourteen generations. A little calculation will reveal that there is an unusually high average of 47 years between generations. This is not absolutely impossible, but very unlikely.
There are five women mentioned in the genealogy. They must have been included for a reason. Mary, the mother of Jesus is accompanied by Tamar, who became pregnant by "tricking" her father-in-law; Rahab the harlot; Ruth, the widow who spent the night with Boaz at the threshing floor; and "Uriah's wife" who committed adultery with David. The first four women had "known" more than one man before giving birth to the ancestor of Jesus. Was satirical Matthew implying the same of Mary?
Double Vision
Another mark by which Matthew's gospel may be recognized as satire is his double vision, as if he suffered from crossed eyes or drunkenness. Matthew declared that there were two demon-possessed men, whose unclean spirits caused a herd of swine to "go jump in the lake" (8:28-34); Mark and Luke say that there was only one, named Legion. Matthew reported that two blind men were healed outside of Jericho (20:29-34), whereas Mark and Luke claim that one man, Bartimaeus, was healed. Again, Mark and Luke claimed that Jesus stole one donkey for the triumphal entry; according to Matthew, however, Jesus took an ass and her colt (21:1-7).
A variation on Matthew's tendency to double, is his redoubling of the healing of blind Bartimaeus who had called out, "Son of David, have mercy on me!" It is stated above that Matthew replaced Bartimaeus with two blind men (20:29-34). Matthew, however, was not content with only two. He doubled them again, and in another setting, two more blind men called out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" As in Matthew 20, Jesus touched their eyes and healed them (9:27-31). The other gospels do not mention this second set of blind men. So Matthew redoubled the already doubled miracle, and replaced Bartimaeus with four blind men.
Phony Fulfillments
When it comes to thumbing his nose at the reader, Matthew's phony fulfillments are his forte. It is generally conceded that Matthew addressed his gospel to a Jewish audience. The Jews, being familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, would have recognized Matthew's phony fulfillments as signals that the book should not be taken seriously. We gentile readers require a little explanation:
Immanuel
While writing of the virgin birth, Matthew inserted:
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" – which means, "God with us." (Matthew 1:22-23)
Matthew was quoting Isaiah 7:14. Let's look at the context of Isaiah's prophecy:
In about 742 BC, Ahaz, king of Judea, was troubled concerning the defence of his capital city, Jerusalem, against an alliance of Aram and Israel. The prophet Isaiah assured Ahaz that the planned conquest of Jerusalem would not succeed. As a sign of his prophecy, Isaiah predicted that a young woman (not necessarily a virgin, as sometimes translated) would give birth to a son called Immanuel, and that before the child would reach the age of accountability, both Aram and Israel would be laid waste by Assyria.
According to Isaiah, the sign of the child was fulfilled in his own son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (Isaiah 8:3-4). Although not explicitly stated, we can infer from the prophecy that the "Immanuel" in Isaiah 8:8 was directed to this son of Isaiah with such a prodigious name. Overlooking the fact that the boy's age of accountability was somewhat stretched, the gist of Isaiah's prophecy was eventually fulfilled. Damascus, the capital of Aram, fell to the king of Assyria in 732 BC, and Israel was taken captive into Assyria in 721 BC. Isaiah's prophecy, and the accompanying sign of Immanuel, seemed to be happily settled. The case was closed.
Matthew's claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Immanuel predicted by Isaiah, could not have been serious. Consider the following: (1) There is no Biblical record of Jesus being called "Immanuel" during his lifetime. (2) Neither Aram nor Israel was conquered during Jesus' childhood. (3) The prophetic sign had already been 'fulfilled' in Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. (4) The birth of "Immanuel" was intended as a sign for Ahaz and his contemporaries. Jesus of Nazareth was born more than seven centuries too late to be a sign for them. (5) The sign of a prophesied event must by definition occur before the fulfillment of the prophesied event. Jesus of Nazareth was born more than seven centuries after the prophesied event was fulfilled. The only part of Isaiah's prophecy fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth is that he was born as the result of a young woman's conception. Everybody qualifies!
Out of Egypt
One of Matthew's unique contributions to the New Testament is the story of the infant Jesus escaping into Egypt and his return to the land of Israel. As an indicator of satire, Matthew added:
And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." (Matthew 2:15)
The quote is from Hosea 11:1. This was an historical, not a prophetic statement, and the context shows that Hosea wrote about the nation of Israel – not about any future messiah:
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and burned incense to images. . . . Will they not return to Egypt and will not Assyria rule over them because they refuse to repent? . . . My people are determined to turn from me. Even if they call to the Most High, he will by no means exalt them. (Hosea 11:1-2,5,7)
If, as Matthew claims, Jesus of Nazareth was the "son" that God called out of Egypt, it would be Jesus who is called an unrepentant idolater, who turned away from God, and will by no means be exalted. Could Matthew have seriously "honored" Jesus by connecting him with such a passage?
Ramah and Rachel
There is no historical evidence to support Matthew's story of Herod's "slaughter of the innocents." In fact, the author's satirical wink tips off the reader that it is fictitious:
Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." (Matthew 2:17-18)
The quote is from Jeremiah 31:15. In the context of chapter 31, it is a lament for the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Rachel was the ancestress of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin. There was a Ramah in Mount Ephraim, and one in the land of Benjamin. Jeremiah makes it plain that "Rachel" was weeping for Ephraim, representing the ten northern tribes which had been taken captive into Assyria in 721 BC.
It takes considerable twisting, stretching, and contorting in order to apply this passage to the Herod story.
According to the story, Herod killed the infants in Bethlehem and its outskirts. How, then, could this apply to Ramah? The Ramah of Mt. Ephraim was about 30 miles away. The Ramah of Benjamin was about ten miles north of Bethlehem, and the city of Jerusalem separated them. The application of Jeremiah's lament to the "slaughter of the innocents" is best explained as a signal of satire.
Nazarene
Concerning the move of the "holy family" to Nazareth, Matthew wrote:
So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23)
Which prophets? Although Matthew uses the plural, no such prophecy has ever been located. This is another clear mark of satire.
The Ass-sitting King
Matthew added the following to the story of the Triumphal Entry:
This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: "Say to the Daughter of Zion, 'See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'" (Matthew 21:4-5)
Here, Matthew claims that Jesus fulfilled Zechariah 9:9. But the context of Zechariah's prophecy shows that Jesus didn't come close to fulfilling it:
I will defend my house against marauding forces. Never again will an oppressor overrun my people, for now I am keeping watch. Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the warhorses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth. (Zechariah 9:8-10)
The fulfillment of this prophecy, if it is to be fulfilled at all, must lie in the future. Israel has been overrun by oppressors throughout history, and is still threatened by the modern equivalents of chariots, war horses, and battle bows. If peace has been proclaimed to the nations, the nations have not heeded; and no king, whether or not he sits on an ass, has ever ruled from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.
In spite of the evidence to the contrary, Matthew satirically claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the victorious king of Zechariah 9:9. If Jesus attempted to fulfill this prophecy at the time of his "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem, he failed miserably to accomplish anything beyond the ass-sitting requirement. In fact, whereas the prophecy states that "never again" would an oppressor overrun Israel, it was only about four decades after the "triumphal entry" that Jerusalem was completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
Zechariah
Among the clues of satire that Matthew incorporated into his gospel, we find the name Zechariah. In Matthew 23:35, Zechariah son of Berekiah is confused with Zechariah son of Jehoiada. It was the son of Jehoiada who was killed between the temple and the altar according to 2 Chronicles 24:22, and was the last martyr of the Old Testament (Chronicles came last in the Jewish canon that was extant in Jesus' day). In Luke's parallel passage, he omits "son of Berekiah" (Luke 11:51). Again, in Matthew 27:9, Zechariah is quoted, but Jeremiah is given the credit.
Is it mere coincidence that Matthew blundered twice with the name of Zechariah, or was he trying to tell his readers something? The name Zechariah is significant. It comes from a Hebrew verb meaning "to mark (so as to be recognized)" (Strong's Concordance #2142). The fumbling of the name of Zechariah is a mark for the recognition of satire. It was Matthew's way of winking at his reader, letting him know that his gospel is not to be taken seriously.
General Nonsense
If I told you that my sister had a baby without having sex, would you take my word for it? If I told you that my brother, who had been dead for three days, came back to life, would you believe me? If I told you that I withered a fig tree just by talking to it, would you give me a breath mint and tell me to stay away from your orchards, or would you call the men in white suits? If I told you that you don't have to plan for the future, but to live moment by moment like the bird and the lily, would you call me wise? If I told you to give double to everyone that asks, and then asked you for fifty dollars, would you give me a hundred dollars? Matthew wrote absurdity after absurdity. Surely he did not expect anyone to believe him.
Conclusion
Several evidences of satire in the Gospel According to Matthew have just been described in five categories – the genealogy, double vision, phony fulfillments, Zechariah, and general nonsense. These apparent "blunders" cannot be satisfactorily explained by drunkenness or stupidity; they were intentional. If archeologists could unearth the grave of Matthew, they would surely find him petrified, thumbing his nose, and in an attitude of wild laughter at the expense of those credulous readers who refuse to recognize the marks of his satire.
Copyright by Kyle Williams 1999 |
