(A Hermeneutical-Exegetical Paper on Matthew 18:5-6)
by:
Rev. Bobot Bernardo, Director for Education and Discipleship Department,
Jesus is Lord Church Worldwide
Introduction
Certain verses in the Bible have held such a deep impact on me since childhood. From a young age, these verses – particularly those that refer to the unsung heroes, the insignificant people, the little guys and the little ones – have held my mind captive. Finally, after 30 years of relentless search, I have finally gone through all the details of the importance of the ‘unimportant’ people whom My Master Jesus protected, cared for and put upon pedestals.
Insignificance is such a painful word to wrestle with, that one wonders – if one has courage enough to do just this: wrestle. Insignificance is unimportance; it is negligibility. In the eyes of our society today, many people fall under ‘the insignificant.’ The same is true in the society during Matthew’s time.
The insignificant, unimportant and negligible people in the Bible are the marginalized people – the social outcasts: children, women, widows, beggars, lepers and sinners. In short, the handicapped, the uneducated, and the poor. They are ‘the branded’; that is, they are those who have been marked as ‘hopeless.’ Yet, for a so-called Messiah, the long-awaited King of the Jews, it is quite illogical that, instead of focusing on the religious, political and social authorities alone, so as to bring the then much awaited religious, political and societal reforms, Jesus centered His ministry on these little ones. Why? Was it because of mere pity? Or was it borne of the necessity of His role as Teacher and King? If the answer to this question is indeed rooted in His nature, what does this say about those of us who claim redemption in the very nature of our Lord?
This is precisely what this Hermeneutical-Exegetical paper aims to do. This paper will expound on the meaning and interpretation of Matthew 18, particularly verses 5 and 6, using the ‘New Literary Approach.’
Realistically though, sticking to a single approach cannot possibly complete this entire study. Thus, such approaches as the Sociological (social setting of the text) and Historical-Critical Methods have also been applied to help in the clear understanding of the text, as well as the firm establishment of our message.
With these in mind, we will prove that Jesus is no respecter of persons and that He is willing to save, care and love every man – regardless of social status and intellectual capability. That although anointed in wisdom, He is a sensitive and affective person. That by digging deeper, we will firmly establish how Jesus’ ministry made the Bible’s belittled ones into the brave ones, henceforth, society’s legitimate equals.
New Literary & Sociological (Sitz im Laben) Approaches
1iNew Literary method focuses on the role of the reader in the process of interpretation (e.g., establishing the context). This method also focuses on the text itself and the world indicated by the text. 2It also assumes the unity of the text therefore, proves that the text is enough for the reader to understand its meaning.
3 This approach also deals with the interpretation and evaluation of a literary work through the careful examination and analysis of the work itself on the basis of both internal factors (e.g., genre, structure, content, style, sources) and external factors (e.g., historical setting, social setting, biographical data, psychological information).
4The development of another approach like Sociopolitical Approach presses beyond the form-critical interest, which sought to determine the communitarian Sitz im Laben of a given gospel form, into a much broader analysis that utilizes techniques derived from social sciences, especially from sociology and cultural anthropology to analyze the traces of social interaction within the people of God and the traces of ancient societal life.
These two approaches unravel the proper, sound and (if we may call it) ‘true’ meaning of the text, as we analyze verses 15 and 16 into its larger context which is the whole chapter and the whole book of Matthew itself.
The book of Matthew gives some prominent features such as: the genealogy of Jesus goes back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation and to David, Israel’s greatest king. Both are recipients of covenantal promise. This is to prove that Jesus is the fulfillment of all that was spoken through the prophets, that He is the long expected King and Deliverer of His people. Jesus has the following Royal titles: King, Messiah, Christ, son of David. It is in fact in this Gospel that the phrase “Kingdom of Heaven” is mentioned 31 times. Not even once does the said phrase appear in the other Gospels.
5Matthew essentially follows the plot of Mark, though incorporating large sections of teaching materials that tend to obscure the clarity of Mark’s structure. Matthew has imposed rhetorical “division” on his material of a type wholly absent from Mark by concluding each of 5 lengthy speeches by Jesus with the phrase “And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). Jack Dean Kingsbury suggests the following structure for Matthew:
1.The person of Jesus the Messiah (1:1; 4:16)
2.The Proclamation of Jesus the Messiah (4:17; 16:20)
3.The suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah (16:21; 28:20)
Another prominent feature of Matthew’s Gospel is the predominance of Jesus’ ethical teachings that are radical in nature- radical in the sense that His teachings openly denounced the hypocrisy of His contemporaries, the Pharisees. As a matter of fact, in Chapter 23, Jesus reserved His strongest and longest sermon not for struggling sinners, discouraged disciples or wealthy people but for hypocrites, glory hogs and legalists.
This is where our discussion comes in. ‘Little ones’ is one of the greatest ethical teachings of this greatest teacher in the Bible. 6 That is what is needed in that time – a radical change in the ‘inside’ through teaching moral, ethical standards.
7The new literary approach to the Bible seeks to treat it as does to other masterpieces or world literature, regarding the biblical text as an autonomous entity. According to this approach, the biblical text, once consigned to writing, is said to take on a life of its own, independent of the historical setting from which it emerged. What is important is the world of the text, a perception of reality which the text takes on in its continued existence, and its assumption into the canon.
Textual Exposition
(An autonomous entity)
8The word ‘little ones’ were mentioned three times in the context. 9Now, let’s take a look at each mention and how they are used in the sentences to fully grasp the meaning of this great ethical standard.
And whosoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Mathew 18: 5-6)
Strong words set the tone for verses 5 and 6 of Matthew 18. As it is, these two verses may be approached literally or symbolically. 10Approached with a literal interpretation, the little ones refer to the children, as Jesus took a child to Him before He spoke these words. 11Stumbling denotes ‘leading astray’ and the 12millstone part means ‘punishment.’ 13On the other hand, symbolical interpretation (Which, as we go along will be given much balance, proper and sound interpretation) on these passages means, the little ones connote, ‘the sinners and often neglected ones.’ The stumbling would signify ‘hurt’ caused by either apathy or willful actions; the millstone part would then symbolize ‘grief’ on those who directly or indirectly caused the stumbling of the little ones.
However, whichever way we take it, the fact still remains that Jesus’ ‘moral code’ here is above the world’s ‘moral code.’ While the world pities the little ones and is moved enough to offer it material relief once in a while (in the form of food, clothing, livelihood and education assistance), few would relish the thought of actually welcoming these same little ones as permanent members of their own families and be held accountable for them for the rest of their lives. For when the world stretches its hand to help the little ones, the hand stretches forth mechanically. The world loathes involving its heart, its souls, its everything. And this is precisely where we fail when we look at the little ones as pitiful creatures. 14We refuse to ‘call them to our knees (as Jesus did to the child) and call them family.’
See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 18:10)
Knowledge and experiential wisdom, of course, set certain people as ranking above certain others. 15Add social status and influence, and certainly, whether one likes it or not, one is above others.
But the way the world looks at rank and importance is very different from the way Jesus sees it. The world’s ‘standard’ conditions the mind to of course, take physical, educational, social, financial. and yes, moral considerations as basis for significance. One is apt to pay more attention to the speech of a Harvard-graduate millionaire to that of an ex-convict street bum. Yet, see that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of my Father who is in heaven. 16God’s very eyes are so upon these little ones that He set the most privileged 17i(the angels who ‘behold’ God’s face) of His heavenly host as their guardians.
Rank and file in God’s eyes is not dependent on what one has. His ‘standard’ is always looking into what one is, based on His compassion and how His heart is touched. Man’s impersonal but well-meaning regard for these little ones come off as self-delusional hypocrisy. And hypocritical man cannot set himself up as judge for he himself is under God’s condemning eyes.
Thus it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.
(Matthew 18:14)
God’s very nature is love, so, as a rule, he is hurt by suffering and poverty. The little ones in our society are those who continually bare the brunt of sins, suffering, death, and poverty in its full force. Jesus has repeatedly stressed that His ‘coming’ into the world was to ‘seek the lost.’ It seems that, the world’s ‘unfairness’ to the little ones is more than counterbalanced by God’s overwhelming love and concern for them. Not only is he moved by their hardships and tears, He so desires that they be restored to their rightful place of prominence.
Having dissolved man’s mistaken (or deluded) sense of significance and ethical holiness, God then brings out the bulk of the matter: salvation. Salvation and apathy do not mix. Neither can it mix with lies and hypocrisy, the ‘holier than thou’ attitude. The work of salvation necessitates as invitation for truthful introspection and complete surrender to divine scrutiny. Salvation demands complete involvement and definite accountability. God’s will becomes the will of His children that not one of these little ones perish.
Word Study
Verses: Subject/theme:
Matthew 18:1-2 Disciples’ struggle: Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
Matthew 18:3-6 18Jesus took a child then referred to the child as ‘little ones’
Matthew 18:7-11 Stumbling blocks, do not despise the little ones
Matthew 18:12-14 19Father’s will – the little ones not to perish
Matthew 18:15-19 20Redemptive statement for a brother who sins (immature Christians).
Also, the Church has the authority to give judgment if the person refuses to come in agreement. 21(Rule for the Congregation)
Matthew 18: 21-34 22Exposition: the parable of the unmerciful servant (forgiveness)
23Receives (Matthew 18:5) -dechomai (dekh’-om-ahee) – accept, receive, take
24Child (Matthew 18:3) -Paidion (pahee-dee’-on) – an infant, a half-grown boy or girl, little, young; fig. immature Christian.
Interpretation
In this word study, we can therefore conclude that the child which then Jesus referred to as little ones were the sinners who need not just salvation but also care and love (Matthew 18:11; 14; 22). The whole chapter bears witness to it. 25The “parable of the man/shepherd and the sheep” (Matthew 18:12-14) gave it a concluding end that we should not despise the sinners. And in another story (Matthew 18:21-34), Jesus gave another moral/ ethical standard that we should forgive our weak brothers who sin against us. 26To forgive a brother who sins 70 X 7 is a figure of speech which means we ought to forgive them as Jesus wants us to forgive them.
Now, this message is in connection with the other great teachings and ethical standards set by Jesus especially in Chapters 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 25. Matthew 5:20 sets a great lesson: “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
See the whole story again… Matthew 18:1-2 talks about the greatest in the kingdom of heaven and to answer the question Jesus held a child in his arms. 27Jesus’ answer was so radical. It amounts to a total reversal of human value scales. 28A child was a person of no importance in Jewish society, subject to the authority of his elders, not taken seriously except as a responsibility, one to be looked after, not one to be looked up to. That enters a new revelation, that is, in verses 3-6 (the revelation of the little ones – the sinners, the insignificants).
And to further emphasize the importance of the little ones, Jesus continues to teach in verses 7-11. And now, to establish His message, this is what everybody should do (verses 12-14). 29What if your brother sins? Then Jesus answered in another moral standard (verses 15-19). Now, based on the ethical standards in verses 1-14, Jesus concluded in a very subtle way: the forgiveness one ought to do. And He then gave the parable of the unmerciful servant.
Historical Critical Method as a Hermeneutical Tool
(Origin and Development)
30Biblical passages not only express a writer’s train of thought but also reflect a way of life – one that, in most ways, differ radically from that of present-day readers. Each passage was God’s Word to other people before it became God’s Word to us.
31Historical – Critical method of biblical interpretation borrows its techniques from both historical and literary criticism. It recognizes that the Bible, though it is the inspired written Word of God, is an ancient record, composed by many human authors over a long period of time. As such, it has to be read, studied, and analyzed as other ancient records of human history. Since the Bible narrates events that affected the lives of ancient Jews and early Christians, its various accounts have to be read, compared, and analyzed in their original languages, against their proper human and historical backgrounds, and within their contemporary contexts.
32All such critical techniques, history and literary, are geared to one end: to determine the meaning of the sacred text as it was intended by the human author moves along ago to compose it and to ascertain what it is saying to us today. Since the truth that has been enshrined in the author’s text is analogous to the form used, such historical criticism teaches us that we cannot read an ancient text without the sophisticated understanding of what the form itself calls for.
Development
33The Historical-Critical Method of biblical interpretation has been the dominant mode of interpretation in recent centuries, used by Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant interpreters of the Bible.
34Along the quest of the literal meaning, an allegorical interpretation of Scripture was also developed, especially by Origen and some of his followers.
35More immediately, the roots of the Historical-Critical Method of biblical interpretation are traced to the Renaissance, especially to its emphasis on recursus and fonts, “getting back to the sources,” which involved the study of classical Greek, the Semetic languages, and the writings of ancient authors whose works had long been neglected in the antecedent Dark Ages.
36Likewise contributing to the development of the Historical-Critical Method of interpreting Scripture were the great historical and archeological discoveries of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Events and facts of ancient history came to light in a way that was unknown in previous centuries, even at this time of the Renaissance and Reformation. These discoveries impinged on biblical history, on the history of ancient Israel, and on the beginnings of early Christianity in a way that was previously unsuspected.
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart assert in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth that, “whether one likes it or not, every reader is at the same time an interpreter”. They go on to declare that “we invariably bring to the text all that we are, with all of our experiences, culture, and prior understandings of words and ideas.” Not only these, they go on to contend that because of these, we are liable to error. Being fully aware of the complex nature of the Bible – with all its ‘historical particularity’, ‘literary context’ and timeless moral and spiritual significance – the authors are not without cause in their concern for proper interpretation. With all the cults and heresies that abound in our society, there is a need for proper and balance interpretation. After all, it is true that “a text cannot mean what it never meant.”
37iBecause the Bible is God’s Word, it has eternal relevance; it speaks to all mankind, in every age and in every culture. Because it is God’s Word, we must listen– and obey. But because God chose to speak His word through human words in history, every book in the Bible also has historical particularity; each document is conditioned by the language, time, and culture in which it was originally written (and in some cases also by the oral history it had before it was written down). Interpretation of the Bible is demanded by the “tension” that exists between its eternal relevance and its historical particularity.
38The circumstances in which communication occurs substantially affect, if not determine, meaning. We need to understand and comprehend the perspective of the original communicators – initiator and receptor for us to have more understanding in the whole study.
The writer and the recipients typically share the same cultural background and information and live at the same time in history yet, the “now” reader/interpreter is living in a very different cultural, political, social setting. 39Lacking historical information gives us difficulty in getting the more balance meaning of the text. This is the basis of an important principle of hermeneutics: the sound, balance, proper interpretation of a biblical passage that is consistent with the historical-cultural background of the passage.
Matthew
40It began by reconstructing the situation of Judaism after the dramatic events of the Jewish revolt against Rome that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70.
It goes to show that the writer of this book is an eyewitness, someone who knows what is happening in their social-religious-political arena in their times. Now, let’s look at the author of the book…
41 “The assumption that Matthew was a tax collector and was the author of this gospel makes sense of a number of details. Certainly, a customs official in Matthew’s position would have had to be fluent in both Aramaic and Greek, and such fluency must have been important when the gospel was first crossing racial barriers: indeed, it squares with the notion of a gospel written in Greek that nevertheless could draw on Semetic sources. C.F.D. Moule suggests that 13:52 is a subtle self-reference by the author: the “scribe” who becomes a disciple should not be understood as a reference to a rabbinic scribe but to a “scribe in the secular sense,” that is, a well- educated writer.
To understand the authorship would establish our paradigm to the very purpose of the writings. 42There is a strong Jewish flavor in this book and it reflects the Jewish background of the writer. He was a Jew who was accustomed to thinking in Aramaic, although the Gospel was written in Greek. He was so familiar with the Jewish tradition. He knew the Jewish feeling toward the Samaritan (4:9) and their exclusive attitude in worship (4:20). The author, Matthew is an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. He personally came into contact with the Teacher, King and Messiah, and his life would never be the same.
And when was it written? 43Most hold that this book was written during the period A.D. 80-100. It was written when there is a strong need for the Jews to reform their ways. Righteousness, peace, love and forgiveness are some subjects of the book.
Problems and Limitations
1.44It is said to be defective, to be based on false premise (reason alone), to be claiming a certitude similar to that of the natural sciences, to be fixated on hypothetical documents rather than on the actual biblical text, to be dissecting the biblical text to the point that its literary unity can no longer be appreciated, and to be lacking all interest in the religious message of the Bible and its contemporary relevance of the spiritual lives of those who would read it today.
2.45Communication or dialogue between the ‘now’ reader/interpreter is being set aside because the focus only lies in the historicity of the text.
3.46Historical background of the text doesn’t supply the 47complete meaning and interpretation of the text, therefore, text itself should be given a well balance study.
4.48Yes the Bible is an ancient literature but it still remains the Word of God, therefore we should not limit the revelation based on the author’s intention.
5.49Since there is no objective history, the historical information should be based not only in some researched historical setting (of the text) but also to the text itself.
6.50Dialogue is important (inevitable) ingredient in understanding the text…this maybe the weakest point in this approach (since this is missing).51
Reflection
I can never forget the story of blind Bartimaeus. Remembering him reminds me of these questions: What is the agony of a man whom no one cares enough to inform of a possibility of a cure or a solution to his sickness or problem? What is the anguish of a man who, when he seeks to get the cure or solution himself, is not only discouraged but is actively being opposed by the very people who are well-acquainted with his suffering and who are supposed to care about him and help him? What is the misery of a man who seems to be unnoticed by the only source of help he knows? We can only guess. But Jesus need not guess. He knows. He feels. And He is willing and able to help if we only let Him.
Like blind Bartimeaus are the social outcasts – considered as not ‘worthy’ to come in the presence of men, let alone people who were highly reverenced such as our Lord. But those who we judge as unworthy, our Lord Jesus loves with a great passionate love. Unlike us, He is not blind and knows the true worth of every creature He created. “And he took the child in his arms, put his hands on him and blessed him.” Jesus cared for the unlovely because He cares for them. Jesus did not even look at people as objects to practice ministry on. Jesus embraced the lepers in a society which regarded the leper as many today regard the AIDS victim. He broke with convention and did something they never experienced before. Through Him they felt the touch of a human being untouched by their disease – not one who was in the same predicament, but one who saw their predicament and cared for them.
The God we serve (Jesus) was willing to put His reputation at stake, walking into the homes and lives of the unlovely, and instead of writing them off, He was willing to look beyond the outside, no matter how dirty, and introduce the caring heart of God. This is how He cares and loves the little ones.
Conclusion
God’s standard has never been man’s standard. Society may brand certain people as insignificant but God never does because He is attentive to even the ‘smallest’ things in this world. This has been substantiated by the overwhelming evidence presented by Matthew even as we expounded on verses 5 and 6 of Matthew 18 using the New Literary approach, as well as the Historical-Critical and Sociological (Sitz im Laben) Methods.
Jesus, indeed, is no respecter of persons; He is willing to save, care and love every man – regardless of social status and intellectual capability. Our (New Literary) textual exposition firmly established the main message of the exegetical verses, these mainly being:
- We pointed out how easy it is for us to judge people based on our standard rather than God’s standard and how we cause hurt on others because of this. We who call ourselves Christians must order our lives according to God’s pattern: the model of complete personal involvement.
- Hypocritical man cannot set himself as judge over his fellowmen for he himself is under God’s condemning eyes. Ultimately, man’s knowledge and experiential wisdom mean nothing to Jesus’ anointed wisdom and affective heart.
- It is, at times, expedient that Jesus dissolve man’s mistaken sense of significance and ethical holiness in order to bring out that which is closest to His heart: salvation. And salvation is founded on the sense of accountability borne of Godly love.
Our Historical approach corroborated on the above-mentioned points by calling attention to the strong need for radical and ethical standard during Matthew’s time. Historically, we proved how the supposed ‘models’ (to emulate) – the Pharisees – were so morally low that they no longer were the standard but actually had to be surpassed (as mentioned in Matthew 5:20)
We also provided a lucid account on the immediate social context by discussing the Sitz im Laben, thus, sufficiently establishing the social background with which we based our hermeneutical-exegetical study.
Ironically, to man’s eyes at least, insignificant people are significant to God. Indeed, Jesus’ ministry made the Bible’s belittled ones into THE BRAVE ONES, henceforth, society’s legitimate equals.
END NOTES
1 Walter Wink, The Gospel in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study, Philadelphia, 1973, p.22.
2 Cedric B. Johnson, The Psychology of Biblical Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983, p.35.
3 David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Philadelphia, 1987, p.19.
4 Joseph A Fitzmyer SJ, Scripture the Soul of Theology, Macarthur Boulevard Mahwah, 1994, p.50.
5 David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment,Philadelphia, 1987, p.49.
6 Cedric B. Johnson, The Psychology of Biblical Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983, p.17-71.
7 Joseph A Fitzmyer SJ, Scripture the Soul of Theology, Macarthur Boulevard Mahwah, 1994, p.40.
8 Walter C. Kaiser, and Moises Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, p.71.
9 Grant R. Osbourne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation,Downers Grove, Illinois, 1991, p.105.
10 James Morison, Matthew Memoirs of Jesus Christ: A Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew 4th ed., London, 1875, p.340.
11 Benedict H. Green, The Gospel According to Matthew in the Revised Standard Version: A Commentary by H. Benedict Green, Oxford England, 1987, 160.
12 Margaret Davies, Matthew New Bible Commentary, Sheffield England, 1993, p.128.
13 James Morison, Matthew Memoirs of Jesus Christ: A Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew 4th ed., London, 1875, p.341.
14 Guthrie, D. 1970, 839.
15 Margaret Davies, Matthew New Bible Commentary, Sheffield England, 1993, p.127.
16 Ibid., p.128.
17 Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 1972, p.251.
18 Robert H. Gunndry, A Commentary on His Literature and Theological Art, Michigan, 1982, p.160.
19 Mc Arthur, Matthew: A Commentary on the Book of Matthew, Chicago, 1988, p.93.
20 Bruce Malina, and Ricahrd L.Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Minneapolis, 1992, p.116-117.
21 Graham Stanton, The Interpretation of Matthew, New/York Ramsey, 1983, p.92.
22 Bruce Malina, and Ricahrd L.Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Minneapolis, 1992, p.120.
23 James Strong, LL.D. S.T.D., Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Nashville, Tennessee, 1984.
24 Ibid.,
25 Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, Great Britain, 1991, p.202.
26 Grant R. Osbourne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1991, p.100.
27 R. T. France, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985, p. 839.
28 D. Guthrie, New Bible Commentary 3rd Edition, Leicester, England, 1970, p.839.
29 Bruce Malina, and Ricahrd L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Minneapolis, 1992, p.119.
30 David Allan Black, New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Michigan, 1991, p.76.
31 Joseph A Fitzmyer SJ, Scripture the Soul of Theology, Macarthur Boulevard Mahwah, 1994, p.19.
32 Ibid., p.23.
33 Ibid., p.8.
34 Ibid., p.9.
35 Ibid., p.10.
36 Ibid., p.12.
37 Fee, G. 1993, p.17.
38 Walter Wink, The Gospel in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study, Philadelphia, 1973, p.3.
39 David Allan Black, New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Michigan, 1991, p.24-25.
40 Donald Senior, C.P., What are they Saying About Matthew, New York/Ramsey, 1983, p. 6.
41 D. A. Carson, J. Douglas, L. Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992, p.71.
42 Ibid., p.76.
43 Ibid., p.76.
44 Joseph A Fitzmyer SJ, Scripture the Soul of Theology, Macarthur Boulevard Mahwah, 1994, p.32.
45 Walter Wink, The Gospel in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study, Philadelphia, 1973, p.12.
46 Ibid., p.4.
47 Duncan S. Ferguson, Biblical Hermeneutics, Atlanta, 1986, p.52.
48 Walter Wink, The Gospel in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study, Philadelphia, 1973, p.4..
49 Donald K. McKim, A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics, Grand Rapids, 1986, p.14.
50 John Painter, Theology as Hermeneutics: Rudolf Bultmann’s Interpretation of the History of Jesus, Sheffield England, 1987, p.33.
51 Donald K. McKim, A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics, Grand Rapids, 1986, p.16.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1987.
Black, David Allan. New Testament Criticism and Interpretation. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.
Carson, D. A.; Moo, Douglas J.; Morris, Leon. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992. reprint ed., Philippines: Professional Books OMF Literature Inc., 1998.
Davies, Margaret. Matthew New Bible Commentary. Sheffield England: Academic Press JOST, 1993.
Dobschutz, Einst Von. The Interpretation of Matthew: Issues in Religion and theology. SPCK, London and Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Fee, Gordon, and Stuart, Douglas. How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House Academic, 1981; reprint ed., Philippines: Professional Books OMF Literature Inc., 1993.
Ferguson, Duncan S. Biblical Hermeneutics. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986.
Fitzmyer SJ, Joseph A. Scripture the Soul of Theology. Macarthur Boulevard Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1994.
France, R. T. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985.
Green, Benedict H. The Gospel According to Matthew in the Revised Standard Version: A Commentary by H. Benedict Green. Oxford England: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Gunndry, Robert H. A Commentary on His Literature and Theological Art. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.
Guthrie, D. New Bible Commentary 3rd Edition. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970.
Johnson, Cedric B. The Psychology of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.
Kaiser, Walter C., and Silva, Moises. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994. Reprint ed., Philippines: Professional Books OMF Literature Inc., 1998.
Klein, William W.; Blomberg Craig L.; Hubbard Jr., Robert L. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas: Word Publishing House, 1993.
Longman III, Tremper. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books Zondervan Publishing House, 1987; Leicester, England: Apollos Press, 1987.
Malina, Bruce J., and Rohrbaugh, Richard L. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992.
Mc Arthur, Matthew: A Commentary on the Book of Matthew: Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1988.
McKim, D. K., A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics. Michigan: Grand Rapids Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.
Morison, James. Matthew Memoirs of Jesus Christ: A Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew 4th ed. London: 1875.
Osbourne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1991.
Painter, John. Theology as Hermeneutics: Rudolf Bultmann’s Interpretation of the History of Jesus. Sheffield England: The Almond Press, 1987.
Plummer. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. reprint., James Family Christian Publishers, copied from an original on loan from the Library of Cyril J. Barber. 1972.
Senior, C.P., Donald. What are they Saying About Matthew. New York/Ramsey: Paulist Press, 1983.
Stanton, Graham. The Interpretation of Matthew. New/York Ramsey: Fortress Press Philadelphia: 1983.
Strong, James LL.D. S.T.D. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.
Tenny, Merrill, C. New Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description with special reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer and Wittgenstein. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980.
Thompson, William G. Anacleta Biblica: Matthew’s Advice to a Divided Community
Westermann, Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Great Britain: The Lutterworth Press, 1991; Louisville, Kentucky: The Lutterworth Press Cambridge and Westminster/ John Know Press, 1991. reprint ed., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.
Wink, Walter. The Gospel in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973.