Wednesday, February 17, 2021
0. To the reader. Notes
ttr.1. According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Bible commentary.
Monday, February 15, 2021
13. Should be salty. Notes
SBS.1. Apparently salt from the Dead Sea, being chemically impure, can lose its savor. (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Bible commentary.)
Friday, February 12, 2021
Jesus' purity vs. original sin
As we know from the extreme example of abused children themselves becoming abusive to others, sin is contagious. In fact, sin spreads very much like physical disease. The domino effect is so pervasive that no one avoids it during the course of his or her life.
Yet, I suggest, sin is also transmitted via spirits, and in particular via the spirits of people during the sex act. This theory has had many adherents, from Augustine (354-430), to Ambrose (340-397) to Barth (1886-1968), though it has fallen into disfavor in modern times. Yet I do not mean to say that sex during marriage is not ordained by God. On the other hand, pair-bond marriage is for the fallen, not the risen who are admitted to paradise, as we see from Matthew 22.
Matthew 22: 23-33
Similarly, when Martha was grieving over her brother Lazarus's death, Jesus says that those who trust him will never die, not that they will die and be resurrected. They already have life, whatever the condition of the body.
John 11::24-26
Recall that Jesus told us that if a person even looks at another person with lust, the heart is stained by sin. Yes, I realize that such feelings are natural — in this fallen world. During the sex act the male at least is experiencing some sort of intensity, and perhaps the female. At the point of conception, the soul is imparted to the new being. Whatever sin is staining each person may also stamp the new creation.
In fact, in some cases "lower" souls enter humanity this way; or possibly one of the biological parents already has a "lower" soul, thus tending to unconsciously "believe" a lower soul into existence. I am referring here to the souls of the "children of perdition" who, though human, are not truly made after the image of God. These are the tares that will be sifted out and destroyed when the time comes. They were never meant to be.
But even for those not born as tares, the imprint of sin is passed from one generation to the next in the human race.
These observations lead us to realize why the early church thought Jesus must have been born of a virgin. The natural seed of Adam was spiritually tainted. Jesus, as the new Adam, must begin life without taint. His mother Mary, pure in heart, did not experience lust during the act of conception. She was a meek vessel. The Holy Spirit assured that conception was indeed immaculate. Thus, a new beginning for humanity could occur, with a man who was born with no sin becoming a "man of sorrows, acquainted with grief" (Isaiah 53:3). In this conception, we have the son of God becoming a son of humanity (son of Man). God mercifully made his utterly innocent son into sin for our sakes. By taking the sin of humanity upon himself, he actually became a cesspool of sin on the cross. The "man of sorrows" was a "man of sin" for our sakes.
Of course, we may wonder: how is it that Mary was not tainted by the sin of Adam? But the point is that Mary experienced no carnal desire during a sex act, because there was no sex act. She did transmit her human nature to her son. Another point is that "God does not look upon sin" (paraphrase of Habakkuk 1:13 and of Paul's theology), so that whatever problems she may have had God overlooked, declining to see them as sinful. All this is speculation. The issue is that it was necessary, for our sakes, that a sinless man come into our fallen world so as to pay off the devil by submitting to a total injustice.
Some scholars see the infancy narratives as pious inventions rather than strict history. They were written, it is thought, in order to hone the theological point that Jesus was and is God the Son and not simply Son of God. We notice that, unlike Matthew and Luke, the John writer achieves this theological objective with his prelude, which identifies Jesus as the pre-existent Word.
Not only does John disclose nothing about Jesus' childhood, neither does the apostle Paul, whose conversion occurred only a few years after the crucifixion. Paul, in his voluminous writings, takes no notice of a virgin conception and birth.
Early "heretics" insisted that the spirit of Christ came to Jesus at his baptism and left him just before he was crucified. The church rightly saw this scenario as an attempt to strip the Christ of his true humanity. Some scholars think the infancy stories were written as part of a campaign to refute this doctrine.
An alternative to virgin conception that was overlooked is the idea that God can become one of his creatures, and, on so doing, extend into the past to make any sin into non-sin (in fact, that is what he does do with born-again Christians). So, Jesus could have been an ordinary human that God chose to be Messiah. Then, once that divine act had occurred, Jesus' life up to that time would have been made pure, and likewise that of his mother. In any case, Jesus would have to pay for even this transformation, I would assume, on the cross.
Of course, that scenario would have been seen as too complex for simple believers to cope with. And, it would have been virtually impossible to bring about agreement among church elders on such an idea.
But, whatever happened or did not happen with respect to Mary, Christ's sacrifice would have been worthless had he not been utterly blameless. Sin cannot save. Sin cannot heal. Sin can only make you sick and kill you. By suffering the outrageous injustice of judicial murder, Jesus was able to renew and revive humanity.
Yes, he was a man born of the Spirit. But his and the Father's gift to us is that we can also be born of the Spirit with no taint of sin. On account of Jesus, God does not look upon the "old man of sin" — our animalistic or carnal nature. So when the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit to remake our lowly spirits into a new creation, there is no sin during the process of being born again! We are now in with the In Crowd. No worries.
Though a born-again person should put Jesus first in his or her life, we all know that one may be truly born again and yet unable to tolerate the idea of not marrying. Jesus leaves the believer free to decide. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed (John 8:36).
In I Corinthians 7, we observe that it is Paul's personal opinion that if one partner in a marriage is born again but the other not, the other partner is nevertheless sanctified. God honors the marriage. That doesn't mean the non-believing partner will be saved; maybe not. In any case, we see that if God did not bless the marriage bond on behalf of the born-again partner, the children would be, according to Paul, "unclean." Implicitly, this suggests that children receive the imprint of the sin of parents who have yet to avail themselves of God's gracious forgiveness.
Matthew 19:3-11
Plus, would not any siblings born in the usual way be tainted with sex-transmitted original sin?
But the fact is that the gospels refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters, including James, the brother of Jesus, who led the Jerusalem church after the resurrection. The standard answer is that these were cousins or close neighbors who had grown up with him. So the conclusion is that we do not know whether Mary gave birth to other children by Joseph. I would say that I do not see a strong theological reason for denying that she bore other children.
And, if one questions the accuracy of the infancy narratives, the question remains open as to whether there was a virgin conception. But, again, God must have found some way to assure that Jesus was sinless as he approached the cross.
Yet, I suggest, sin is also transmitted via spirits, and in particular via the spirits of people during the sex act. This theory has had many adherents, from Augustine (354-430), to Ambrose (340-397) to Barth (1886-1968), though it has fallen into disfavor in modern times. Yet I do not mean to say that sex during marriage is not ordained by God. On the other hand, pair-bond marriage is for the fallen, not the risen who are admitted to paradise, as we see from Matthew 22.
Matthew 22: 23-33
23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,Notice that Jesus is implying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were already resurrected. The "day" of resurrection is Jesus himself.
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
Similarly, when Martha was grieving over her brother Lazarus's death, Jesus says that those who trust him will never die, not that they will die and be resurrected. They already have life, whatever the condition of the body.
John 11::24-26
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.In order for God to ransom us from our terrible captivity and from the grim fate of death, it was necessary that a deadly injustice be done to a sinless person. Who would God choose for that role other than someone with whom he was on very intimate terms? And yet no man who had Adam's spiritual seed in him could qualify. Why? Because sin is transmitted during the sex act between two people.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Recall that Jesus told us that if a person even looks at another person with lust, the heart is stained by sin. Yes, I realize that such feelings are natural — in this fallen world. During the sex act the male at least is experiencing some sort of intensity, and perhaps the female. At the point of conception, the soul is imparted to the new being. Whatever sin is staining each person may also stamp the new creation.
In fact, in some cases "lower" souls enter humanity this way; or possibly one of the biological parents already has a "lower" soul, thus tending to unconsciously "believe" a lower soul into existence. I am referring here to the souls of the "children of perdition" who, though human, are not truly made after the image of God. These are the tares that will be sifted out and destroyed when the time comes. They were never meant to be.
But even for those not born as tares, the imprint of sin is passed from one generation to the next in the human race.
These observations lead us to realize why the early church thought Jesus must have been born of a virgin. The natural seed of Adam was spiritually tainted. Jesus, as the new Adam, must begin life without taint. His mother Mary, pure in heart, did not experience lust during the act of conception. She was a meek vessel. The Holy Spirit assured that conception was indeed immaculate. Thus, a new beginning for humanity could occur, with a man who was born with no sin becoming a "man of sorrows, acquainted with grief" (Isaiah 53:3). In this conception, we have the son of God becoming a son of humanity (son of Man). God mercifully made his utterly innocent son into sin for our sakes. By taking the sin of humanity upon himself, he actually became a cesspool of sin on the cross. The "man of sorrows" was a "man of sin" for our sakes.
Of course, we may wonder: how is it that Mary was not tainted by the sin of Adam? But the point is that Mary experienced no carnal desire during a sex act, because there was no sex act. She did transmit her human nature to her son. Another point is that "God does not look upon sin" (paraphrase of Habakkuk 1:13 and of Paul's theology), so that whatever problems she may have had God overlooked, declining to see them as sinful. All this is speculation. The issue is that it was necessary, for our sakes, that a sinless man come into our fallen world so as to pay off the devil by submitting to a total injustice.
Some scholars see the infancy narratives as pious inventions rather than strict history. They were written, it is thought, in order to hone the theological point that Jesus was and is God the Son and not simply Son of God. We notice that, unlike Matthew and Luke, the John writer achieves this theological objective with his prelude, which identifies Jesus as the pre-existent Word.
Not only does John disclose nothing about Jesus' childhood, neither does the apostle Paul, whose conversion occurred only a few years after the crucifixion. Paul, in his voluminous writings, takes no notice of a virgin conception and birth.
Early "heretics" insisted that the spirit of Christ came to Jesus at his baptism and left him just before he was crucified. The church rightly saw this scenario as an attempt to strip the Christ of his true humanity. Some scholars think the infancy stories were written as part of a campaign to refute this doctrine.
An alternative to virgin conception that was overlooked is the idea that God can become one of his creatures, and, on so doing, extend into the past to make any sin into non-sin (in fact, that is what he does do with born-again Christians). So, Jesus could have been an ordinary human that God chose to be Messiah. Then, once that divine act had occurred, Jesus' life up to that time would have been made pure, and likewise that of his mother. In any case, Jesus would have to pay for even this transformation, I would assume, on the cross.
Of course, that scenario would have been seen as too complex for simple believers to cope with. And, it would have been virtually impossible to bring about agreement among church elders on such an idea.
But, whatever happened or did not happen with respect to Mary, Christ's sacrifice would have been worthless had he not been utterly blameless. Sin cannot save. Sin cannot heal. Sin can only make you sick and kill you. By suffering the outrageous injustice of judicial murder, Jesus was able to renew and revive humanity.
Yes, he was a man born of the Spirit. But his and the Father's gift to us is that we can also be born of the Spirit with no taint of sin. On account of Jesus, God does not look upon the "old man of sin" — our animalistic or carnal nature. So when the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit to remake our lowly spirits into a new creation, there is no sin during the process of being born again! We are now in with the In Crowd. No worries.
Though a born-again person should put Jesus first in his or her life, we all know that one may be truly born again and yet unable to tolerate the idea of not marrying. Jesus leaves the believer free to decide. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed (John 8:36).
In I Corinthians 7, we observe that it is Paul's personal opinion that if one partner in a marriage is born again but the other not, the other partner is nevertheless sanctified. God honors the marriage. That doesn't mean the non-believing partner will be saved; maybe not. In any case, we see that if God did not bless the marriage bond on behalf of the born-again partner, the children would be, according to Paul, "unclean." Implicitly, this suggests that children receive the imprint of the sin of parents who have yet to avail themselves of God's gracious forgiveness.
Matthew 19:3-11
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?1 Corinthians 7:1-16
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.We can understand why some Christian thinkers concluded that Mary must have remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. As the "Mother of God," they thought it inappropriate that she would have ever had carnal relations. And certainly one can point to New Testament references in which Jesus indicates that paradise's pleasures are better than sex, which is why people who have been deprived of sex have nothing to worry about.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Plus, would not any siblings born in the usual way be tainted with sex-transmitted original sin?
But the fact is that the gospels refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters, including James, the brother of Jesus, who led the Jerusalem church after the resurrection. The standard answer is that these were cousins or close neighbors who had grown up with him. So the conclusion is that we do not know whether Mary gave birth to other children by Joseph. I would say that I do not see a strong theological reason for denying that she bore other children.
And, if one questions the accuracy of the infancy narratives, the question remains open as to whether there was a virgin conception. But, again, God must have found some way to assure that Jesus was sinless as he approached the cross.
Monday, February 1, 2021
Shorthand note. see ND.k3 for a transcription
Author's note for his future reference: If you wish to know what it says, email me.
53. Surprise! Notes
S.1. Some believe
Luke
was referring to a village about 20 miles west of Jerusalem, though
Luke
says the place is 60 stadia away, which is about 7 miles.
S.1a.The earliest Mark manuscripts end at this point, possibly because the original ending was lost. Another possibility is that the Marcan writer thought the empty tomb ending sufficed. His book gives enough information to draw a person to put faith in Jesus. No one can believe in Jesus without God's help. So the writer may have thought a fuller ending unnecessary. But the other gospel writers give fuller, if somewhat conflicting, accounts.
In any case, we should not take too literally the report that the women said nothing to anyone. Otherwise, how did the writer learn what happened? What we may assume is that they did not, in Mark's version, rush to find the disciples right away.
S.1a.The earliest Mark manuscripts end at this point, possibly because the original ending was lost. Another possibility is that the Marcan writer thought the empty tomb ending sufficed. His book gives enough information to draw a person to put faith in Jesus. No one can believe in Jesus without God's help. So the writer may have thought a fuller ending unnecessary. But the other gospel writers give fuller, if somewhat conflicting, accounts.
In any case, we should not take too literally the report that the women said nothing to anyone. Otherwise, how did the writer learn what happened? What we may assume is that they did not, in Mark's version, rush to find the disciples right away.
52. Crucifixion. Notes
C.1. Information on Cyrene comes from a Wikipedia article:
https://archive.vn/9X8FR
C.h1. Some think that Mark liked to use Aramaic here and there for the dramatic effect it had on Greek speakers. One idea is that Jesus cried out in Hebrew because Eli is Hebrew for my God as well as for the short form of Elijah. The Greek text of Matthew uses Eli rather than the Aramaic Eloi. Yet, I would argue, that it appears that Matthew borrowed this scene from Mark, polishing it in his own way. In my estimate, bystanders could easily have mistaken Eloi for Elijah.
I suspect that the Marcan writer used Aramaic in this case to make clear the puzzlement of the hearers. In other cases he uses Aramaic to help underscore the reality of miracles. The miracle was so impressive that Jesus' exact words were remembered! I have generally not reproduced these Aramaisms, preferring for my purpose the meaning of what Jesus was saying.
Two Aramaisms used by Mark are talitha kumi, the words spoken by Jesus as he revived a dead little girl, and ephphatha, which was uttered by Jesus as he opened the ears of a deaf man.
Moreover, I note that the fact that the accepted Greek text of Matthew prefers a Hebraism may reflect the shift from Aramaic to proper Hebrew that occurred among Jews during the second major revolt against Rome in the Second Century on orders of the revolution's leader, Bar Kochba. That is, an earlier Matthew may have been corrected in conformity with that language shift.
C.h2. In the ancient Near East, according to some scholars, rich people were very often seen as wicked. Certainly in the case of Palestine under foreign domination, many collaborators became overly affluent. In addition, we may recall the prophetic condemnation of those well-to-do persons who savagely plundered the poor, a condemnation repeated by Jesus.
Isaiah 53:9 gives a typical Bible doublet, in which "rich" is synonymous with "wicked."
The fact that Joseph was not regarded as wicked does not devalue the prophetic fulfillment of the verse in the eyes of many Christians, Certainly the criminals who were being put to death alongside Jesus can be viewed as fulfillment of the other half of the doublet.
Isaiah 53:9
C.h1. Some think that Mark liked to use Aramaic here and there for the dramatic effect it had on Greek speakers. One idea is that Jesus cried out in Hebrew because Eli is Hebrew for my God as well as for the short form of Elijah. The Greek text of Matthew uses Eli rather than the Aramaic Eloi. Yet, I would argue, that it appears that Matthew borrowed this scene from Mark, polishing it in his own way. In my estimate, bystanders could easily have mistaken Eloi for Elijah.
I suspect that the Marcan writer used Aramaic in this case to make clear the puzzlement of the hearers. In other cases he uses Aramaic to help underscore the reality of miracles. The miracle was so impressive that Jesus' exact words were remembered! I have generally not reproduced these Aramaisms, preferring for my purpose the meaning of what Jesus was saying.
Two Aramaisms used by Mark are talitha kumi, the words spoken by Jesus as he revived a dead little girl, and ephphatha, which was uttered by Jesus as he opened the ears of a deaf man.
Moreover, I note that the fact that the accepted Greek text of Matthew prefers a Hebraism may reflect the shift from Aramaic to proper Hebrew that occurred among Jews during the second major revolt against Rome in the Second Century on orders of the revolution's leader, Bar Kochba. That is, an earlier Matthew may have been corrected in conformity with that language shift.
C.h2. In the ancient Near East, according to some scholars, rich people were very often seen as wicked. Certainly in the case of Palestine under foreign domination, many collaborators became overly affluent. In addition, we may recall the prophetic condemnation of those well-to-do persons who savagely plundered the poor, a condemnation repeated by Jesus.
Isaiah 53:9 gives a typical Bible doublet, in which "rich" is synonymous with "wicked."
The fact that Joseph was not regarded as wicked does not devalue the prophetic fulfillment of the verse in the eyes of many Christians, Certainly the criminals who were being put to death alongside Jesus can be viewed as fulfillment of the other half of the doublet.
Isaiah 53:9
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
51. Trial. Notes
T.1.
Daniel 7:13
T.2. Some have become entangled on whether cock crow was an idiom for an official time signal (hour-glass?). I doubt it. Most likely Jesus knew in the Spirit that a cock would be within earshot. Have you ever been awakened near dawn by a rooster? These birds often crow more than once.
T.z1.
Zechariah 11:12-13
T.y1. Antipas was a nickname. Formally, his name was Antipater.
T.w1. Pilate, being quite familiar with Jewish culture, may have been evoking Deuteronomy 21:1-8, which prescribes handwashing in the case of a murder when the killer is unknown. The elders of the city nearest to where the corpse is found must wash their hands, declaring, “Our hands did not shed this blood.” (We may fairly assume that any man who lied during such a ritual would have been marked by Jehovah for punishment.)
Daniel 7:13
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
T.2. Some have become entangled on whether cock crow was an idiom for an official time signal (hour-glass?). I doubt it. Most likely Jesus knew in the Spirit that a cock would be within earshot. Have you ever been awakened near dawn by a rooster? These birds often crow more than once.
T.z1.
Zechariah 11:12-13
12 And I said to them: "If you think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear." So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver.
13 And Jehovah said to me: "Cast it into the treasury, the goodly price that I was prized at of them." And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the treasury, in the house of Jehovah.
T.y1. Antipas was a nickname. Formally, his name was Antipater.
T.w1. Pilate, being quite familiar with Jewish culture, may have been evoking Deuteronomy 21:1-8, which prescribes handwashing in the case of a murder when the killer is unknown. The elders of the city nearest to where the corpse is found must wash their hands, declaring, “Our hands did not shed this blood.” (We may fairly assume that any man who lied during such a ritual would have been marked by Jehovah for punishment.)
50. Last supper. Notes
LS.1.
Zechariah 13:7
LS.2.
Isaiah 53:12
LS.z1. These verses appear in Luke 22:43-44:
On the other hand, I can easily accept that the youth did see, by the light of a full or nearly full moon, bloody sweat rolling off Jesus' face. The bloody sweat phenomenon is rare, but has been documented medically.
LS.z2. Sometime after the vernal equinox, as the moon neared its full phase, Jerusalem religious authorities would announce the precise seven days of the Passover feast.
Please see the article by Rabbi Menachem Posner, staff editor at Chabad.org, "the world’s largest Jewish informational website."
Posner article
https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/495531/jewish/How-Does-the-Spring-Equinox-Relate-to-the-Timing-of-Passover.htm
If Jesus and the disciples, probably along with many other pilgrims, were going strictly by the moon, one can imagine that they saw the night of the full moon as the "real" Passover, as distinct from an "official" first Passover day possibly set by the Temple authorities.
But, if the Gethsemane scene occurred a night or two before the full moon, there still would have been plenty of light – assuming a clear night – by which Jesus' face could have been observed.
LS.zz1. Just as it is apparent that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is drawn from a collection of the sayings of Jesus, it is quite plausible that John's "sermons" given by Jesus just before the crucifixion are drawn from collections of Christ's sayings to which that writer had access.
Zechariah 13:7
Awake, sword, against my shepherd, and against the man who is close to me, says All Powerful Jehovah: smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. And I will turn my hand against the little ones.
LS.2.
Isaiah 53:12
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
LS.z1. These verses appear in Luke 22:43-44:
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.The Bible scholar Bruce M. Metzger (2005) writes:
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
These verses are absent from some of the oldest and best witnesses, including the majority of the Alexandrian manuscripts. It is striking that the earliest witnesses attesting the verses are three Church fathers – Justin, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus – each of whom uses the verses in order to counter Christological views that maintained that Jesus was not a full human who experienced the full range of human sufferings. It may well be that the verses were added to the text for just this reason, in opposition to those who held to a [heretical] docetic Christology.Though it is certainly possible that an angel appeared and comforted Jesus, one wonders where the information came from. Had the disciples seen an angel, would not they have been terrified, and similarly for the boy who was lurking nearby?
On the other hand, I can easily accept that the youth did see, by the light of a full or nearly full moon, bloody sweat rolling off Jesus' face. The bloody sweat phenomenon is rare, but has been documented medically.
LS.z2. Sometime after the vernal equinox, as the moon neared its full phase, Jerusalem religious authorities would announce the precise seven days of the Passover feast.
Please see the article by Rabbi Menachem Posner, staff editor at Chabad.org, "the world’s largest Jewish informational website."
Posner article
https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/495531/jewish/How-Does-the-Spring-Equinox-Relate-to-the-Timing-of-Passover.htm
If Jesus and the disciples, probably along with many other pilgrims, were going strictly by the moon, one can imagine that they saw the night of the full moon as the "real" Passover, as distinct from an "official" first Passover day possibly set by the Temple authorities.
But, if the Gethsemane scene occurred a night or two before the full moon, there still would have been plenty of light – assuming a clear night – by which Jesus' face could have been observed.
LS.zz1. Just as it is apparent that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is drawn from a collection of the sayings of Jesus, it is quite plausible that John's "sermons" given by Jesus just before the crucifixion are drawn from collections of Christ's sayings to which that writer had access.
49. Good shepherd. Notes
GS.1.
Psalm 82
He calls attention to the fact that powerful people are among those who don't realize that they should have eternal life but, because of their selfishness, will miss out.
Jesus is pointing out that this psalm makes humans a part of God. The psalm is not to be taken as only metaphorical.
Psalm 82
1 God stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods.The psalmist appears to know that humans are born in the image of God, as were Adam and Eve. They are his children. But in their fallen condition, they are alienated from him and will die.
2 How long will you judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy; rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are out of course.6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.7 But you will die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for you will inherit all peoples.
He calls attention to the fact that powerful people are among those who don't realize that they should have eternal life but, because of their selfishness, will miss out.
Jesus is pointing out that this psalm makes humans a part of God. The psalm is not to be taken as only metaphorical.
47. Trouble ahead. Notes
TA.b1.
A discussion by David Bayliss on the word generation
A discussion by David Bayliss on the word generation
http://www.dabhand.org/Word%20Studies/Generation.htm
TA.b2. Herod's Temple had a "most startling appearance, more like a modern skyscraper than any known building of antiquity," according to A.H.M. Jones in his The Herods of Judaea (Oxford 1938). He goes on,
TA.b2. Herod's Temple had a "most startling appearance, more like a modern skyscraper than any known building of antiquity," according to A.H.M. Jones in his The Herods of Judaea (Oxford 1938). He goes on,
No expense was spared in the materials of the structure or in its decoration. It was built after the manner of many Syrian temples — Baalbek is a striking example which still survives — of huge blocks of stone; Josephus gives as typical dimensions of a single block 45 by 6 by 5 cubits. The stone employed was a brilliant white marble; Josephus compares the general aspect of the building seen at a distance to a mountain covered with snow. The east front of the Holy Place was plated with gold which reflected the rays of the rising sun with dazzling splendour. The great folding doors of the Holy Place were likewise plated with gold, and across them was drawn a magnificent embroidered veil whose four colours typified the four elements. Over the doorway hung a giant golden vine — replacing that which Aristobulus had given to Pompey — whose clusters were as large as men. The temple stood in the middle of a complex of courts. To the east of it lay the great altar of sacrifice, a cubical edifice 15 cubits each way, built, according to the prescriptions of the Law, of unhewn stone, and approached by a ramp — steps were forbidden. The temple and the altar were enclosed by a low balustrade a cubit high. The space enclosed by this balustrade was known as the Court of the Priests, and no layman might enter it except in order to sacrifice. This Court of the Priests lay within the Court of Israel, to which male Israelites alone had access, and adjoining the Court of Israel on the east on a slightly lower level was the smaller Court of the Women, beyond which Israelite women might not penetrate. These two courts were surrounded by walls 25 cubits high, pierced at intervals by gates, three on the north and on the south of the Court of Israel, one on the north and one on the south of the Court of the Women, one in the centre of the party wall between the courts, and one larger and more magnificent than the rest in the east wall of the Court of the Women. The gates took the form of towers, projecting inwards into the courts. The intervals between them along the inner sides of the boundary wall were colonnades, off which opened a series of chambers, store-rooms for the material needed for sacrifice, a bakehouse for the shewbread, treasuries, administrative offices, and so forth; in one of these the Sanhedrin held its sessions. The whole block of buildings hitherto described stood on a raised platform. From the gates one descended by flights of five steps to a broad walk, 10 cubits wide, which surrounded the whole complex except on the west or back side, and from this walk a continuous range of fourteen steps led down to ground level. At the foot of the steps ran a boundary wall, pierced at intervals with doors and set with stone pillars bearing inscriptions in Greek and Latin, proclaiming the penalty of death to any Gentile who should venture to pass beyond it.
For these buildings, being of a less sacrosanct character, Herod was able to adopt a more orthodox architectural style. The colonnades seem to have been built in the regular classical orders, the gates probably followed the normal form of a classical propylaea; Josephus expatiates [writes in detail] on the exhedrae [hall] which flanked the entranceway and the huge columns which carried their inner architraves. But it was upon the outer court, to which Gentiles were admitted, that Herod lavished his magnificence. The sacred enclosure proper stood in the middle of a yet larger enclosure. Before Herod began his operations this enclosure had been roughly square, measuring 200 yards each way. Herod almost doubled its area, extend ing it southwards till it assumed an oblong shape. This work was enormously expensive, since it involved building out huge substructures on the sloping southern front of the temple hill. The final result was most impressive, the temple platform standing out with sheer outer walls on its south, east, and west sides. All round the enlarged outer core Herod built huge colonnades. The west, north, and east colonnades were double; the columns were 25 cubits high. Along the south side, on the extreme edge of the platform which he had constructed, he built the yet more magnificent Royal Colonnade. It had three aisles and four ranges of columns, the fourth range being engaged with the back wall. The lateral aisles were 30 feet wide and 50 feet high; the central aisle was half as wide again and double the height The shafts of the columns were throughout monoliths of white marble, 5 feet in diameter and 40 in height: the capitals were in the Corinthian order. The ceilings were in cedar wood, coffered and richly carved and covered with gold leaf.
Herod had surpassed the mythical glories of Solomon.
44. A joyful noise. Notes
MJN.p2. At this time and for a few years after, many non-Jews would attend Jewish synagogues in search of a more spiritual life. A number of rabbis were eager missionaries among the Gentiles, seeking to win converts to Judaism. But, as Rome became increasingly militant against the Jews, proselytism was strongly discouraged.
Further, the Pharisees forbade Jews to accept Christ. This had the effect of ensuring that most Christians were Gentile, thus toppling the bridge of understanding that linked Gentile Christians with their Jewish forebears. And, the Jewish Christians who had been excommunicated from Jewish society by the Pharisees did not hide their feelings.
As Christianity caught fire among the Romans, despite ferocious attempts to suppress it, the new doctrine soon overshadowed Judaism, which was destined to remain in the wings socially.
These various pressures ensured that Judaism, as defined by the Pharisees, turned inward. Jews were taught to shun proselytism as a response to the hard facts of life under the Romans and later under the Christian kings and popes.
As this state of affairs lasted some two millenia, the unofficial ban on proselytism became a fixed point of Jewish culture in its various adaptations, and remains a fixed point today.
From a born-again person's perspective, proselytism by religions or denominations isn't of much value. The Savior is not a religion. He is the Savior, someone we must come to know on a personal basis.
MJN. rr1. Jesus is quoting Psalm 8:2 in the Septuagint Greek translation of Scriptures, a translation reportedly widely used among Palestinian Jews of the time period.
The children's shouting occurred in the courtyard known both as the Treasury and the Court of the Women, according to plausible reporting.
Leen Ritmyer
https://www.ritmeyer.com/2015/05/15/the-treasury-of-the-temple-in-jerusalem/
Bible History
https://www.bible-history.com/court-of-women/the_temple_treasury.html
MJN.rr2.
At this point, Matthew and Luke add that "whoever falls on this stone will be broken in pieces, but whomever it falls on will be pulverized and blown away." But not all ancient Matthean manuscripts have that verse. Whether Luke's writer included it originally, or whether an editor later added it, is difficult to say. I view the verse as a Christian commentary; we cannot say that the verse was intended as a direct quotation of Jesus, though that is a possibility.
MJN.rr3.
This story is recorded only by Matthew. It certainly sounds like something Jesus might have said, though we cannot be sure he spoke such a parable at that time. We may split hairs and point out that apparently dinner was kept waiting while the army attacked a city. But the Matthean writer was more interested in the point he was making, which is why the parable is placed shortly before Jesus' execution.
That point is that Judaism was about to be forsaken, with God's kingdom enjoyed by the poor and the wretched, whether Jew or Gentile. Worldly Jews, many of whom put on a pious front, would be excluded from the wedding feast. The Romans would come and destroy their city, Jerusalem. And the writer makes sure to get in a word about nominal Christians, whether false prophets or simple bench-warmers. Saying you are Christian is not enough. You must believe in your heart in Jesus as savior. Lip service will land you in outer darkness.
MJN.rr4.
Mark and Luke both have "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." I have found one Matthew version which indicates that the Greek has "God is not of the dead, but of the living." Though the Marcan verses are probably the earliest, we know that both Mark and Luke were addressing many Gentiles. But I suspect that it is possible that Matthew's writer, who spoke Aramaic, intuited the probable original words of Jesus. The more subtle reading of this Matthean variant might be read to imply that the realm of death is not of God. Where God is, there is life. Further, where death is, there is Satan. Before Satan brought about the Fall, there was no death.
In any case, we see that Jesus is rebuking the Sadducees for splitting hairs over a concept they know nothing about because they are playing logic games rather than trying to gain divine insight into what Scripture really means.
Once Jesus was resurrected, eternal life came to everyone who would trust him – with all the heart, mind and strength. That is their resurrection. Though other biblical passage may seem to contradict that point, I suggest that such mysteries will resolve as we progress in our walks with Jesus.
MJN.rr5.
Jesus was referring to the interpretation of Scriptures that point to a Deliverer of Israel who is to be a descendant of David.
Psalm 110 in its entirety presents a vision of a future Messiah king, one with enormous power. In addition that Messiah is to be a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," which refers to a priest king mentioned in Genesis 14:18–20.
The New Testament book of Hebrews points out that this means that the Messiah shows up abruptly, "out of nowhere" so to speak, and is not beholden to the Jewish priestly caste system. Interestingly, Melchizedek means something like My Lord is righteousness.
In any case, it is apparent that David required a Deliverer, who is the second lord mentioned.
The text that Jesus was probably quoting comes from the Septuagint, a translation of Hebrew Scriptures made by Jews residing in Alexandria, Egypt. For reasons of piety, they would not render the tetragrammaton, the four letters representing God's name, into a Gentile language. Thus where the Hebrew has YHVH (or YHWH) – which is often rendered Jehovah or Yahweh – the Greek simply has kyrios (= Lord).[See MJN.qx3 below.] The King James Bible handles this situation by using all uppercase letters in LORD, which tells the knowledgeable reader that the name Jehovah is meant.
But making the text read "Jehovah said to my lord" does not reduce the paradox noted by Jesus. Why would David call this mighty Messiah king lord if this awaited Messiah is to be one of David's descendants?
By this teaching, Jesus showed that the expected Messiah was to be more than God's man of the hour. He was already existing with God before being born among men. Nevertheless, Jesus did not boast to the crowd that he was the Messiah.
This teaching also shows that spiritual descent from God's chosen man, David, is what counts [see MJN.dc1 and MJN.dc2 below]. This is how the Messiah can be descended from David and David descended from the Messiah. Physical descent, which is of the flesh, matters a little, perhaps, but very little. Yet we note that at about a.d. 58, Paul, in Romans 3:1, uses the formula, "The gospel concerning [God's] son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh."
Moreover this teaching appears to challenge what may have been a common thought: that the son of David and the son of God were two different individuals.
MJN.rr6.
Matthew recalls other teachings that are appropriate:
When Jesus urges people to avoid accepting titles such as Rabbi (=Teacher), he is urging them to avoid the tendency to sanctimoniousness that such flattery encourages. Stay low. Jesus was often addressed as "rabbi/teacher," but he never gave himself that title, though he certainly fulfilled that role.
Ostentatious behavior had no appeal for Jesus. What is the point of wearing a sumptuous phylactery (leather box containing Hebrew texts)? The phylactery, as a reminder to keep the Mosaic law, is meant as an aid to spirituality, not as a means of flaunting wealth. Similarly, what is the reason for wearing clothing that shouts "I am rich!" to every passerby? The literal Matthean text says that these individuals "enlarged the borders of their garments." In a day when clothing was expensive (no industrial looms), large collars, cuffs and hem borders were a sign that the wearer had money to burn on the extra cloth – something that was far from true for the impoverished masses.
MJN.1.
Isaiah 62:11
MJN.x0.
Psalm 69:9
MJN.x1.
Isaiah 56:7
MJN.x2.
Jeremiah 7:11
MJN.w1. Psalm 118:22,23
MJN.w2. Wikipedia says of a denarius featuring Tiberius: The inscription on the obverse reads Ti[berivs] Caesar Divi Avg[vsti] F[ilivs] Avgvstvs ("Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus"), and the reverse reads Pontif[ex] Maxim[us] ("Highest Priest").
MJN.z1. From Pontius Pilate – Portraits of a Roman Governor by Warren Carter (Liturgical Press/Michael Glazier 2003).
MJN.r1. Deuteronomy 6:4-5.
The Hebrew text translates as Yahweh Elohim Yahweh echad. The slogan lacks verbs and so can be understood in various ways, which, however, are all closely related.
For the early Hebrews, Elohim meant the gods. Yahweh (or Jehovah) was seen as the god that protected the Israelite tribespeople. Later, the tribes came to understand that Jehovah was the only God, that all others were illusions. So the plural term "gods" came to take on the idea of singularity. That is, though one literally said "gods," everyone heard "God." In modern American English, we make the word sports a singular, even though it was formerly a plural.
I believe the purpose of the slogan was to encourage monotheism among Hebrew tribespeople, many of whom were polytheistic. The slogan was probably devised when Deuteronomy was written, soon after the return of the exiles to Judaea in the Persian era. The exiles had evidently absorbed and adapted the monotheism of the Zoroastrians, and saw the polytheism of the pre-exilic tribes as a major reason for the national disaster at the hands of the Assyrian and the second Babylonian empires.
I take the slogan to have meant something close to: "Jehovah and the gods = Jehovah."
MJN.r2. Leviticus 19:18.
MJN.wz1. What Do We Know About Pontius Pilate? by Simon Webb (Langley Press 2018).
MJN.wz2. Nine years later Rome's resort city of Pompei was annihilated by an eruption of Vesuvius. Was this a case of Rome reaping what it had sown?
MJN. 1.
Psalm 110:1-7
MJN.qx2.
Hebrews 7:1-7
MJN.qx3.
Septuagint Psalm 109:1 (=our 110:1)
MJN.pf1. Did the author of Mark indeed compose his book in Rome for a Latin-speaking audience? It is interesting that Mark gives the value of the Greek lepton in terms of the Roman quadrans (literally, quarter), though the Greek word for quarter – kodrantes (as in quadrant) – is used. So we are left to wonder whether the book was first written in Latin and then translated into Greek for use in the Greek-speaking Eastern part of the Roman Empire.
MJN.tx1. King Herod had, 46 years earlier, greatly expanded the Second Temple, and its improvement had been continued since that time. In a.d. 70, the Romans destroyed it.
MJN.dc1. See Raymond E. Brown (Birth of the Messiah, Doubleday/Image 1979) below:
But Brown goes on to argue that relatives of Jesus would have thrown cold water on claims that Jesus was a Davidid if they were false. Would "James the Brother of Jesus," who led the Jerusalem church before his martyrdom in the sixth decade of the First Century, have permitted such talk? Brown wonders.
MJN.dc2. Brown says further in Appendix II of Birth of the Messiah:
Further, the Pharisees forbade Jews to accept Christ. This had the effect of ensuring that most Christians were Gentile, thus toppling the bridge of understanding that linked Gentile Christians with their Jewish forebears. And, the Jewish Christians who had been excommunicated from Jewish society by the Pharisees did not hide their feelings.
As Christianity caught fire among the Romans, despite ferocious attempts to suppress it, the new doctrine soon overshadowed Judaism, which was destined to remain in the wings socially.
These various pressures ensured that Judaism, as defined by the Pharisees, turned inward. Jews were taught to shun proselytism as a response to the hard facts of life under the Romans and later under the Christian kings and popes.
As this state of affairs lasted some two millenia, the unofficial ban on proselytism became a fixed point of Jewish culture in its various adaptations, and remains a fixed point today.
From a born-again person's perspective, proselytism by religions or denominations isn't of much value. The Savior is not a religion. He is the Savior, someone we must come to know on a personal basis.
MJN. rr1. Jesus is quoting Psalm 8:2 in the Septuagint Greek translation of Scriptures, a translation reportedly widely used among Palestinian Jews of the time period.
The children's shouting occurred in the courtyard known both as the Treasury and the Court of the Women, according to plausible reporting.
Leen Ritmyer
https://www.ritmeyer.com/2015/05/15/the-treasury-of-the-temple-in-jerusalem/
Bible History
https://www.bible-history.com/court-of-women/the_temple_treasury.html
MJN.rr2.
At this point, Matthew and Luke add that "whoever falls on this stone will be broken in pieces, but whomever it falls on will be pulverized and blown away." But not all ancient Matthean manuscripts have that verse. Whether Luke's writer included it originally, or whether an editor later added it, is difficult to say. I view the verse as a Christian commentary; we cannot say that the verse was intended as a direct quotation of Jesus, though that is a possibility.
MJN.rr3.
This story is recorded only by Matthew. It certainly sounds like something Jesus might have said, though we cannot be sure he spoke such a parable at that time. We may split hairs and point out that apparently dinner was kept waiting while the army attacked a city. But the Matthean writer was more interested in the point he was making, which is why the parable is placed shortly before Jesus' execution.
That point is that Judaism was about to be forsaken, with God's kingdom enjoyed by the poor and the wretched, whether Jew or Gentile. Worldly Jews, many of whom put on a pious front, would be excluded from the wedding feast. The Romans would come and destroy their city, Jerusalem. And the writer makes sure to get in a word about nominal Christians, whether false prophets or simple bench-warmers. Saying you are Christian is not enough. You must believe in your heart in Jesus as savior. Lip service will land you in outer darkness.
MJN.rr4.
Mark and Luke both have "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." I have found one Matthew version which indicates that the Greek has "God is not of the dead, but of the living." Though the Marcan verses are probably the earliest, we know that both Mark and Luke were addressing many Gentiles. But I suspect that it is possible that Matthew's writer, who spoke Aramaic, intuited the probable original words of Jesus. The more subtle reading of this Matthean variant might be read to imply that the realm of death is not of God. Where God is, there is life. Further, where death is, there is Satan. Before Satan brought about the Fall, there was no death.
In any case, we see that Jesus is rebuking the Sadducees for splitting hairs over a concept they know nothing about because they are playing logic games rather than trying to gain divine insight into what Scripture really means.
Once Jesus was resurrected, eternal life came to everyone who would trust him – with all the heart, mind and strength. That is their resurrection. Though other biblical passage may seem to contradict that point, I suggest that such mysteries will resolve as we progress in our walks with Jesus.
MJN.rr5.
Jesus was referring to the interpretation of Scriptures that point to a Deliverer of Israel who is to be a descendant of David.
Psalm 110 in its entirety presents a vision of a future Messiah king, one with enormous power. In addition that Messiah is to be a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," which refers to a priest king mentioned in Genesis 14:18–20.
The New Testament book of Hebrews points out that this means that the Messiah shows up abruptly, "out of nowhere" so to speak, and is not beholden to the Jewish priestly caste system. Interestingly, Melchizedek means something like My Lord is righteousness.
In any case, it is apparent that David required a Deliverer, who is the second lord mentioned.
The text that Jesus was probably quoting comes from the Septuagint, a translation of Hebrew Scriptures made by Jews residing in Alexandria, Egypt. For reasons of piety, they would not render the tetragrammaton, the four letters representing God's name, into a Gentile language. Thus where the Hebrew has YHVH (or YHWH) – which is often rendered Jehovah or Yahweh – the Greek simply has kyrios (= Lord).[See MJN.qx3 below.] The King James Bible handles this situation by using all uppercase letters in LORD, which tells the knowledgeable reader that the name Jehovah is meant.
But making the text read "Jehovah said to my lord" does not reduce the paradox noted by Jesus. Why would David call this mighty Messiah king lord if this awaited Messiah is to be one of David's descendants?
By this teaching, Jesus showed that the expected Messiah was to be more than God's man of the hour. He was already existing with God before being born among men. Nevertheless, Jesus did not boast to the crowd that he was the Messiah.
This teaching also shows that spiritual descent from God's chosen man, David, is what counts [see MJN.dc1 and MJN.dc2 below]. This is how the Messiah can be descended from David and David descended from the Messiah. Physical descent, which is of the flesh, matters a little, perhaps, but very little. Yet we note that at about a.d. 58, Paul, in Romans 3:1, uses the formula, "The gospel concerning [God's] son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh."
Moreover this teaching appears to challenge what may have been a common thought: that the son of David and the son of God were two different individuals.
MJN.rr6.
Matthew recalls other teachings that are appropriate:
Call no one on earth your father. For you have one father,Of course, Jesus would not have added "the Messiah." But he may have said that we have only one master, meaning God. Later, Christians realized that since Jesus represents God in every respect, then the Messiah (=Christ) is to be our master (the one who is in control).
your heavenly father.
Don't be called masters, for one is your master: the Messiah.
When Jesus urges people to avoid accepting titles such as Rabbi (=Teacher), he is urging them to avoid the tendency to sanctimoniousness that such flattery encourages. Stay low. Jesus was often addressed as "rabbi/teacher," but he never gave himself that title, though he certainly fulfilled that role.
Ostentatious behavior had no appeal for Jesus. What is the point of wearing a sumptuous phylactery (leather box containing Hebrew texts)? The phylactery, as a reminder to keep the Mosaic law, is meant as an aid to spirituality, not as a means of flaunting wealth. Similarly, what is the reason for wearing clothing that shouts "I am rich!" to every passerby? The literal Matthean text says that these individuals "enlarged the borders of their garments." In a day when clothing was expensive (no industrial looms), large collars, cuffs and hem borders were a sign that the wearer had money to burn on the extra cloth – something that was far from true for the impoverished masses.
MJN.1.
Isaiah 62:11
Behold, the Lord has proclaimed out to the limits of the world, Say to the daughter of Zion, Behold, your salvation comes; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your king comes to you: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding on an ass, and on a colt the foal of an ass.
MJN.x0.
Psalm 69:9
For the zeal of your house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproached you have fallen on me.
MJN.x1.
Isaiah 56:7
I will I bring [foreigners] to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted upon my altar – for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people
MJN.x2.
Jeremiah 7:11
Does this house, which bears my name, look to you like a cave of robbers? But that is what I see, says Jehovah.
MJN.w1. Psalm 118:22,23
MJN.w2. Wikipedia says of a denarius featuring Tiberius: The inscription on the obverse reads Ti[berivs] Caesar Divi Avg[vsti] F[ilivs] Avgvstvs ("Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus"), and the reverse reads Pontif[ex] Maxim[us] ("Highest Priest").
MJN.z1. From Pontius Pilate – Portraits of a Roman Governor by Warren Carter (Liturgical Press/Michael Glazier 2003).
MJN.r1. Deuteronomy 6:4-5.
The Hebrew text translates as Yahweh Elohim Yahweh echad. The slogan lacks verbs and so can be understood in various ways, which, however, are all closely related.
For the early Hebrews, Elohim meant the gods. Yahweh (or Jehovah) was seen as the god that protected the Israelite tribespeople. Later, the tribes came to understand that Jehovah was the only God, that all others were illusions. So the plural term "gods" came to take on the idea of singularity. That is, though one literally said "gods," everyone heard "God." In modern American English, we make the word sports a singular, even though it was formerly a plural.
I believe the purpose of the slogan was to encourage monotheism among Hebrew tribespeople, many of whom were polytheistic. The slogan was probably devised when Deuteronomy was written, soon after the return of the exiles to Judaea in the Persian era. The exiles had evidently absorbed and adapted the monotheism of the Zoroastrians, and saw the polytheism of the pre-exilic tribes as a major reason for the national disaster at the hands of the Assyrian and the second Babylonian empires.
I take the slogan to have meant something close to: "Jehovah and the gods = Jehovah."
MJN.r2. Leviticus 19:18.
MJN.wz1. What Do We Know About Pontius Pilate? by Simon Webb (Langley Press 2018).
MJN.wz2. Nine years later Rome's resort city of Pompei was annihilated by an eruption of Vesuvius. Was this a case of Rome reaping what it had sown?
MJN. 1.
Psalm 110:1-7
1 Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.
2 Jehovah shall send the rod of your strength out of Zion: you are to rule in the midst of your enemies.
3 Your people shall be willing in the day of your power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: you have the dew of your youth.
4 Jehovah has sworn, and will not repent: You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
5 Jehovah at your right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.
MJN.qx2.
Hebrews 7:1-7
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
MJN.qx3.
Septuagint Psalm 109:1 (=our 110:1)
Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυΐδ. - ΕΙΠΕΝ ὁ Κύριος [kyrios, or lord] τῷ Κυρίῳ [kyrio, or lord] μου· κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου.
MJN.pf1. Did the author of Mark indeed compose his book in Rome for a Latin-speaking audience? It is interesting that Mark gives the value of the Greek lepton in terms of the Roman quadrans (literally, quarter), though the Greek word for quarter – kodrantes (as in quadrant) – is used. So we are left to wonder whether the book was first written in Latin and then translated into Greek for use in the Greek-speaking Eastern part of the Roman Empire.
MJN.tx1. King Herod had, 46 years earlier, greatly expanded the Second Temple, and its improvement had been continued since that time. In a.d. 70, the Romans destroyed it.
MJN.dc1. See Raymond E. Brown (Birth of the Messiah, Doubleday/Image 1979) below:
But Brown goes on to argue that relatives of Jesus would have thrown cold water on claims that Jesus was a Davidid if they were false. Would "James the Brother of Jesus," who led the Jerusalem church before his martyrdom in the sixth decade of the First Century, have permitted such talk? Brown wonders.
MJN.dc2. Brown says further in Appendix II of Birth of the Messiah:
MJN.gh1. Deuteronomy 25:6 gives the obligation of levirate (brother-in-law) intercourse as a means of ensuring that the deceased man's line is continued.
42. To Jerusalem. Notes
TJ.x1. As near as I can tell, the parable related is fairly close to the teaching as originally given by Jesus, though it does not precisely mirror the current versions of either Luke or Matthew.
Points of interest:
I have also used Matthew's "three servants" as opposed to Luke's "ten" to obtain a smoother result.
Also Matthew has the fearful servant burying his coin in the ground, whereas Luke says he kept it in a piece of cloth. I assume the author was thinking of a cloth purse, which is the phrase I use.
And I have the aristocrat distributing an indeterminate amount of money, as the Lucan "ten" doesn't say much to a modern reader. It may have implied something when the story was told, but any such allusion is now murky.
TJ.1. Biblical geographical information comes from Associates for Biblical Research
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/patriarchal-era/3844-the-jordan-river-valley-the-jordan-river-and-the-jungle-of-the-jordan
Points of interest:
¶ Matthew's version of this parable uses the word talent rather than mina. One talent represented about 57 pounds of pure silver, a substantial sum. The mina's value was considerably less, though it was not insignificant, with a purchasing power of two or three months ordinary wages. The Matthean writer probably saw the talent as more logical in that a wealthy aristocrat might consider a mina a trivial sum. Yet the Lucan writer, and perhaps Jesus himself, no doubt chose the mina as a means of emphasizing the idea of "little versus much."The standard Luke version includes these interpolations:
¶ The Matthew version is rather more polished than the Luke, possibly indicating that Luke's is the older. In Luke, 10 mina are distributed at one each among, presumably, 10 servants. Then the new king inquires of a first, second and "another" servant. Matthew cleans this up by having the aristocrat distributing the money among exactly three servants. No doubt the Matthean writer felt justified in doing so because he realized he was dealing with recollections which were bound to be a bit fuzzy here and there and because he knew that Jesus had been making a point and wasn't too worried about the syntax or minor details.
¶ But while he was out of his city, some people took over and sent emissaries to the overall king (alluding to the Roman emperor) demanding that the king relieve the nobleman of command over the city.So I have eliminated both the Lucan and Matthean interpolations in the main text, but they are included in my comments above for your consideration.
¶ The ruler then told an aide, "Bring those rebels here and kill them in front of me."
But scholars are reasonably sure these words were not in the earliest version of Luke. Many researchers believe an early editor was thinking of Herod Archelaus. We learn from non-Biblical sources, including Josephus, that he had sought the kingship of Judaea but a group of Jews appealed to the Roman emperor in an effort to prevent this. As a result, Caesar Augustus made Archelaus ethnarch (national leader) of Judaea, but not king. While he was in Rome, insurrections broke out causing a ferocious repression by Roman legions. Archelaus's rule was known for its harshness, and there is little doubt he had numerous people executed even after the rebellions were put down. In any case, it is quite possible the editor saw this allusion as a means of making the point that God's enemies will fare much worse than the lazy servant does. It may be relevant that in Jericho was a palace that Archelaus had had refurbished.
¶ We have, however, that Matthew – but not Luke – has the new king ordering the worthless servant "thrown into outer darkness." The Matthean writer also inserts Jesus' known warning, "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Those words make it appear that the wicked servant will go to hell along with the slain enemies. Maybe so. But let's consider the phrase "outer darkness." In the pre-electric era, especially in the rather wild region of Palestine, "outer darkness" referred to the gloom of night away from candle-lit settlements. What was out there? Who knows? Bandits, wild animals – including lions – were about. In that darkness, a man would be fearful and know his helplessness. So the bad servant would not be welcomed to paradise, yet, but would serve his sentence learning to overcome his fear, with God. Many people right now are existing in "outer darkness."
I have also used Matthew's "three servants" as opposed to Luke's "ten" to obtain a smoother result.
Also Matthew has the fearful servant burying his coin in the ground, whereas Luke says he kept it in a piece of cloth. I assume the author was thinking of a cloth purse, which is the phrase I use.
And I have the aristocrat distributing an indeterminate amount of money, as the Lucan "ten" doesn't say much to a modern reader. It may have implied something when the story was told, but any such allusion is now murky.
TJ.1. Biblical geographical information comes from Associates for Biblical Research
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/patriarchal-era/3844-the-jordan-river-valley-the-jordan-river-and-the-jungle-of-the-jordan
40. Whom do you serve? Notes
dys.1. As hellfire was pouring onto the cities of the plain, Lot's wife looked back.
Genesis 19:26
dys.2. Taxmen were contractors who took a profit on taxes they collected and turned over to the Romans. They were despised not only for helping the Romans, but also because many of them routinely overcharged so as to fatten their profit.
These days we might loathe a loanshark the way ancient Jews loathed taxmen.
dys.3.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Genesis 19:26
But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.Some believe Sodom, Gomorrah and the other cities are now somewhere under the Dead Sea. One can imagine a volcano somewhere along the Rift Valley exploding – rather like Mount St. Helens exploded – and raining fire and brimstone in the region. We might reflect that God is not prohibited from using Nature to inflict punishing catastrophes if he deems it proper.
dys.2. Taxmen were contractors who took a profit on taxes they collected and turned over to the Romans. They were despised not only for helping the Romans, but also because many of them routinely overcharged so as to fatten their profit.
These days we might loathe a loanshark the way ancient Jews loathed taxmen.
dys.3.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
dys.yy1. The commentator in question was a specialist in Aramaisms whose interpretations have raised serious concerns among scholars and theologians. But on the idiom in question, the internal consistency supports the claim.
34. Whitewashed tombs. Notes
ywt.1.
Genesis 4:3-9
ywt.2.
2 Chronicles 24:20-21
Genesis 4:3-9
3 And it came to pass that Cain brought produce from the land as an offering to Jehovah.
4 And Abel also brought an offering: the best meat from the first born of his flock. And Jehovah had respect for Abel and his offering,
5 but for Cain and his offering he had no respect. And Cain was very upset, and his countenance fell.
6 And Jehovah said to Cain, Why are you angry? and why do you look so crestfallen?
7 If you do well, won't you be uplifted? But if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. It wants to get you, but you must rule over it.
8 But Cain suggested to his brother Abel that they go for a walk in the countryside. Once there, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.
9 Later Jehovah said to Cain, "Where is Abel, your brother?"
Cain replied, "I don't know. Am I my brother's keeper?"
10 Jehovah said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries to me from the ground."
ywt.2.
2 Chronicles 24:20-21
20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest. He took his stand above the people and said to them, "This is what God says: Why do you transgress the commands of Jehovah so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken Jehovah, he has also forsaken you."
21 Then they conspired against him. At the king's command, the people stoned him in the court of the house of Jehovah.
32. Woman at a well. Notes
ww.1. Jesus took the direct route north from Jerusalem to Galilee through Samaria, in contrast to most Jews who took the longer, indirect route east of the River Jordan through Peraea because of their hatred for the Samaritans.
ww.2. Jewish-Samaritan animosity began in the sixth century b.c. upon the return to Israel of Jewish exiles, who believed the Samaritans had lost their status as children of Israel with the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. That tension led to the temple on Gerizim being destroyed by either John Hyrcanus in the second century b.c., according to Josephus, or by Simeon the Just, according to the Talmud.
ww.3. A pun. "Living water" means "running water."
ww.4. Mount Gerizim.
ww.5. John in particular uses a number of "I am" responses that can be read as "I am he" or as an invocation of a name of God, the "I am." See appendix in Raymond E. Brown's The Gospel According to John (Anchor/Doubleday v29 of the Anchor Bible).
ww.6. The Samaritans seem to have been far more receptive and open-minded than most of the Jews to whom Jesus ministered. Almost none were ready to accept him as Messiah.
ww.2. Jewish-Samaritan animosity began in the sixth century b.c. upon the return to Israel of Jewish exiles, who believed the Samaritans had lost their status as children of Israel with the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. That tension led to the temple on Gerizim being destroyed by either John Hyrcanus in the second century b.c., according to Josephus, or by Simeon the Just, according to the Talmud.
ww.3. A pun. "Living water" means "running water."
ww.4. Mount Gerizim.
ww.5. John in particular uses a number of "I am" responses that can be read as "I am he" or as an invocation of a name of God, the "I am." See appendix in Raymond E. Brown's The Gospel According to John (Anchor/Doubleday v29 of the Anchor Bible).
ww.6. The Samaritans seem to have been far more receptive and open-minded than most of the Jews to whom Jesus ministered. Almost none were ready to accept him as Messiah.
29. Satan falls. Notes
ss.1. The two apostles were thinking of Elijah's annihilation by fire of two companies of soldiers.
2 Kings 1:9-15
ss.2. A further fine point: The Roman province of Judaea included the region of Samaria, though the Jewish heartland of Judah, which was part of Judaea, did not.
ss.3. The Gospel According to John, I-XII by Raymond E. Brown (Anchor/Doubleday, v. 29, 1966). See page 309.
ss.4. G. A. Smith suggests in his Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land (1915) that Bethany (house of the ship) and Bethabara (house of the ford) are names for the same place. The second place may also refer to the more northerly territory of Batanaea.
2 Kings 1:9-15
9 Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of an hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down.
10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
11 Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.
12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
13 And he sent again a captain of the third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight.
14 Behold, there came fire down from heaven, and burnt up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties: therefore let my life now be precious in thy sight.
15 And the angel of the Lord said unto Elijah, Go down with him: be not afraid of him. And he arose, and went down with him unto the king.
ss.2. A further fine point: The Roman province of Judaea included the region of Samaria, though the Jewish heartland of Judah, which was part of Judaea, did not.
ss.3. The Gospel According to John, I-XII by Raymond E. Brown (Anchor/Doubleday, v. 29, 1966). See page 309.
ss.4. G. A. Smith suggests in his Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land (1915) that Bethany (house of the ship) and Bethabara (house of the ford) are names for the same place. The second place may also refer to the more northerly territory of Batanaea.
28. How to pray. Discussion
The prayer wording in Secret Path is taken from Matthew.
Luke's version is the more compact, leading some scholars to think that Matthew's writer amplified Luke's older rendition.. The shorter version, they believe, may be what the Lord actually said. Though this suggestion may well be correct, we must also concede that Jesus could have taught about this prayer on more than one occasion.
In any case, the best manuscripts of Luke give the model prayer in what to us looks like abbreviated form. The matter in square braces is what appears in Matthew but not in the early Luke manuscripts. The matter in curly braces is my commentary.
Luke 11:2-4
My take is not that two different versions were known, but that Matthew's writer added explanatory matter in order to make clear the intended meaning. He did not feel obliged to give a verbatim report on what he found in the source scholars call Q or in some other source. He was giving what he considered to be a fair representation of what Jesus told his disciples. The Matthean wanted to make sure his account related to first century Jews. But he, or a scribal editor prior to the third century, also thought it important to put Jesus' spare words into context. This is very similar to the way in which a modern newspaper reporter paraphrases someone's words in order to make the meaning clear to the reader. We must remember that there was no convention of placing verbatim words within quotation marks.
Our Father.. A Matthean editor or writer doubtless wanted to make crystal clear to newcomers that Father = God, and not some mortal human. And we have the probability that the prayer was amplified for purposes of group recitation. Whose Father? Our Father. This is a WE church.
Now, though it is evident that Jesus was looking forward to the day, not far off, when his disciples would be born again in spirit and in truth and become true sons of God, we should not think un-Jewish those who regarded God as a Father. Consider that Old Testament Scripture calls him a Father to the fatherless.
Indeed The composer of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount may have been thinking of the verse from Psalm 68.
Psalm 68:5-6
Though fashioned in the image of God, we soon, as a result of growing up in this world, died to God. By Christ's sacrifice, the original image of God in us – hopefully – has been and is being restored. This is an important point. God chose us in advance for salvation, for restoration. In a sense, we were always sons of God. But that relationship (which tends to elude our memories) was destroyed by sin. Now it is restored, better than ever. By this reasoning, we can draw a parallel with the idea that Jesus was always the son of God, but events in his human life correspond to a renewal of that sonship.
Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Matthew has added this thought, I suggest, in order to make plain that the unfolding of the divine kingdom implies that God's will is to be done in the here and now. Again, we can see this in the context of the born-again believers. God's kingdom has come into their hearts and minds through trust in Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit. So these folks are much more inclined to do God's will, though most still have battles to fight against the flesh. When the kingdom arrives in its full splendor, those battles against the flesh will presumably be at an end and only the will of God will be done.
But deliver us from the evil one. I suggest these words were included in order to bolster the faith and understanding of new believers. These words are certainly implied by the previous words: "Lead us not into temptation." The Matthean composer of the Sermon on the Mount wished to assure the readers that Jesus really saves.
Do not lead us to temptation. During refining, metal is tested to see what needs yet to be done, to assure that it is purged of nonessential weak material so that only the durable matter is left. When your faith is tested, God is helping you to see where you are in your spiritual progress, so that you learn to cast off the inessential. Its purpose is somewhat like the goal of Marine Corps boot camp or Army basic training.
Further, how can you learn to rely on God without being placed in situations where you have little wiggle room?
If a person indulges in much self-will, perhaps God will lead him to learn a hard lesson, in order that he become more modest and humble toward God, which is for his own good, since those who primarily serve themselves serve Satan, the evil one. For example, observe that the alcoholic or drug addict has followed a path that leads him into the hands of the evil one. If he is fortunate, he turns to God and recovers, perhaps through Alcoholics Anonymous, from the disordered condition that has overcome him. [AA favors no particular creed or religious doctrine.]
Though God did not wish that person to go down that road, even so he ordained that difficult path for that person. That person was "led into temptation" on account of the poor choices he made. Of course, this principle doesn't only apply to alcoholics and addicts. It is a consequence of our blindness in this fallen world.
Such a fall certainly doesn't mean that God is angry with people who have fallen into the devil's snares. After all, God sent his son to deliver us from the evil one. Yet, as long as a person refuses to turn to Jesus, the "wrath of God" remains on him. God is not personally angry. But by refusing to turn to the light, the balky person is keeping the disorderly state of mind, and the pain, of this fallen world.
Luke's version is the more compact, leading some scholars to think that Matthew's writer amplified Luke's older rendition.. The shorter version, they believe, may be what the Lord actually said. Though this suggestion may well be correct, we must also concede that Jesus could have taught about this prayer on more than one occasion.
In any case, the best manuscripts of Luke give the model prayer in what to us looks like abbreviated form. The matter in square braces is what appears in Matthew but not in the early Luke manuscripts. The matter in curly braces is my commentary.
Luke 11:2-4
2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:There are various conjectures as to why what seems to be the original Luke version (not found in the King James version and other Bible translations) is a slimmed down version of what appears in Matthew. Of course, nearly everyone knows that the last verse in Matthew's version of the prayer is very likely a pious addition, perhaps a bit of a hymn.
[Our] Father [in heaven], hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. [Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.]
3 Give us each day our daily bread.
4 Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us {literally, in Greek, "is indebted to us"}.
And lead us not into temptation [but deliver us from the evil one]."
My take is not that two different versions were known, but that Matthew's writer added explanatory matter in order to make clear the intended meaning. He did not feel obliged to give a verbatim report on what he found in the source scholars call Q or in some other source. He was giving what he considered to be a fair representation of what Jesus told his disciples. The Matthean wanted to make sure his account related to first century Jews. But he, or a scribal editor prior to the third century, also thought it important to put Jesus' spare words into context. This is very similar to the way in which a modern newspaper reporter paraphrases someone's words in order to make the meaning clear to the reader. We must remember that there was no convention of placing verbatim words within quotation marks.
Our Father.. A Matthean editor or writer doubtless wanted to make crystal clear to newcomers that Father = God, and not some mortal human. And we have the probability that the prayer was amplified for purposes of group recitation. Whose Father? Our Father. This is a WE church.
Now, though it is evident that Jesus was looking forward to the day, not far off, when his disciples would be born again in spirit and in truth and become true sons of God, we should not think un-Jewish those who regarded God as a Father. Consider that Old Testament Scripture calls him a Father to the fatherless.
Indeed The composer of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount may have been thinking of the verse from Psalm 68.
Psalm 68:5-6
5 A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.Father in heaven. I conjecture that Jesus did not usually qualify "Father" with the modifier "heavenly" or "in heaven." That modifier looks like something the writer or an editor decided upon in order to distinguish between God as father and one's earthly father. But, in any case, as the writer of John would have been quick to note, only those who have been born again (or, possibly, who are destined to be born again) can rightly call God "our Father." And once he becomes our Father, that is it! He is the Father. One's earthly father deserves respect, but he is father of the old, unregenerate man. The new man has only one father, God.
6 God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land.
Though fashioned in the image of God, we soon, as a result of growing up in this world, died to God. By Christ's sacrifice, the original image of God in us – hopefully – has been and is being restored. This is an important point. God chose us in advance for salvation, for restoration. In a sense, we were always sons of God. But that relationship (which tends to elude our memories) was destroyed by sin. Now it is restored, better than ever. By this reasoning, we can draw a parallel with the idea that Jesus was always the son of God, but events in his human life correspond to a renewal of that sonship.
Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Matthew has added this thought, I suggest, in order to make plain that the unfolding of the divine kingdom implies that God's will is to be done in the here and now. Again, we can see this in the context of the born-again believers. God's kingdom has come into their hearts and minds through trust in Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit. So these folks are much more inclined to do God's will, though most still have battles to fight against the flesh. When the kingdom arrives in its full splendor, those battles against the flesh will presumably be at an end and only the will of God will be done.
But deliver us from the evil one. I suggest these words were included in order to bolster the faith and understanding of new believers. These words are certainly implied by the previous words: "Lead us not into temptation." The Matthean composer of the Sermon on the Mount wished to assure the readers that Jesus really saves.
Do not lead us to temptation. During refining, metal is tested to see what needs yet to be done, to assure that it is purged of nonessential weak material so that only the durable matter is left. When your faith is tested, God is helping you to see where you are in your spiritual progress, so that you learn to cast off the inessential. Its purpose is somewhat like the goal of Marine Corps boot camp or Army basic training.
Further, how can you learn to rely on God without being placed in situations where you have little wiggle room?
If a person indulges in much self-will, perhaps God will lead him to learn a hard lesson, in order that he become more modest and humble toward God, which is for his own good, since those who primarily serve themselves serve Satan, the evil one. For example, observe that the alcoholic or drug addict has followed a path that leads him into the hands of the evil one. If he is fortunate, he turns to God and recovers, perhaps through Alcoholics Anonymous, from the disordered condition that has overcome him. [AA favors no particular creed or religious doctrine.]
Though God did not wish that person to go down that road, even so he ordained that difficult path for that person. That person was "led into temptation" on account of the poor choices he made. Of course, this principle doesn't only apply to alcoholics and addicts. It is a consequence of our blindness in this fallen world.
Such a fall certainly doesn't mean that God is angry with people who have fallen into the devil's snares. After all, God sent his son to deliver us from the evil one. Yet, as long as a person refuses to turn to Jesus, the "wrath of God" remains on him. God is not personally angry. But by refusing to turn to the light, the balky person is keeping the disorderly state of mind, and the pain, of this fallen world.
27. Very tough case. Notes
vtc.1. The fact that this episode is included in Matthew may suggest that it was inserted into the text sometime after the main book was written, as it tends to counter the apparent Matthean tendency to insist on the necessity of following Jewish religious law. In that case, what we may have is a recollection that arrived by a different route than much of the other material. Or, we may regard the story as buttressing the Matthean idea that, when in Jerusalem, do as the Jews do and honor Jewish customs.
We may also consider the possibility that the story was originally an allegory given by some preacher in order to get across the point that true Christians are free of such obligations.
Interestingly, there is no completion in which Peter actually goes and finds the shekel. In virtually all other cases of miracles related in the four gospels, it is clearly stated that the miracle was performed and that someone benefited. But here the story stops with Jesus' words. One cannot help but wonder whether the Matthean writer or editor was chary of saying that a miracle had occurred because he thought the story might have been meant as an allegory.
The possibility that we can question a particular recollection should not be taken to mean that, therefore, nothing is trustworthy. It is obvious that a number of people had witnessed incredible things and heard amazing wisdom. In fact, the sayings of Jesus are in themselves so powerful that they point to a person of divine centrality, which in turn tends to attest to the fact that many miracles occurred, even if the precise retellings vary in minor detail or if sometimes only one evangelist records a particular event.
Mark's second mass feeding miracle as unlikely to have occurred, realizing that it appears to be an obvious retelling of the first miracle story with minor differences of detail, including the approximate number fed.
Yet the Markan writer found the two versions useful, because, for one thing, he used the literary device of "sandwiching" other material between the two tellings, a device he uses elsewhere.
Further we must conclude that the Markan writer must have been at least one remove from the first apostles. That is, he had access to church accounts of, possibly, sermons of one or more apostles, but he could not have reviewed his material with any substantial eyewitnesses.
Still, what if Mark is correct and there were two mass feedings? We would then attribute the too-strong similarities to the conflation of recollections. That eventuality cannot be excluded.
vtc.1a. We may very well have an allusion to the Septuagint version of Genesis 4:23-24. God had decreed that anyone who might kill Cain would face sevenfold vengeance. Cain's descendant Lamach, lamenting that he had blood on his hands, said that if anyone killed him, the revenge would be "seventy times seven."
In some versions of Jesus' response to Peter, the number given is seventy times seven, not seventy-seven. But, in either case, either Jesus or a gospel writer could well have been playing off Lamach's words.
The gospels make clear that Jesus very often used Scripture in his answers to questions.
Genesis 4:24 (LXX)
vtc.2. Ten coins. Literally, “ten drachmas.” A drachma was a Greek silver coin which was held to be roughly equivalent to the Roman denarius. One denarius would pay a day's wage to a laborer.
We may also consider the possibility that the story was originally an allegory given by some preacher in order to get across the point that true Christians are free of such obligations.
Interestingly, there is no completion in which Peter actually goes and finds the shekel. In virtually all other cases of miracles related in the four gospels, it is clearly stated that the miracle was performed and that someone benefited. But here the story stops with Jesus' words. One cannot help but wonder whether the Matthean writer or editor was chary of saying that a miracle had occurred because he thought the story might have been meant as an allegory.
The possibility that we can question a particular recollection should not be taken to mean that, therefore, nothing is trustworthy. It is obvious that a number of people had witnessed incredible things and heard amazing wisdom. In fact, the sayings of Jesus are in themselves so powerful that they point to a person of divine centrality, which in turn tends to attest to the fact that many miracles occurred, even if the precise retellings vary in minor detail or if sometimes only one evangelist records a particular event.
Yet the Markan writer found the two versions useful, because, for one thing, he used the literary device of "sandwiching" other material between the two tellings, a device he uses elsewhere.
Further we must conclude that the Markan writer must have been at least one remove from the first apostles. That is, he had access to church accounts of, possibly, sermons of one or more apostles, but he could not have reviewed his material with any substantial eyewitnesses.
Still, what if Mark is correct and there were two mass feedings? We would then attribute the too-strong similarities to the conflation of recollections. That eventuality cannot be excluded.
vtc.1a. We may very well have an allusion to the Septuagint version of Genesis 4:23-24. God had decreed that anyone who might kill Cain would face sevenfold vengeance. Cain's descendant Lamach, lamenting that he had blood on his hands, said that if anyone killed him, the revenge would be "seventy times seven."
In some versions of Jesus' response to Peter, the number given is seventy times seven, not seventy-seven. But, in either case, either Jesus or a gospel writer could well have been playing off Lamach's words.
The gospels make clear that Jesus very often used Scripture in his answers to questions.
Genesis 4:24 (LXX)
23 And Lamech said to his wives, Ada and Sella, Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech, consider my words, because I have slain a man to my sorrow and a youth to my grief.
24 Because vengeance has been exacted seven times on Cain's behalf, on Lamech's it shall be seventy times seven.
vtc.2. Ten coins. Literally, “ten drachmas.” A drachma was a Greek silver coin which was held to be roughly equivalent to the Roman denarius. One denarius would pay a day's wage to a laborer.
26. Who do you think I am? Notes
wdy.1.
Aside from the concern about the accusation of magic, the writers of
Matthew
and
Luke
may have noticed that
Mark
's two spittle-healing stories seem rather similar. In both stories, Jesus pulls the person away to a private spot. Possibly they rejected both stories because they thought the two accounts were variants of the same recollected incident, but had no clue which was closer to the facts. Notice that none of the other evangelists could accept
Mark
's tale of two mass feedings.
Even so, there was nothing to stop Jesus from performing more than one spittle miracle, nor from needing privacy when he did so.
Compare
John 9:6,7
wdy.2.
Psalm 89:11-14
Even so, there was nothing to stop Jesus from performing more than one spittle miracle, nor from needing privacy when he did so.
Compare
John 9:6,7
6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent). He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
wdy.2.
Psalm 89:11-14
11 The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.
12 The north and the south thou hast created them: Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name.
13 Thou hast a mighty arm: strong is thy hand, and high is thy right hand.
14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
/
23. What makes you dirty? Notes
wrm.1. Literally,
corban,
meaning a sacrifice or offering made to God, especially among the ancient Hebrews in fulfillment of a vow. (Hence, the Temple officials stood to gain from such gifts.)
wrm.x1. See Isaiah 29:13.
wrm.x1. See Isaiah 29:13.
21. Good and plenty. Notes
gp.1a. Some background information comes from
BibleAtlas.com
and
BiblePlaces.com
gp.1. Luke omits a second mass feeding miracle, as does John. In the case of Luke, we are aware that its author used Mark as an important source, as did Matthew's author. In the case of John, the similarity to Mark's account is close enough that we may assume John's author either took the episode from Mark or that both writers used the same source.
It seems very plausible that Mark records two variants of the same event, though we cannot be sure Jesus did not perform two feeding miracles. We may notice that in the first feeding of the 5,000, five loaves and two fish were brought forward. That is, there were seven items of food, with seven being a number thought by many Jews of the period to imply some sort of divine completion. In the case of the feeding of the 4,000, offered were seven loaves of bread and a few (no number specified) fish, with the number seven again being highlighted. That certainly sounds like two tellings of the same event.
But clearly the author of Mark, followed by the author of Matthew, saw significance in the two separate feedings.
Also, the second feeding permitted the Marcan writer to use a favorite literary device: the "sandwich." If you read Mark separately, you may notice that he will "sandwich in" material between one passage and its associated passage. Thus, he placed a group of teachings and miracle episodes between the two mass feedings.
In any case, our book The Secret Path accepts the lead of Luke and John, focusing on one mass feeding.
gp.2. The poverty of a typical poor person in Jesus' time is almost unimaginable to the modern American mind. We tend to lose sight of how really wonderful was Jesus' declaration that poor people, who counted for nothing back then, would be given great things.
gp.3. We cannot be altogether certain that more than one recollected episode has not been sewn together here, principally by the writer of Mark. That is, the walking on water may not have occurred on the night of the feeding miracle. Perhaps on one night they were headed back to Bethsaida, and another time they sailed for Gennesaret, an ancient port town.
gp.1. Luke omits a second mass feeding miracle, as does John. In the case of Luke, we are aware that its author used Mark as an important source, as did Matthew's author. In the case of John, the similarity to Mark's account is close enough that we may assume John's author either took the episode from Mark or that both writers used the same source.
It seems very plausible that Mark records two variants of the same event, though we cannot be sure Jesus did not perform two feeding miracles. We may notice that in the first feeding of the 5,000, five loaves and two fish were brought forward. That is, there were seven items of food, with seven being a number thought by many Jews of the period to imply some sort of divine completion. In the case of the feeding of the 4,000, offered were seven loaves of bread and a few (no number specified) fish, with the number seven again being highlighted. That certainly sounds like two tellings of the same event.
But clearly the author of Mark, followed by the author of Matthew, saw significance in the two separate feedings.
Also, the second feeding permitted the Marcan writer to use a favorite literary device: the "sandwich." If you read Mark separately, you may notice that he will "sandwich in" material between one passage and its associated passage. Thus, he placed a group of teachings and miracle episodes between the two mass feedings.
In any case, our book The Secret Path accepts the lead of Luke and John, focusing on one mass feeding.
gp.2. The poverty of a typical poor person in Jesus' time is almost unimaginable to the modern American mind. We tend to lose sight of how really wonderful was Jesus' declaration that poor people, who counted for nothing back then, would be given great things.
gp.3. We cannot be altogether certain that more than one recollected episode has not been sewn together here, principally by the writer of Mark. That is, the walking on water may not have occurred on the night of the feeding miracle. Perhaps on one night they were headed back to Bethsaida, and another time they sailed for Gennesaret, an ancient port town.
19. Tell the Jews. Notes
tjs.1a. The writer of Luke tells us that 70 men were sent out, as opposed to Matthew and Mark, which restrict the mission to the twelve apostles. The Lucan writer chose the number 70 in order to indicate a spiritually complete, or perfect, amount. Some manuscripts put the number at 72. No doubt an early Lucan editor, aware that the number was not intended to convey mathematical precision, thought it good to incorporate the number 12, in order to represent the 12 tribes of Israel, and possibly to harmonize with Mark and Matthew. Plainly, 72 = 6x12.
Either number is "correct" in accordance with the prevailing standards.
Interestingly, the Sanhedren was normally composed of 71 leading men and the chief priest.
In any case, somewhere between 50 and 100 men is probably meant. And no doubt the writer and/or editor thought Jesus would inevitably send out just the right number of men.
Matthew's account of the sending out of the twelve is quite likely drawn from Mark's. Mark has only sketchy information, whereas the writer of Luke took pains to check facts where he could. Thus, he comes up with a more realistic number of 70 men sent to fan out through the towns to prepare for a visit by Jesus. An editor, in my view, then tweaked that number to 72, so that Mark's concept of 12 apostles for each tribe of Israel was respected.
In any case, here we have an example of a "discrepancy" that, on closer inspection, turns out to not be a discrepancy at all.
tjs.1. Jesus and his disciples experienced intense political animosity during his earthly mission. But his warnings pointed to later periods in which Christians suffered dreadful persecutions both at the hands of the Romans and the Jews. Under Roman rule, Jewish authorities could penalize someone with up to 39 lashes without getting Roman permission.
tjs.2. Because this assertion has proved so difficult to interpret, no one believes the early Christians made it up and put it in Jesus' mouth. So a number of scholars have thought that Jesus made a (rather awful) mistake. His anticipated second coming still hasn't occurred, after 2,000 years! But, was Jesus referring specifically to his so-called second coming? Did he not come with power at the Feast of Pentecost some 40 days after his death and resurrection? And it was certainly true that the apostles had yet to reach everyone in the House of Israel when that happened.
For more on this topic, please see my article,
On the Kingdom of Heaven
Either number is "correct" in accordance with the prevailing standards.
Interestingly, the Sanhedren was normally composed of 71 leading men and the chief priest.
In any case, somewhere between 50 and 100 men is probably meant. And no doubt the writer and/or editor thought Jesus would inevitably send out just the right number of men.
Matthew's account of the sending out of the twelve is quite likely drawn from Mark's. Mark has only sketchy information, whereas the writer of Luke took pains to check facts where he could. Thus, he comes up with a more realistic number of 70 men sent to fan out through the towns to prepare for a visit by Jesus. An editor, in my view, then tweaked that number to 72, so that Mark's concept of 12 apostles for each tribe of Israel was respected.
In any case, here we have an example of a "discrepancy" that, on closer inspection, turns out to not be a discrepancy at all.
tjs.1. Jesus and his disciples experienced intense political animosity during his earthly mission. But his warnings pointed to later periods in which Christians suffered dreadful persecutions both at the hands of the Romans and the Jews. Under Roman rule, Jewish authorities could penalize someone with up to 39 lashes without getting Roman permission.
tjs.2. Because this assertion has proved so difficult to interpret, no one believes the early Christians made it up and put it in Jesus' mouth. So a number of scholars have thought that Jesus made a (rather awful) mistake. His anticipated second coming still hasn't occurred, after 2,000 years! But, was Jesus referring specifically to his so-called second coming? Did he not come with power at the Feast of Pentecost some 40 days after his death and resurrection? And it was certainly true that the apostles had yet to reach everyone in the House of Israel when that happened.
For more on this topic, please see my article,
On the Kingdom of Heaven
https://zioncallingyou.blogspot.com/2020/02/appendix-b-concerning-kingdom-of-heaven.html
tjs.3. We may notice here that, according to the source used for Matthew and Luke, Jesus casts body and soul as two different entities – though he does not say that the soul exists without a body.
tjs.4. See The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan (London: Nath. Ponder 1678).
tjs.5. We are disregarding the apparent chronology of John. That book is a literary and spiritual masterpiece. But the order of events related is given, I believe, for teaching, and not for historical, reasons. (That observation should not be taken to mean that there are no historically valid memories recorded in John.)
tjs.3. We may notice here that, according to the source used for Matthew and Luke, Jesus casts body and soul as two different entities – though he does not say that the soul exists without a body.
tjs.4. See The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan (London: Nath. Ponder 1678).
tjs.5. We are disregarding the apparent chronology of John. That book is a literary and spiritual masterpiece. But the order of events related is given, I believe, for teaching, and not for historical, reasons. (That observation should not be taken to mean that there are no historically valid memories recorded in John.)
17. Fear versus faith. Notes
WYA.1. Some have wondered about Jesus requiring the demon's name. They are worried about a popular belief that if a person knows a spirit's name, he can magically compel it to do his will. But, Jesus was not performing magic, because he never performed miracles by the power of wicked spirits. Jesus, however, was not only healing the demoniac. He was also teaching those around him. They needed to know the horrific fate that can befall a man, as well as to see God's wonderful power and mercy. Thus, the disciples were able to link the demon's answer with the mass hysteria of the pigs.
WYA.2. Mark has "the Lord" and Luke has "God." In speaking to this Gentile, Jesus was asserting the power and friendliness of the God of Israel, as opposed to Zeus or some other pagan God. Mark may have heard this report from Peter or some other eyewitness and so may have used "the Lord" in the sense that the older English translations render God's personal name as "the LORD." Luke was addressing mostly Gentiles, and so would have preferred the generic designation, "God." But we would like to pick up the connotation that Jesus was declaring the God of Israel to non-Jews, which is why I use a form of God's personal name. We have no reason to fear using God's personal name. Using his name lightly is rarely a good idea, no matter what particular designator you use.
WYA.3. In the Old Era, animals were determined as not fit to eat for various reasons. The Jewish prohibition against pork tended to protect people from pork-borne illnesses, such as tapeworm. Similarly, other dietary controls may have been rooted in concerns about health safety. Also, there was the ancient idea that you ARE what you eat, at least up to a point. Thus, the Israeli tribesmen were eschewing some of the spiritually sick practices of those who identified with various animals.
In the New Era ushered in by Jesus, there are no spiritual reasons to avoid certain animal foods because his people have been freed. That should not be taken to mean that any type of food at all is necessarily wholesome.
WYA.4. By limiting the number of people present, Jesus kept doubt and unbelief out of his way while he focused on what needed to be done. And, Jesus did not desire personal glory, though he knew that it would be hard to contain such news. Yet, there would have been a shroud of uncertainty. The mourners may have thought they were mistaken, and that the child had not in fact died. Neighbors would have assumed that perhaps she had been ill, but had not really been dead.
Also, in those days people were buried by about three hours after death. Thus, some people who went into profound comas, but were not functionally dead, may have been inadvertently buried. Even so, the witnesses were familiar with signs of death. In any case, even if Jesus revived a child from a profound coma by simply speaking to her, that still ranks as a major miracle.
WYA.2. Mark has "the Lord" and Luke has "God." In speaking to this Gentile, Jesus was asserting the power and friendliness of the God of Israel, as opposed to Zeus or some other pagan God. Mark may have heard this report from Peter or some other eyewitness and so may have used "the Lord" in the sense that the older English translations render God's personal name as "the LORD." Luke was addressing mostly Gentiles, and so would have preferred the generic designation, "God." But we would like to pick up the connotation that Jesus was declaring the God of Israel to non-Jews, which is why I use a form of God's personal name. We have no reason to fear using God's personal name. Using his name lightly is rarely a good idea, no matter what particular designator you use.
WYA.3. In the Old Era, animals were determined as not fit to eat for various reasons. The Jewish prohibition against pork tended to protect people from pork-borne illnesses, such as tapeworm. Similarly, other dietary controls may have been rooted in concerns about health safety. Also, there was the ancient idea that you ARE what you eat, at least up to a point. Thus, the Israeli tribesmen were eschewing some of the spiritually sick practices of those who identified with various animals.
In the New Era ushered in by Jesus, there are no spiritual reasons to avoid certain animal foods because his people have been freed. That should not be taken to mean that any type of food at all is necessarily wholesome.
WYA.4. By limiting the number of people present, Jesus kept doubt and unbelief out of his way while he focused on what needed to be done. And, Jesus did not desire personal glory, though he knew that it would be hard to contain such news. Yet, there would have been a shroud of uncertainty. The mourners may have thought they were mistaken, and that the child had not in fact died. Neighbors would have assumed that perhaps she had been ill, but had not really been dead.
Also, in those days people were buried by about three hours after death. Thus, some people who went into profound comas, but were not functionally dead, may have been inadvertently buried. Even so, the witnesses were familiar with signs of death. In any case, even if Jesus revived a child from a profound coma by simply speaking to her, that still ranks as a major miracle.
16. Illustrations from agriculture. Notes
IA.1a. Since in Palestine sowing often preceded plowing, much of the seed would have been scattered on unsuitable ground, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Bible commentary tells us, adding that though much is wasted, seed falling on good ground bears fruit in exceptionally large measure.
IA. 1. In the next teaching, Jesus tells us about those among humans who have been generated by the Devil.
IA.2.
Dogs and pigs. I have inserted these words here in order to amplify the meaning of what Jesus was saying. Consider Matthew 7:6
IA.3. Jesus is speaking here of all who are destined for salvation. You are wondering, why would God be so cruel as to predestine some for the furnace? The answer is that those who are to be saved have the image of God within them, even though they cannot commune with God before Jesus revives their spirits. Others, like Judah Iscariot and like some of the Pharisees who were enraged at Jesus' work and word, are in outward form human, and are convinced that they are human. In fact, they are correct: they are human and so there is a glimmer of God's image on them. But their souls are counterfeit. In a few cases they may even be soulless, but generally they have received souls of non-human life forms.
One doesn't need to have sex with an obvious demon for such an eventuality. When two people with human souls have sex in which somehow serious sin enters in, it is possible the baby will have a non-human soul. Other cases are when a predestined person mates with a non-predestined person. The result may or may not be a child with an inhuman inner core. But, I would say that if a predestined child is born to two non-predestined parents, then God is doing something special – as the Devil would never sanction such a happening.
As Jesus once said, "I'm telling you, when the end comes, there will be two men lying in bed. One will be taken, the other left. Two women will be mashing grain together. One will be taken, the other left. Two men will be working side by side. One will be taken, the other left" (Matthew 24:34-36).
Many people wonder why God permits evil to remain in the world. The answer is: he is compassionate. He wants to give everybody as much of a chance as he can to be saved. The other reason is that some people might be greatly disheartened if they realized too soon that their closest relatives were not made of the right material and were destined for annihilation.
Notice that Jesus gives no justification for genocide. It is up to the angels to pluck up Satan's spawn, not us.
In any case, we must beware using human logic to argue that, since we either must be saved or must be annihilated, there is no need to make a decision for Christ. What is impossible for humans is easy for God. And, to take such a position is the equivalent of testing God in an improper way. It would be like deciding to jump from a high window, on the assumption that God will catch you!
Consider the story in Genesis about "sons of God" mating with earth women. The result was terrible, Genesis tells us.
After Adam's offspring began to proliferate, it happened that the sons of God noticed highly attractive earth women. So they took these good-looking girls as wives. Jehovah said, "My spirit won't always strive with humanity, for humans are also flesh. So, I will limit the human lifespan to 120 years."
In that time, their were giants roaming the earth and, after the sons of God mated with earth girls, the children became powerful people, who you still hear about today. God observed that human wickedness had spiraled out of control all over the earth, with people dreaming up wicked ideas and scheming evil all the time. I unpack this passage this way:
The Genesis writer assumed that these "sons of God" were what were later called angels. But, I suggest, that the earlier, oral tradition meant by "sons of God," Adam's offspring who all had the image of God in them. That image is directly infused by God into a person. But then Adam's offspring saw the Stone Age paleo-Indians that had been on earth for many millennia and took them for mates. At that point, men with the image of God had children by women without that image, and the result was mayhem.
Many of the offspring were intellectually superior but controlled by purely animalistic drives. They also tended to be physically superior. These "giants" had the skills and the base drives to wage murderous wars on the paleo-Indians, which is why they got such an impressive reputation.
Genesis appears to imply (in English) that the giants were not the same as the offspring of the "sons of God." But by placing the two sorts of beings so close together, we can guess that the writer realized he was dealing with two traditions about the same thing.
Note that Genesis associates the shortening of the human lifespan to these matings. That is, the long-lived offspring of Adam had intermarried with the short-lived Paleo-Indians.
A related story is Cain's exile to the land of Nod (Genesis 4:1-17). Nod would be the territory of those humans who lack the full divine image – though we must concede that Cain's son Enoch found favor with God. Other of Cain's progeny were more problematic, however.
Of course, this whole scenario comes from educated guesswork and – even supposing it correct – that does not mean another interpretation of Gen. 6:1-5 isn't plausible.
IA. 1. In the next teaching, Jesus tells us about those among humans who have been generated by the Devil.
IA.2.
Dogs and pigs. I have inserted these words here in order to amplify the meaning of what Jesus was saying. Consider Matthew 7:6
You don't give Temple food to the dogs,
neither do you toss pearls to pigs,
or they might trample them and turn and tear you up.
IA.3. Jesus is speaking here of all who are destined for salvation. You are wondering, why would God be so cruel as to predestine some for the furnace? The answer is that those who are to be saved have the image of God within them, even though they cannot commune with God before Jesus revives their spirits. Others, like Judah Iscariot and like some of the Pharisees who were enraged at Jesus' work and word, are in outward form human, and are convinced that they are human. In fact, they are correct: they are human and so there is a glimmer of God's image on them. But their souls are counterfeit. In a few cases they may even be soulless, but generally they have received souls of non-human life forms.
One doesn't need to have sex with an obvious demon for such an eventuality. When two people with human souls have sex in which somehow serious sin enters in, it is possible the baby will have a non-human soul. Other cases are when a predestined person mates with a non-predestined person. The result may or may not be a child with an inhuman inner core. But, I would say that if a predestined child is born to two non-predestined parents, then God is doing something special – as the Devil would never sanction such a happening.
As Jesus once said, "I'm telling you, when the end comes, there will be two men lying in bed. One will be taken, the other left. Two women will be mashing grain together. One will be taken, the other left. Two men will be working side by side. One will be taken, the other left" (Matthew 24:34-36).
Many people wonder why God permits evil to remain in the world. The answer is: he is compassionate. He wants to give everybody as much of a chance as he can to be saved. The other reason is that some people might be greatly disheartened if they realized too soon that their closest relatives were not made of the right material and were destined for annihilation.
Notice that Jesus gives no justification for genocide. It is up to the angels to pluck up Satan's spawn, not us.
In any case, we must beware using human logic to argue that, since we either must be saved or must be annihilated, there is no need to make a decision for Christ. What is impossible for humans is easy for God. And, to take such a position is the equivalent of testing God in an improper way. It would be like deciding to jump from a high window, on the assumption that God will catch you!
Consider the story in Genesis about "sons of God" mating with earth women. The result was terrible, Genesis tells us.
After Adam's offspring began to proliferate, it happened that the sons of God noticed highly attractive earth women. So they took these good-looking girls as wives. Jehovah said, "My spirit won't always strive with humanity, for humans are also flesh. So, I will limit the human lifespan to 120 years."
In that time, their were giants roaming the earth and, after the sons of God mated with earth girls, the children became powerful people, who you still hear about today. God observed that human wickedness had spiraled out of control all over the earth, with people dreaming up wicked ideas and scheming evil all the time. I unpack this passage this way:
The Genesis writer assumed that these "sons of God" were what were later called angels. But, I suggest, that the earlier, oral tradition meant by "sons of God," Adam's offspring who all had the image of God in them. That image is directly infused by God into a person. But then Adam's offspring saw the Stone Age paleo-Indians that had been on earth for many millennia and took them for mates. At that point, men with the image of God had children by women without that image, and the result was mayhem.
Many of the offspring were intellectually superior but controlled by purely animalistic drives. They also tended to be physically superior. These "giants" had the skills and the base drives to wage murderous wars on the paleo-Indians, which is why they got such an impressive reputation.
Genesis appears to imply (in English) that the giants were not the same as the offspring of the "sons of God." But by placing the two sorts of beings so close together, we can guess that the writer realized he was dealing with two traditions about the same thing.
Note that Genesis associates the shortening of the human lifespan to these matings. That is, the long-lived offspring of Adam had intermarried with the short-lived Paleo-Indians.
A related story is Cain's exile to the land of Nod (Genesis 4:1-17). Nod would be the territory of those humans who lack the full divine image – though we must concede that Cain's son Enoch found favor with God. Other of Cain's progeny were more problematic, however.
Of course, this whole scenario comes from educated guesswork and – even supposing it correct – that does not mean another interpretation of Gen. 6:1-5 isn't plausible.
14. Brothers and mother. Notes
bmm.
z1. Implicit here is the understanding that Jesus had reached the age at which he could make some decisions as a man without first consulting his earthly father or others. This age threshold evidently coincided with the onset of puberty, and may not have been fixed at a particular number.
According to Jews for Jesus,
According to Jews for Jesus,
The bar/bat mitzvah is not found in the Bible. Bar mitzvah is of medieval origin, though the term itself is found in the Talmud, while bat mitzvah did not exist until the 20th century...The web article continues,
The bar mitzvah ... takes place at thirteen years of age, and the only mention of someone of that age in the Tanakh [Old Testament] is in Genesis 17:25:And Ishmael his [Abraham’s] son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
The fact that the age of twelve is specifically noted may suggest that it was a transition age even in the first-century, though any evidence comes from the later period of the Talmud. At least, twelve could be considered an age when a young man evidenced wisdom and piety. Josephus (Antiquities X.4.1) says of King Amon:R.E. Brown, in his The Birth of the Messiah, writes:And when he was twelve years old, he gave demonstrations of his religious and righteous behavior; for he brought the people to a sober way of living, and exhorted them to leave off the opinion they had of their idols, because they were not gods, but to worship their own God. And by repeating on the actions of his progenitors, he prudently corrected what they did wrong, like a very elderly man, and like one abundantly able to understand what was fit to be done …Josephus likewise speaks of Samuel (Antiquities V.10.4):Now when Samuel was twelve years old, he began to prophesy: and once when he was asleep, God called to him by his name …
The general talmudic principle is that a child reaches manhood at the thirteenth birthday. Yet it was recognized that a child could understand the significance of the commandments and be bound by them before that, e.g., the age of making vows was sometimes set at twelve... The age of discrimination was thought to be between twelve and thirteen... We do not know whether in Jesus' time such later talmudic ideas were already applicable; but a fortiori the much later custom of the Bar Mitzvah was not. We do not know whether at age twelve Jesus would have been obliged to go to Jerusalem, and nothing in the story indicates that Luke thought of an obligation. It is an example of Jesus' exemplifying "Temple piety."
12. Twelve called. Notes
tc.1a.
Sons of thunder.
The annals that have come down to us are sketchy about the careers of these apostles. Though John is traditionally thought to have written the books
John
and
Revelation,
there is no firm proof of those claims.
In any case, think of a very strong preacher, giving a rousing sermon from the pulpit. If he is Spirit-filled, he very likely is being very effective at proclaiming the Word in such a way that many hearers are moved. Such a preacher might be fairly described as a "son of thunder" and in fact the word boanerges (Aramaic for sons of thunder ) is often used to describe such a preacher.
In any case, these two apostles may have become effective preachers without having their words and deeds much recorded.
tc.1. We may conjecture that Judah was the only apostle from Judaea. Simon/Peter and his brother Andrew were from Bethsaida, on the northeast shore of Lake Galilee, as was Philip. James and John were from North Galilee, probably Bethsaida.
Matthew worked in Capernaum. Bartholomew very likely came from Bethsaida. Of Thomas's home area we cannot be certain. His name is Semitic, meaning he might have been from anywhere Jews were settled. In the case of Simon and Andrew, their non-Semitic names suggest Jews residing where the Greek culture of the Gentiles was influential.
( Simon could be Semitic, or Greek. But Andrew is assuredly Greek. To reinforce that point, we note that Philip is a Greek name. The scholar Raymond E. Brown identifies the Galilean Philip as a leader of the Hellenist [Greek] faction of the early church at Jerusalem, whereas the Galilean Peter was aligned with the more Jewish group.)
Of James, son of Alphaeus, we know little as to origin. Yet, Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the taxman, Levi, mentioned in Mark 2:14. So if Levi and Matthew are the same person and if there is one father named Alphaeus, that would make James a resident of Capernaum.
Of the Zealot Simon's home area, we cannot say much. But we may observe that possibly two rebellions led by a Galilean named Judah occurred in Galilee, and the Zealot movement seems to have been an outgrowth of those rebellions.
The idea that Judas Iscariot means Judah of Kerioth in Judaea has plenty of support, but we have no absolute certainty.
tc.2. That is, we have the twin, intertwined doctrines of remission of sin by Jesus and justification by faith, not works.
In any case, think of a very strong preacher, giving a rousing sermon from the pulpit. If he is Spirit-filled, he very likely is being very effective at proclaiming the Word in such a way that many hearers are moved. Such a preacher might be fairly described as a "son of thunder" and in fact the word boanerges (Aramaic for sons of thunder ) is often used to describe such a preacher.
In any case, these two apostles may have become effective preachers without having their words and deeds much recorded.
tc.1. We may conjecture that Judah was the only apostle from Judaea. Simon/Peter and his brother Andrew were from Bethsaida, on the northeast shore of Lake Galilee, as was Philip. James and John were from North Galilee, probably Bethsaida.
Matthew worked in Capernaum. Bartholomew very likely came from Bethsaida. Of Thomas's home area we cannot be certain. His name is Semitic, meaning he might have been from anywhere Jews were settled. In the case of Simon and Andrew, their non-Semitic names suggest Jews residing where the Greek culture of the Gentiles was influential.
( Simon could be Semitic, or Greek. But Andrew is assuredly Greek. To reinforce that point, we note that Philip is a Greek name. The scholar Raymond E. Brown identifies the Galilean Philip as a leader of the Hellenist [Greek] faction of the early church at Jerusalem, whereas the Galilean Peter was aligned with the more Jewish group.)
Of James, son of Alphaeus, we know little as to origin. Yet, Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the taxman, Levi, mentioned in Mark 2:14. So if Levi and Matthew are the same person and if there is one father named Alphaeus, that would make James a resident of Capernaum.
Of the Zealot Simon's home area, we cannot say much. But we may observe that possibly two rebellions led by a Galilean named Judah occurred in Galilee, and the Zealot movement seems to have been an outgrowth of those rebellions.
The idea that Judas Iscariot means Judah of Kerioth in Judaea has plenty of support, but we have no absolute certainty.
tc.2. That is, we have the twin, intertwined doctrines of remission of sin by Jesus and justification by faith, not works.
11. Hand of a doctor. Notes
hdd.1a. As there were many men named Jesus (Joshua) in ancient Palestine, it was necessary for the early churchmen to draw distinctions, even though common people in that period (and later) ordinarily only had one name. Some neighbors might have known him as Jesus bar [son of] Joseph. The early missionaries settled on Jesus' longtime hometown, Nazareth, as an identifier when they did not wish to use the title Christ (Messiah, Anointed One). Now it may be that the devil said, "Jesus of Nazareth." But it is also possible it did not add "of Nazareth." Writers of that period could not easily specify a verbatim quote as opposed to a good paraphrase.
hdd.1. It is unlikely this healing took place in a synagogue, as some have thought. Lepers were not permitted inside. Further, the leper was required to stay at least six feet away from another person. Obviously, six feet is no impediment for someone who wished to bow low to Jesus.
hdd.2. Some mss. have "moved with anger." There has been much scholarly discussion of this point. My take is that this story was somehow mixed with another one in which Jesus looks around with anger at congregants because of their lack of compassion (Mark 3:5). Though Mark is our source of both stories, we may suppose that old manuscript sources were shuffled.
hdd.2a. Another possibility is that, once on the roof, they lowered the man down into an unroofed courtyard, which was walled off and attached to the house. At night, it was customarily used for a barn. The courtyard opened onto the sheltered part of the residence.
hdd.3. Jesus referred to himself as "the son of man." This description could be taken to mean that he was just another man, as "son of man" was an idiom for "human." Or it might be taken to refer to the "son of man" in the book Daniel who looked human and who was appointed to deliver the Jews from oppression (the Messiah). Even though we in retrospect know that Jesus is the son of God, he in his humility usually did not refer to himself that way. Some of his hearers, though concerned about blasphemy, did not see him as anything more than a man. His words might be interpreted by some to have meant, "In this case, a human can forgive sins."
Daniel 7:13
hdd.4. This tax collector is called Matthew in the book of Matthew. People have guessed that this difference from Mark implies that the author of Matthew was named Matthew. But, as Matthew adds no other detail to Mark's account, that supposition seems unlikely. It was not customary for ordinary people of that era to have more than one name. On the other hand, we have the name changes of Simon to Peter and Saul to Paul. The new names reflected their real status in God's eyes. A man named Levi (suggesting descent from the priestly tribe of Levi and meaning "attached') becomes a disciple. Might he not have adopted a new name, Matthew, which means "gift of Jehovah" or "God's gift"?
hdd.5.
Hosea 6:6
hdd.6. Abiathar seems to have been the high priest Ahimelech's son. But ancient scribes were not unanimous. 2 Samuel 8:17 has been read as "Ahimelech, son of Abiathar." In any case, the names are not all that important. What counts is the point that Jesus was making: The Sabbath was meant to give people a break, not to lay inhuman burdens on them. Further, if David, as God's servant, was right to break a rule about food, shouldn't another servant of God, Jesus, have that right? The Pharisees were well aware of Jesus' miracles and should have seen that he was a greater servant of God than was David.
hdd.7. The Old Testament Scripture is unclear on whether David was alone or had some men with him. Mark includes in Jesus' quote the clause "and those who were with him," which strikes me as an interpolation by the writer or an editor. We notice that Mark specifies that only the disciples were rolling grain and eating. I have to wonder whether the evangelist was averse to having Jesus break a Sabbath rule in a way that benefited himself directly. In any case, the point that Jesus was making is not about numbers but about God's compassion and care for his servants. After all, shouldn't God see to it that his men and women are fed?
1 Samuel 21:1-6
hdd.8. The name Jehovah and the name Jesus are intimately intertwined.
hdd.1. It is unlikely this healing took place in a synagogue, as some have thought. Lepers were not permitted inside. Further, the leper was required to stay at least six feet away from another person. Obviously, six feet is no impediment for someone who wished to bow low to Jesus.
hdd.2. Some mss. have "moved with anger." There has been much scholarly discussion of this point. My take is that this story was somehow mixed with another one in which Jesus looks around with anger at congregants because of their lack of compassion (Mark 3:5). Though Mark is our source of both stories, we may suppose that old manuscript sources were shuffled.
hdd.2a. Another possibility is that, once on the roof, they lowered the man down into an unroofed courtyard, which was walled off and attached to the house. At night, it was customarily used for a barn. The courtyard opened onto the sheltered part of the residence.
hdd.3. Jesus referred to himself as "the son of man." This description could be taken to mean that he was just another man, as "son of man" was an idiom for "human." Or it might be taken to refer to the "son of man" in the book Daniel who looked human and who was appointed to deliver the Jews from oppression (the Messiah). Even though we in retrospect know that Jesus is the son of God, he in his humility usually did not refer to himself that way. Some of his hearers, though concerned about blasphemy, did not see him as anything more than a man. His words might be interpreted by some to have meant, "In this case, a human can forgive sins."
Daniel 7:13
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
hdd.4. This tax collector is called Matthew in the book of Matthew. People have guessed that this difference from Mark implies that the author of Matthew was named Matthew. But, as Matthew adds no other detail to Mark's account, that supposition seems unlikely. It was not customary for ordinary people of that era to have more than one name. On the other hand, we have the name changes of Simon to Peter and Saul to Paul. The new names reflected their real status in God's eyes. A man named Levi (suggesting descent from the priestly tribe of Levi and meaning "attached') becomes a disciple. Might he not have adopted a new name, Matthew, which means "gift of Jehovah" or "God's gift"?
hdd.5.
Hosea 6:6
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
hdd.6. Abiathar seems to have been the high priest Ahimelech's son. But ancient scribes were not unanimous. 2 Samuel 8:17 has been read as "Ahimelech, son of Abiathar." In any case, the names are not all that important. What counts is the point that Jesus was making: The Sabbath was meant to give people a break, not to lay inhuman burdens on them. Further, if David, as God's servant, was right to break a rule about food, shouldn't another servant of God, Jesus, have that right? The Pharisees were well aware of Jesus' miracles and should have seen that he was a greater servant of God than was David.
hdd.7. The Old Testament Scripture is unclear on whether David was alone or had some men with him. Mark includes in Jesus' quote the clause "and those who were with him," which strikes me as an interpolation by the writer or an editor. We notice that Mark specifies that only the disciples were rolling grain and eating. I have to wonder whether the evangelist was averse to having Jesus break a Sabbath rule in a way that benefited himself directly. In any case, the point that Jesus was making is not about numbers but about God's compassion and care for his servants. After all, shouldn't God see to it that his men and women are fed?
1 Samuel 21:1-6
1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?
2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place.
3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present.
4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.
5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.
6 So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.
hdd.8. The name Jehovah and the name Jesus are intimately intertwined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
https://youtu.be/cYgIt9Wx1cE?si=XvXpdljrMJefTXCJ
