I won't do a full run down on the Book of Matthew. Everyone who reads this blog is already familiar with it. I did quite a bit of Bible study in my teen years but that knowledge is a bit dusty. On another note, I didn't use the King James version since I'm after clarity of message. What follows is a list of things that stood out for me.
1) The story of the divinity of Jesus rests on a few incidents, all of which Matthew covers. 1) He was born of a virgin. 2) He healed the sick and injured. 3) He died and was resurrected. There are many other details in which Jesus satisfies Old Testament prophecy. These were important in convincing fellow Jews that he was the Messiah but for the rest of the world, those three points are paramount.
2) The largest concentrated part of Jesus' message is certainly the Sermon on the Mount, which is found in Matthew. Part of the Sermon reaffirms the Old Testament but the full piece certainly builds on older understanding. The Beatitudes create a kind of religion for the underdog. I don't know if that was unique in the world but goes beyond the strict right and wrong of other philosophical readings we've done so far. (I'm sure I'll do a more full blog post on the Sermon.)
3) After Jesus collected the Apostles, he directed them to go only to the Jews. He wanted them convinced first.
4) He not only didn't promise an easy time, he went out of his way to tell his followers that they would suffer in his name.
5) Jesus tangled with the Pharisees on a few occasions. They wanted to trip him up with legalese but he always countered with higher truths.
6) He assured his disciples that 'some of those standing here will certainly not taste death till they have seen the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom'. They seemed certain that Judgment day would come and that right soon.
7) 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's'. I've often heard that used as an argument for seperating out religious and political spheres but now I'm not so sure. Frankly, I didn't quite understand that portion. (This may get its own blog post too.)
8) The account of Pilate is much more sympathetic than I remember. He truly didn't seem to want to give up Jesus. He understood that the charges were trumped up. Only because he feared a riot did he give him up, famously 'washing his hands' of him.
9) Only after the resurrection did Jesus tell the disciples to go forth to 'all nations' and convert them.
The story continues with Acts, of course.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
Biography of Augustine
Augustine was born in 354AD, in the north African town of Hippo Regius (which my brain wants to read as 'King Hippo'). He was quickly recoginized as brilliant and his family gave him the best education they possibly could. He became one of the most important theorists of the Catholic church but, interestingly enough, did so only after a very public conversion. Augustine is perhaps the most famous conversion to Christianity in history.
He had three famous and important works, all of which we'll read from in this project: 'Confessions', 'City of God' and 'On Christian Doctrine'. Augustine was one of the leading theorists in subjects like Original Sin and Just War Doctrine. He was one of the earliest to have the honor of being a 'doctor of the church', a title given to those whose advanced learning.
He returned to Hippo in later life and was a Bishop there. He died while the city was under siege from Vandals (actual Vandals). Apparently he asked that all of the books in the city be gathered into the library for safe keeping. When the Vandals burned the city they spared only the library and Augustine's Cathedral.
We'll return to Augustine several more times in the next ten years.
He had three famous and important works, all of which we'll read from in this project: 'Confessions', 'City of God' and 'On Christian Doctrine'. Augustine was one of the leading theorists in subjects like Original Sin and Just War Doctrine. He was one of the earliest to have the honor of being a 'doctor of the church', a title given to those whose advanced learning.
He returned to Hippo in later life and was a Bishop there. He died while the city was under siege from Vandals (actual Vandals). Apparently he asked that all of the books in the city be gathered into the library for safe keeping. When the Vandals burned the city they spared only the library and Augustine's Cathedral.
We'll return to Augustine several more times in the next ten years.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Authorship of Matthew and Acts
I asked my father, a former Bible college professor, for some info on the authorship of our two books of the Bible. I hope this may lure him into the comment section . . .
Introduction to Matthew
Nowhere does the first gospel name its author. The universal testimony of the early church beginning with Papias (c. A.D. 135) is that the apostle Matthew wrote it, and our earliest textual witnesses attribute it to him. If Papias is right, the theory of Matthew's authorship may receive gentle support from passages like 10:3, where on this theory the apostle refers to himself in a self-deprecating way not found in Mark or Luke.
At the broadest level we may say that Matthew's purpose is to demonstrate that (1) Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of God, the Son of Man, Immanuel; (2) many Jews, and especially the leaders, sinfully failed to perceive this during his ministry; (3) the messianic kingdom has already dawned, inaugurated by the life, ministry, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus; (4) this messianic reign, characterized by obedience to Jesus and consummated by his return, is the fulfillment of OT prophetic hopes; (5) the church, the community of those, both Jew and Gentile, who bow unqualifiedly to Jesus' authority, constitutes the true locus of the people of God and the witness to the world of the "gospel of the kingdom"; (6) throughout this age Jesus' true disciples must overcome temptation, endure persecution from a hostile world, witness to the truth of the Gospel, and live in deeply rooted submission to Jesus' ethical demands.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES — the one historical book of the New Testament, which traces the development of the early church after the ascension of Jesus. Standing between the Gospels and the Epistles, the Book of Acts is a bridge between the life of Jesus and the ministry of the apostle Paul. As such, it offers invaluable information about the development of the early church.
The title of Acts is somewhat misleading, for only a few of the apostles of Jesus are mentioned in the book. In reality, Acts relates some acts of some of the apostles, primarily Peter and Paul, and involves a time-span of about 32 years—from the ascension of Jesus (about a.d. 30) to Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (about a.d. 62)
Authorship and Date. There can be little doubt that the Book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke come from the same author. Each book is the length of a scroll (about 35 feet), and each is addressed to the same individual, Theophilus. The similarities between the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts in literary style, vocabulary, and theological ideas are unmistakable. Although the author does not identify himself by name, scholars have ascribed the authorship of both books to Luke, the companion of Paul.
Luke is a reliable historian, in part because of the sources he used. He was closely associated with many events of Paul’s mission, and this results in greater vividness in the latter half of Acts. At three places in Acts (16:10–17, 20:5–21:18, and 27:1—28:16) the narrative changes to the first person plural (“we”), indicating that Luke was personally present. Luke also may have had access to written documents (for example, the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15:23; or letters from early Christian leaders).
Introduction to Matthew
Nowhere does the first gospel name its author. The universal testimony of the early church beginning with Papias (c. A.D. 135) is that the apostle Matthew wrote it, and our earliest textual witnesses attribute it to him. If Papias is right, the theory of Matthew's authorship may receive gentle support from passages like 10:3, where on this theory the apostle refers to himself in a self-deprecating way not found in Mark or Luke.
At the broadest level we may say that Matthew's purpose is to demonstrate that (1) Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of God, the Son of Man, Immanuel; (2) many Jews, and especially the leaders, sinfully failed to perceive this during his ministry; (3) the messianic kingdom has already dawned, inaugurated by the life, ministry, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus; (4) this messianic reign, characterized by obedience to Jesus and consummated by his return, is the fulfillment of OT prophetic hopes; (5) the church, the community of those, both Jew and Gentile, who bow unqualifiedly to Jesus' authority, constitutes the true locus of the people of God and the witness to the world of the "gospel of the kingdom"; (6) throughout this age Jesus' true disciples must overcome temptation, endure persecution from a hostile world, witness to the truth of the Gospel, and live in deeply rooted submission to Jesus' ethical demands.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES — the one historical book of the New Testament, which traces the development of the early church after the ascension of Jesus. Standing between the Gospels and the Epistles, the Book of Acts is a bridge between the life of Jesus and the ministry of the apostle Paul. As such, it offers invaluable information about the development of the early church.
The title of Acts is somewhat misleading, for only a few of the apostles of Jesus are mentioned in the book. In reality, Acts relates some acts of some of the apostles, primarily Peter and Paul, and involves a time-span of about 32 years—from the ascension of Jesus (about a.d. 30) to Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (about a.d. 62)
Authorship and Date. There can be little doubt that the Book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke come from the same author. Each book is the length of a scroll (about 35 feet), and each is addressed to the same individual, Theophilus. The similarities between the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts in literary style, vocabulary, and theological ideas are unmistakable. Although the author does not identify himself by name, scholars have ascribed the authorship of both books to Luke, the companion of Paul.
Luke is a reliable historian, in part because of the sources he used. He was closely associated with many events of Paul’s mission, and this results in greater vividness in the latter half of Acts. At three places in Acts (16:10–17, 20:5–21:18, and 27:1—28:16) the narrative changes to the first person plural (“we”), indicating that Luke was personally present. Luke also may have had access to written documents (for example, the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15:23; or letters from early Christian leaders).
Friday, April 6, 2012
Good Friday
Our readings this month were something of a happy accident. Last month we got Caesar on the Ides of March, and this time we get the book of Matthew. The only other match that I can see for the rest of the year comes in November, when we have the Constitution of the United States along with a big election.
Anyway, I hope that everyone has a very good Holy weekend!
Anyway, I hope that everyone has a very good Holy weekend!
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
War Heroes for Leaders
(I'm not quite done with Plutarch yet!)
Both Alexander and Caesar gained political power through combat prowess. Espescially Caesar who used his triumphs to gain political fame and used the spoils of war to enrich his soldiers and followers. (And by the way, when I say 'triumph', I don't just mean a 'win'. A Roman triumph was a kind of victory parade that sanctified a military win.) This lead me to think about our modern way of choosing leaders.
In the 18th and 19th century, the United States chose a number of Presidents because of their war prowess. Washington, of course, and then Jackson and Grant are obvious examples, and there are many others. Once you get to the 20th century the war heroes start to thin out though. Of the men who gained fame through war and then became President, I count Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and JFK. Many others served, but those were the ones who I think best fit the category.
JFK was elected more than 50 years ago. We still hear generals names floated about not as seriously as in the past. I don't know if the national taste for 'warriors' has diminished, though I suspect it has. I also suspect that today's soldiers are more anonymous than they were in the past. Possibly the modern political party makes it harder for someone to take high office as a second career (though Obama's short political timeline contradicts this).
It may also be a quirk in timelines. I don't have any numbers before me but there are many returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan who are now running for seats in the House of Representatives. Maybe we'll have a string of them in the Presidency some time in the future. Who knows?
Both Alexander and Caesar gained political power through combat prowess. Espescially Caesar who used his triumphs to gain political fame and used the spoils of war to enrich his soldiers and followers. (And by the way, when I say 'triumph', I don't just mean a 'win'. A Roman triumph was a kind of victory parade that sanctified a military win.) This lead me to think about our modern way of choosing leaders.
In the 18th and 19th century, the United States chose a number of Presidents because of their war prowess. Washington, of course, and then Jackson and Grant are obvious examples, and there are many others. Once you get to the 20th century the war heroes start to thin out though. Of the men who gained fame through war and then became President, I count Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and JFK. Many others served, but those were the ones who I think best fit the category.
JFK was elected more than 50 years ago. We still hear generals names floated about not as seriously as in the past. I don't know if the national taste for 'warriors' has diminished, though I suspect it has. I also suspect that today's soldiers are more anonymous than they were in the past. Possibly the modern political party makes it harder for someone to take high office as a second career (though Obama's short political timeline contradicts this).
It may also be a quirk in timelines. I don't have any numbers before me but there are many returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan who are now running for seats in the House of Representatives. Maybe we'll have a string of them in the Presidency some time in the future. Who knows?
Monday, April 2, 2012
Author Timeline
BC
Aristophanes 446 - 386
Plato 424? - 348?
Aristotle 384 - 322
AD
Plutarch 46 - 120
Gospel of Matthew, Acts of the Apostles (around the end of the first century)
St. Augistine 354 - 430
Machiavelli 1469 - 1527
Rabelais 1494 - 1553
Montaigne 1533 - 1592
Shakespeare 1564 - 1616
Locke 1632 - 1704
Rousseau 1712 - 1778
Gibbon 1737 - 1794
Declaration of Independence - 1776
The Constitution of the US - 1787
Federalist Papers 1787 -1788
Smith 1723 - 1790
Marx/Engles 1818 - 1883/1820 - 1895
Aristophanes 446 - 386
Plato 424? - 348?
Aristotle 384 - 322
AD
Plutarch 46 - 120
Gospel of Matthew, Acts of the Apostles (around the end of the first century)
St. Augistine 354 - 430
Machiavelli 1469 - 1527
Rabelais 1494 - 1553
Montaigne 1533 - 1592
Shakespeare 1564 - 1616
Locke 1632 - 1704
Rousseau 1712 - 1778
Gibbon 1737 - 1794
Declaration of Independence - 1776
The Constitution of the US - 1787
Federalist Papers 1787 -1788
Smith 1723 - 1790
Marx/Engles 1818 - 1883/1820 - 1895
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)