The Birth in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:6). The prophet Micah (5.2) predicts that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. This is one reason the author of Matthew created his virgin birth story. The Messiah could not be born in Nazareth. He also wanted to make the point that Jesus was a great religious figure. This part of the story is inspired by the legends surrounding the births of some Roman emperors. In these stories, god traveled to earth to impregnate a human mother. Although the historical facts of Matthew’s story are unlikely to be true, the author succeeds in making his point. Jesus was a great religious figure.
The Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 3:2) The author of Matthew uses the phrase Kingdom of Heaven about thirty times in his gospel. The fact that he substitutes the term heaven for God reflects the Jewish reluctance to cite the name of God. It was too sacred a name to mention. This small change illustrates the Jewish roots of the gospel. Matthew’s audience was a group of Jewish Christians.
Effective Prayer (Matthew 7: 7-11) “Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you.” As I confessed in the blog on the Sermon on the Mount, I have asked God to make me a more loving person, and not much seems to have changed. I have prayed for friends with cancer, and they have died. “For the one who asks always receives.” Sadly, I can’t believe that, which has led me to conclude that God does not act in the world in any way that humans can know or understand. We so often give God the benefit of the doubt. When good things happen, God answers prayer. When bad things happen, we look for another explanation. I think the most honest answer is to say that God leaves us alone to our own devices. This fact is a great gift of love.
False Prophets (Matthew 7:16) You can tell false prophets by their fruits. This is a wonderful teaching. Religion has nothing to do with correct belief. If a person isn’t loving, that person doesn’t get it.
Disciples Go to Israel (Matthew 10: 5-8) Jesus sends the disciples out to the lost sheep of Israel with a warning to stay out of pagan territory. Toward the end of the gospel, Jesus says that the gospel will be proclaimed to the whole world (24: 14), and he instructs his disciples on the mountain in Galilee to make disciples of all the nations (28: 19). These statements appear to be contradictory. A possible solution is to suggest that two voices echo through the gospel—that of Jesus, the first voice cited above, and the early church.
Along these lines, it is interesting to note that Jesus focuses his ministry exclusively on rural areas—in the small towns and villages along the Sea of Galilee. Jews lived in these rural areas, Gentiles were located in urban areas. The gospel record suggests that Jesus purposely avoided urban areas where Gentiles resided.
This deliberate strategy supports the idea that Jesus’ message of salvation was directed at Israel. Paul and the early Church in the Hellenistic world changed the message to include Gentiles.
The Son of Man is not God (Matthew 12:32). The authors of the Trinity seem to have missed this passage in Matthew.
Joseph’s Son (Matthew 13: 55). Jesus goes to Nazareth, and the people there see him as Joseph’s son, with several brothers and sisters. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. I wonder what Church theologians do with this passage.
On Clean and Unclean (Matthew 15: 10-20). In the Odds and Ends blog for Mark, I commented on the conflict stories involving the Pharisees. The purpose of these stories is to suggest that the Pharisees played a role in Jesus’ death. I indicated then that these stories are probably not historical, and that Rome and the Jewish elite were responsible for the death of Jesus.
The discussion of Jewish purity rules in Matthew helps to make this point. The author of Matthew turns the discussion into a major confrontation with the Pharisees.
The problem with this is that rules regarding what was clean are no big deal. Everyone was unclean from time-to-time. A male and female after intercourse were unclean, a woman during the time of her period was believed to be unclean. The solution was simple. One became clean from immersion in a pool, and waiting until sunset. It was then possible to enter the Temple. This issue reminds me of my mother going to great lengths to dress me for church as a young boy.
When Jesus teaches that eating with unwashed hands does not make a person unclean but that cleanliness is a matter of the health of one’s heart, he is not attacking the essence of Judaism. Rather he is making an interesting ethical point. Such an argument would not shock or infuriate the Pharisees. They might not agree with him, but disputes of this nature were common within the family of Judaism.
A Mother’s Request (Matthew 20: 20-22). The mother of the sons of Zebedee asks Jesus to allow her two sons to sit, one at his right hand and the other at his left hand, in the kingdom. Compare this with Mark 10: 35-38 where the two sons make the same request. Matthew has a higher view of the disciples than Mark. In Matthew’s gospel, the disciples eventually get it.
The Coming Apocalypse (Matthew 24:20). When the apocalypse comes, Jesus instructs his listeners to, “pray that you will not have to escape in the winter or on a Sabbath.” Compare this with Mark’s version in 13:18. Matthew adds the words “on a Sabbath,” again reflecting the Jewish Christian audience for his gospel. This is the work of an editor.
The Treachery of Judas (Matthew 26: 47-56). The story of Jesus’ arrest is a strange one. Judas tells the chief priests and elders that he will kiss Jesus in order to identify him. Why was this necessary? Jesus and the Jewish elite are seen fighting throughout Matthew’s gospel. They surely knew each other. What probably happened was that Judas told them that Jesus would destroy the Temple. When the Jewish establishment reported this to the Roman authorities, these authorities arrested him and put him on the cross.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Jesus Fulfills Scripture?
There is one point that all Christians agree on: there are many references to a coming Messiah in the Old Testament. First century Jews believed that their scriptures were far more than a history of God’s involvement with Israel. In addition, these sacred writings were a blueprint of God’s plans for the future. Jewish scriptures point to a Messiah. The question is whether Jesus fulfills these expectations. Matthew makes several claims that he does.
I was taught as a child that because Jesus fulfills Old Testament references to a Messiah, this fact proves the historicity of the New Testament. This is a remarkable claim which makes it an important question to consider. This blog will analyze three Old Testament references to the Messiah that Matthew uses to create his virgin birth story.
The most famous of these passages is the sign of Immanuel in Isaiah 7: 10-17. Many Christians believe that this passage points to the virgin birth of Jesus as depicted in Matthew 1: 18-25. There are three problems with this claim.
The first has to do with the translation of the word virgin. My Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, translates the word as maiden in the Isaiah story, suggesting a young woman who may or may not have been a virgin. This is the correct translation of the Hebrew word in the original text.
There are some English Bibles, however, where the word is translated as virgin. The Septuagint is the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures. The relevant Greek word used in Isaiah 7: 14 can be translated into English as virgin or young woman, which creates the confusion. As I indicate above, if you go back to the original Hebrew text, the correct translation is maiden or young woman.
Second, there is no hint in the Isaiah story that God was somehow involved in the conception of this child. Immanuel had a human father.
Finally, a reading of the larger context of the Isaiah passage suggests that the child Immanuel will become a king who will rule from Jerusalem in justice and peace. Did God intend for Jesus to become a king who rules an earthly kingdom? That is not the way most Christians think of salvation, which indicates that the Jesus Christ of Christian faith does not in any way fulfill this scripture.
The second example of Jesus fulfilling scripture in the virgin birth story comes in Matthew 2: 13-16. God tells Joseph in a dream to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt. Matthew claims that this fulfills Hosea 11:1, “I called my son out of Egypt.” What is the author of Matthew thinking here? One son is going to Egypt to escape, and the other is coming from Egypt to escape. I don’t get it!
The last example comes in Matthew 2: 16-18. When Herod kills all the children, Matthew claims that this action fulfills Jeremiah 31: 15-16. A careful reading of the Jeremiah passage indicates a problem. The children that Rachel laments have not been killed, but rather are lost. God tells her to dry her tears because they will be returned.
I have spent hours testing the thesis that Jesus fulfills Jewish scripture. I present further examples of the problems with this claim in my book on Evangelical Christianity. I have never found a credible Old Testament reference to the Messiah that points to the Jesus Christ of Christian faith.
The three examples presented above illustrate the problems with this claim quite well. Some purported references are silly like the Hosea passage of a son coming out of Egypt. Many others reference a Messiah as a political figure, an ideal king who rules from Jerusalem in justice and peace. Then there are the ones like the Jeremiah passage where the situation of the gospel does not match the situation described in the Old Testament.
It was a wonderful irony that a week after completing this blog I was visited by a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I enjoy such visits because I usually learn something about religion from them. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God controls history, that the Bible foretells the future, that statements by the prophets point to Jesus Christ. They have no problems accepting Matthew’s claim that Jesus fulfills scripture.
Here is what I have learned from several visits with their representatives over the years. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not acquire their views from reading the Bible, but rather they assume them to be true from the outset. As a result, they do not read the Bible with an open mind, but instead they search for evidence that appears to support their original assumptions. In conducting this search, they do not look beyond the surface. If a gospel writer claims that an act of Jesus fulfills scripture, they accept it at face value. They ignore factors such as problems with translating the text (virgin/maiden), the larger historical context of a passage, or passages that offer a different perspective from what they are looking for.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not unique in their approach to the Bible. Many Christians come to the Bible with deeply held assumptions, and look only for confirmation of those assumptions. They treat Jesus as a celebrity, someone they know little about and can therefore make into a person they want and need. In this process, they invent a religion that satisfies deep seated desires for individual salvation and personal confirmation.
From my perspective, such an approach misses the central dynamic of the divine/human relationship. I have only found God in loving my neighbor, in reaching out to others by ethical living. The idea is to reduce the control of ego over consciousness, which opens greater space for divine love to enter. It’s hard work!
I was taught as a child that because Jesus fulfills Old Testament references to a Messiah, this fact proves the historicity of the New Testament. This is a remarkable claim which makes it an important question to consider. This blog will analyze three Old Testament references to the Messiah that Matthew uses to create his virgin birth story.
The most famous of these passages is the sign of Immanuel in Isaiah 7: 10-17. Many Christians believe that this passage points to the virgin birth of Jesus as depicted in Matthew 1: 18-25. There are three problems with this claim.
The first has to do with the translation of the word virgin. My Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, translates the word as maiden in the Isaiah story, suggesting a young woman who may or may not have been a virgin. This is the correct translation of the Hebrew word in the original text.
There are some English Bibles, however, where the word is translated as virgin. The Septuagint is the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures. The relevant Greek word used in Isaiah 7: 14 can be translated into English as virgin or young woman, which creates the confusion. As I indicate above, if you go back to the original Hebrew text, the correct translation is maiden or young woman.
Second, there is no hint in the Isaiah story that God was somehow involved in the conception of this child. Immanuel had a human father.
Finally, a reading of the larger context of the Isaiah passage suggests that the child Immanuel will become a king who will rule from Jerusalem in justice and peace. Did God intend for Jesus to become a king who rules an earthly kingdom? That is not the way most Christians think of salvation, which indicates that the Jesus Christ of Christian faith does not in any way fulfill this scripture.
The second example of Jesus fulfilling scripture in the virgin birth story comes in Matthew 2: 13-16. God tells Joseph in a dream to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt. Matthew claims that this fulfills Hosea 11:1, “I called my son out of Egypt.” What is the author of Matthew thinking here? One son is going to Egypt to escape, and the other is coming from Egypt to escape. I don’t get it!
The last example comes in Matthew 2: 16-18. When Herod kills all the children, Matthew claims that this action fulfills Jeremiah 31: 15-16. A careful reading of the Jeremiah passage indicates a problem. The children that Rachel laments have not been killed, but rather are lost. God tells her to dry her tears because they will be returned.
I have spent hours testing the thesis that Jesus fulfills Jewish scripture. I present further examples of the problems with this claim in my book on Evangelical Christianity. I have never found a credible Old Testament reference to the Messiah that points to the Jesus Christ of Christian faith.
The three examples presented above illustrate the problems with this claim quite well. Some purported references are silly like the Hosea passage of a son coming out of Egypt. Many others reference a Messiah as a political figure, an ideal king who rules from Jerusalem in justice and peace. Then there are the ones like the Jeremiah passage where the situation of the gospel does not match the situation described in the Old Testament.
It was a wonderful irony that a week after completing this blog I was visited by a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I enjoy such visits because I usually learn something about religion from them. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God controls history, that the Bible foretells the future, that statements by the prophets point to Jesus Christ. They have no problems accepting Matthew’s claim that Jesus fulfills scripture.
Here is what I have learned from several visits with their representatives over the years. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not acquire their views from reading the Bible, but rather they assume them to be true from the outset. As a result, they do not read the Bible with an open mind, but instead they search for evidence that appears to support their original assumptions. In conducting this search, they do not look beyond the surface. If a gospel writer claims that an act of Jesus fulfills scripture, they accept it at face value. They ignore factors such as problems with translating the text (virgin/maiden), the larger historical context of a passage, or passages that offer a different perspective from what they are looking for.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not unique in their approach to the Bible. Many Christians come to the Bible with deeply held assumptions, and look only for confirmation of those assumptions. They treat Jesus as a celebrity, someone they know little about and can therefore make into a person they want and need. In this process, they invent a religion that satisfies deep seated desires for individual salvation and personal confirmation.
From my perspective, such an approach misses the central dynamic of the divine/human relationship. I have only found God in loving my neighbor, in reaching out to others by ethical living. The idea is to reduce the control of ego over consciousness, which opens greater space for divine love to enter. It’s hard work!
Monday, December 29, 2008
The Resurrection in Matthew
I would like to begin by again making a comparison between Matthew and Mark. In this case, we will examine the centurion at Jesus’ death. In Mark (15: 33-39), the centurion comes to his understanding of Jesus’ messianic status by participating in his suffering. In Matthew (27: 45-54), the centurion watches the events surrounding Jesus’ death in awe as the cosmos is transformed. The experience of awe leads him to see Jesus as the Son of God.
Matthew’s story of the death and resurrection of Jesus (27: 45-28:20) is an amazing one. As Jesus dies, there is an eclipse of the sun, the veil of the Temple is torn in two, an earthquake takes place, rocks are split, tombs open, and bodies of Jewish holy men rise from the dead, and walk around Jerusalem. These resurrected holy men appear to many people.
On Sunday, the two Marys visit the tomb. While there, another violent earthquake occurs, and an angel rolls away the stone. The guards at the tomb are stunned, and act as if they are dead. The angel tells the women that Jesus has risen and will meet the disciples in Galilee. As the women run to tell the disciples the good news, they meet Jesus, touching his feet which suggests that Jesus is physically present. Jesus tells them that he will meet the disciples in Galilee. At some point later, Jesus meets his disciples on a mountain in Galilee where they receive his final instructions.
There is one huge historical problem with this story. It only appears in Matthew. No historian writes about these incredible events. The other gospel accounts differ significantly from what is described in Matthew.
Josepheus was the second century Jewish historian who wrote about Palestine during the time of Jesus. He mentions Jesus twice in his books, but never discusses these events—eclipses of the sun, earthquakes, Jewish holy men rising from their graves and walking again in Jerusalem, and the man Jesus who dies on a cross and yet comes back to life to meet two women in Jerusalem and eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee. Roman historians writing about this period never mention these events—the most incredible events ever alleged to have taken place in human history. As a result of this glaring omission of historical coverage, I can’t believe that the events described in Matthew took place.
The Matthew story of Jesus’ resurrection is unique in the gospels. In Luke (23:44-24:53), two disciples walking to Emmaus see Jesus but do not recognize him. They do not recognize him! That sounds a little strange. These two disciples finally recognize him at supper, but then he vanishes from their sight. Just flies off somewhere, I guess. Jesus meets the disciples as a group at a home in Jerusalem, the mountain in Galilee is never mentioned, where he seems like a ghost. The disciples then follow him to Bethany where he physically ascends to heaven. Have you ever wondered where he went? Modern telescopes have never located heaven. Astronomers posit that the size of the universe is virtually without limits.
In John (see chapters 20 and 21), Jesus first appears to Mary of Magdala at a tomb. Mary doesn’t recognize him at first, thinking that he is the gardener. Jesus must have disguised himself in some way. After speaking to her, she recognizes him, and runs to report the wonderful news to the disciples. Jesus meets twice with the disciples in a closed room in Jerusalem, a room that he enters as a ghost through closed doors. In chapter 21, Jesus meets the disciples again in Galilee by the Sea in Tiberias. The disciples are fishing there, and fail to recognize him until he performs a miracle.
There are few, if any, common elements in these three stories. Mark’s story, as I commented in an earlier blog, is an add-on, not original to the author. Although it appears to be similar to Luke’s story, it is lacking in details and ambiguous.
There is one final problem with these stories. Jesus appears in all of them to a very small group of people. Religion becomes the possession of an exclusive club. A God of love wouldn’t work in that way.
The conclusion seems obvious: there is little credible evidence to support the belief in Jesus’ physical resurrection. However, something must have happened. The death of this little known carpenter on a cross ignited a movement that three hundred years later grew into the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.
I think that Paul provides us with a better answer than Matthew or the other gospels. He is the first person to write about the resurrected Jesus. Paul meets the resurrected Jesus in a vision experience. He sees Jesus in heaven, not as a physical presence on earth.
Read Paul’s account of his experience on the Damascus road (Acts 9: 1-9). On his way to the city, he is suddenly engulfed by a light from heaven, and then Jesus speaks to him from heaven. In 2 Corinthians 12: 1-12, Paul confirms that this was a vision experience, and that his experience was the same as the experiences of the other apostles.
1 Corinthians 15: 1-50 is another important source of information regarding Paul’s experience. Jesus was raised on the third day. There is no mention of an empty tomb, or a physical body. Flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God according to Paul. Paul’s experience was similar to Cephas, the twelve disciples, 500 brothers, the other apostles, and James. Jesus was raised as the first fruits of all those fallen asleep. They too will be raised to heaven, not to earth in physical bodies.
Does the resurrection as a vision experience have meaning for Christians living in the twenty-first century? I have already argued that Jesus as a salvation figure has little relevance for modern Christians. The gospels are clear that salvation comes from a rather strange Jewish Son of Man, and will take place in the first century. The events predicted have never taken place. Thus, linking the resurrection to salvation or eternal life makes little sense. The resurrection proves nothing with regard to salvation.
A better approach is to ask why Paul, the disciples, and others close to Jesus experienced his continued presence after his death. The answer is simple: love is real, a part of the created universe, and it does not die. Love is real—wow! I am in awe when I think about this fact, and reflect on my self-centered body. Love and the self-centered me have nothing in common. Their sources must be different. The existence of love points to God. It provides my life with purpose and meaning. The resurrection of Jesus confirms it.
Matthew’s story of the death and resurrection of Jesus (27: 45-28:20) is an amazing one. As Jesus dies, there is an eclipse of the sun, the veil of the Temple is torn in two, an earthquake takes place, rocks are split, tombs open, and bodies of Jewish holy men rise from the dead, and walk around Jerusalem. These resurrected holy men appear to many people.
On Sunday, the two Marys visit the tomb. While there, another violent earthquake occurs, and an angel rolls away the stone. The guards at the tomb are stunned, and act as if they are dead. The angel tells the women that Jesus has risen and will meet the disciples in Galilee. As the women run to tell the disciples the good news, they meet Jesus, touching his feet which suggests that Jesus is physically present. Jesus tells them that he will meet the disciples in Galilee. At some point later, Jesus meets his disciples on a mountain in Galilee where they receive his final instructions.
There is one huge historical problem with this story. It only appears in Matthew. No historian writes about these incredible events. The other gospel accounts differ significantly from what is described in Matthew.
Josepheus was the second century Jewish historian who wrote about Palestine during the time of Jesus. He mentions Jesus twice in his books, but never discusses these events—eclipses of the sun, earthquakes, Jewish holy men rising from their graves and walking again in Jerusalem, and the man Jesus who dies on a cross and yet comes back to life to meet two women in Jerusalem and eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee. Roman historians writing about this period never mention these events—the most incredible events ever alleged to have taken place in human history. As a result of this glaring omission of historical coverage, I can’t believe that the events described in Matthew took place.
The Matthew story of Jesus’ resurrection is unique in the gospels. In Luke (23:44-24:53), two disciples walking to Emmaus see Jesus but do not recognize him. They do not recognize him! That sounds a little strange. These two disciples finally recognize him at supper, but then he vanishes from their sight. Just flies off somewhere, I guess. Jesus meets the disciples as a group at a home in Jerusalem, the mountain in Galilee is never mentioned, where he seems like a ghost. The disciples then follow him to Bethany where he physically ascends to heaven. Have you ever wondered where he went? Modern telescopes have never located heaven. Astronomers posit that the size of the universe is virtually without limits.
In John (see chapters 20 and 21), Jesus first appears to Mary of Magdala at a tomb. Mary doesn’t recognize him at first, thinking that he is the gardener. Jesus must have disguised himself in some way. After speaking to her, she recognizes him, and runs to report the wonderful news to the disciples. Jesus meets twice with the disciples in a closed room in Jerusalem, a room that he enters as a ghost through closed doors. In chapter 21, Jesus meets the disciples again in Galilee by the Sea in Tiberias. The disciples are fishing there, and fail to recognize him until he performs a miracle.
There are few, if any, common elements in these three stories. Mark’s story, as I commented in an earlier blog, is an add-on, not original to the author. Although it appears to be similar to Luke’s story, it is lacking in details and ambiguous.
There is one final problem with these stories. Jesus appears in all of them to a very small group of people. Religion becomes the possession of an exclusive club. A God of love wouldn’t work in that way.
The conclusion seems obvious: there is little credible evidence to support the belief in Jesus’ physical resurrection. However, something must have happened. The death of this little known carpenter on a cross ignited a movement that three hundred years later grew into the dominant religion in the Roman Empire.
I think that Paul provides us with a better answer than Matthew or the other gospels. He is the first person to write about the resurrected Jesus. Paul meets the resurrected Jesus in a vision experience. He sees Jesus in heaven, not as a physical presence on earth.
Read Paul’s account of his experience on the Damascus road (Acts 9: 1-9). On his way to the city, he is suddenly engulfed by a light from heaven, and then Jesus speaks to him from heaven. In 2 Corinthians 12: 1-12, Paul confirms that this was a vision experience, and that his experience was the same as the experiences of the other apostles.
1 Corinthians 15: 1-50 is another important source of information regarding Paul’s experience. Jesus was raised on the third day. There is no mention of an empty tomb, or a physical body. Flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God according to Paul. Paul’s experience was similar to Cephas, the twelve disciples, 500 brothers, the other apostles, and James. Jesus was raised as the first fruits of all those fallen asleep. They too will be raised to heaven, not to earth in physical bodies.
Does the resurrection as a vision experience have meaning for Christians living in the twenty-first century? I have already argued that Jesus as a salvation figure has little relevance for modern Christians. The gospels are clear that salvation comes from a rather strange Jewish Son of Man, and will take place in the first century. The events predicted have never taken place. Thus, linking the resurrection to salvation or eternal life makes little sense. The resurrection proves nothing with regard to salvation.
A better approach is to ask why Paul, the disciples, and others close to Jesus experienced his continued presence after his death. The answer is simple: love is real, a part of the created universe, and it does not die. Love is real—wow! I am in awe when I think about this fact, and reflect on my self-centered body. Love and the self-centered me have nothing in common. Their sources must be different. The existence of love points to God. It provides my life with purpose and meaning. The resurrection of Jesus confirms it.
Monday, December 22, 2008
The Sermon on the Mount
The comparison of the parable of the wicked husbandmen in Matthew (21: 33-44) and Mark (12:1-12) is interesting. What you find is the exact same story with a different punch line. For Mark, the kingdom is no longer for Jews and will be given instead to Gentiles. For Matthew, the kingdom is for those who bear good fruit. A central theme in the gospel of Matthew is the need to obey religious law. This is what you must do in order to be saved.
The best summary of Matthew’s ethical teachings is the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7: 29). As I pointed out in last week’s blog, the author of Matthew uses the Sermon on the Mount to bring together all of Jesus’ teachings. The central point of these teachings is to obey religious law, to be perfect as God is perfect (5:48). This theme dominates Matthew’s gospel.
The Beatitudes (5:1-12) show the way to the kingdom. People who behave in certain ways will be accepted—the gentle, those who hunger and thirst for what is right, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers. Good behavior is rewarded, bad behavior is punished. Matthew makes this point again, and again, and again (see Matthew 6: 4-6, 7:22, 13: 36-43, 16:28, 21:44, and 25:31-46).
But there is more to it than that. Jesus the religious reformer points out that religious law is far more than rules to obey. The important part is the inner disposition of the heart. Yes, you must not kill, but the real task is to rid the heart of anger. The same is true for adultery. The problem here is lusting in your heart (see 5:20-48).
If your virtue goes no deeper than the scribes and Pharisees, you will never inherit the kingdom (5:20). The problem with the scribes and Pharisees is not what they teach, but the corruption of their hearts. Their religion is about outward obedience, and not a loving heart (23: 26-27). Jesus redefines Jewish purity rules. Those rules, he points out, are not about unclean hands, but an unclean heart (15:18-20). Jesus summarizes his ethics of love with the famous line that the two greatest commandments are to love God and your neighbor as yourself (22: 34-40).
There is an interesting eschatological flavor to some of Jesus’ teachings. The teachings to offer no resistance to your enemy (5:38-46), to give away your money and follow me (19:18), and to leave your family and follow me make more sense when seen in an eschatological context. God would intervene to take care of Rome, there was no human need to rebel, just turn the other cheek; and there would be no need for financial assets in God’s new order of shared resources.
Producing good fruit, one of Jesus’ favorite analogies, is a matter of training, of character building (7:18). If you make a tree sound, its fruit will be sound. A good man draws from the goodness developed in his heart (12:33-37). There is no question that humans are able to act in loving ways. The smart man is the one who hears his words and acts on them (7:22-24).
These teachings come from Jesus, the Jew. The divine/human relationship is defined in terms of obedience to Law. Jesus comes not to abolish the Law, but to reform it—the new Moses as I suggested last week. Jewish Law is an eternal gift from God (5: 17-19). The last instructions Jesus gives his disciples is to teach the people to obey all the commandments I have given you (28: 20).
As many Christians know, the apostle Paul has a very different position on these matters. For Paul, Christians are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obedience to religious law (Romans 1: 16-17). The only purpose that the Law serves is to point out the sinful nature of humans. The key point for Paul is that humans are not capable of obeying religious law (Romans 7: 1-25).
For Paul, obedience is a consequence of salvation, not a condition. God acts on a believer’s behalf, a gift of grace, and the person becomes loving. God enters your life, you become one in Christ, and sin no longer dominates your personality. The person’s mind is made new by God, human striving to become righteous can never work.
Jesus and Paul posit very different approaches to Christian living. In fact, the two approaches are incompatible. An important question is which one works.
I have always preferred Paul. The goal of my life has been to become a “Sermon on the Mount” person, to act in ways that reflect Jesus’ wonderful teachings. I have prayed for years for God to take control of my heart, to make me into a new person capable of living love.
Sadly, Paul’s approach hasn’t worked. God has not answered my prayers. It’s an approach that hasn’t worked for many Christians, I suspect. Ron Sider, a noted Evangelical theologian, concludes in an interview in Christianity Today (April 2005) that the disconnect between our biblical beliefs and our practice is heart rending. He presents statistical evidence to suggest that Evangelicals get divorced at the same rate as the general society, that Evangelicals are among the most prejudiced people in our society, that physical and sexual abuse are as bad in theologically conservative families as the general public, and that Evangelicals are not particularly generous donors. Most Evangelical Christians claim to be “born again,” an experience generated by God’s action on their behalf. God enters their life, they become one in Christ, a new person, with a personality no longer dominated by sin. My experience and Sider’s statistics suggest that there are problems here. For some reason, the “born again” experience didn’t stick.
As a result, for me, there has been no substitute for the hard work of character building prescribed by Jesus in Matthew. To purify my heart, I examine my resentments. After uncovering them, I take them to meditation where they can be seen and understood in a less defensive and more loving place. This work allows my heart to expand.
Jesus teaches in Matthew that we should not judge, that when we do, we notice the splinter in our neighbor’s eye and ignore the plank in our own (7: 1-5). There is profound wisdom in this teaching. Modern psychologists refer to it as projection. We project on others aspects of ourselves that we don’t like and have trouble accepting. I pay attention to judgment. It signals parts of myself that need sympathetic understanding. When psychological junk is handled in this way, it leaves me freer to choose to love.
Another test I use seeks answers to the following questions: Who is my neighbor? How far does love extend? The goal is to be open to everyone in love. Jesus lived that way. He was fully inclusive, open to all in love. For me, it’s an ego problem. The point is to move beyond self and toward others. I keep working at it. The teachings in Matthew inspire me.
The best summary of Matthew’s ethical teachings is the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7: 29). As I pointed out in last week’s blog, the author of Matthew uses the Sermon on the Mount to bring together all of Jesus’ teachings. The central point of these teachings is to obey religious law, to be perfect as God is perfect (5:48). This theme dominates Matthew’s gospel.
The Beatitudes (5:1-12) show the way to the kingdom. People who behave in certain ways will be accepted—the gentle, those who hunger and thirst for what is right, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers. Good behavior is rewarded, bad behavior is punished. Matthew makes this point again, and again, and again (see Matthew 6: 4-6, 7:22, 13: 36-43, 16:28, 21:44, and 25:31-46).
But there is more to it than that. Jesus the religious reformer points out that religious law is far more than rules to obey. The important part is the inner disposition of the heart. Yes, you must not kill, but the real task is to rid the heart of anger. The same is true for adultery. The problem here is lusting in your heart (see 5:20-48).
If your virtue goes no deeper than the scribes and Pharisees, you will never inherit the kingdom (5:20). The problem with the scribes and Pharisees is not what they teach, but the corruption of their hearts. Their religion is about outward obedience, and not a loving heart (23: 26-27). Jesus redefines Jewish purity rules. Those rules, he points out, are not about unclean hands, but an unclean heart (15:18-20). Jesus summarizes his ethics of love with the famous line that the two greatest commandments are to love God and your neighbor as yourself (22: 34-40).
There is an interesting eschatological flavor to some of Jesus’ teachings. The teachings to offer no resistance to your enemy (5:38-46), to give away your money and follow me (19:18), and to leave your family and follow me make more sense when seen in an eschatological context. God would intervene to take care of Rome, there was no human need to rebel, just turn the other cheek; and there would be no need for financial assets in God’s new order of shared resources.
Producing good fruit, one of Jesus’ favorite analogies, is a matter of training, of character building (7:18). If you make a tree sound, its fruit will be sound. A good man draws from the goodness developed in his heart (12:33-37). There is no question that humans are able to act in loving ways. The smart man is the one who hears his words and acts on them (7:22-24).
These teachings come from Jesus, the Jew. The divine/human relationship is defined in terms of obedience to Law. Jesus comes not to abolish the Law, but to reform it—the new Moses as I suggested last week. Jewish Law is an eternal gift from God (5: 17-19). The last instructions Jesus gives his disciples is to teach the people to obey all the commandments I have given you (28: 20).
As many Christians know, the apostle Paul has a very different position on these matters. For Paul, Christians are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obedience to religious law (Romans 1: 16-17). The only purpose that the Law serves is to point out the sinful nature of humans. The key point for Paul is that humans are not capable of obeying religious law (Romans 7: 1-25).
For Paul, obedience is a consequence of salvation, not a condition. God acts on a believer’s behalf, a gift of grace, and the person becomes loving. God enters your life, you become one in Christ, and sin no longer dominates your personality. The person’s mind is made new by God, human striving to become righteous can never work.
Jesus and Paul posit very different approaches to Christian living. In fact, the two approaches are incompatible. An important question is which one works.
I have always preferred Paul. The goal of my life has been to become a “Sermon on the Mount” person, to act in ways that reflect Jesus’ wonderful teachings. I have prayed for years for God to take control of my heart, to make me into a new person capable of living love.
Sadly, Paul’s approach hasn’t worked. God has not answered my prayers. It’s an approach that hasn’t worked for many Christians, I suspect. Ron Sider, a noted Evangelical theologian, concludes in an interview in Christianity Today (April 2005) that the disconnect between our biblical beliefs and our practice is heart rending. He presents statistical evidence to suggest that Evangelicals get divorced at the same rate as the general society, that Evangelicals are among the most prejudiced people in our society, that physical and sexual abuse are as bad in theologically conservative families as the general public, and that Evangelicals are not particularly generous donors. Most Evangelical Christians claim to be “born again,” an experience generated by God’s action on their behalf. God enters their life, they become one in Christ, a new person, with a personality no longer dominated by sin. My experience and Sider’s statistics suggest that there are problems here. For some reason, the “born again” experience didn’t stick.
As a result, for me, there has been no substitute for the hard work of character building prescribed by Jesus in Matthew. To purify my heart, I examine my resentments. After uncovering them, I take them to meditation where they can be seen and understood in a less defensive and more loving place. This work allows my heart to expand.
Jesus teaches in Matthew that we should not judge, that when we do, we notice the splinter in our neighbor’s eye and ignore the plank in our own (7: 1-5). There is profound wisdom in this teaching. Modern psychologists refer to it as projection. We project on others aspects of ourselves that we don’t like and have trouble accepting. I pay attention to judgment. It signals parts of myself that need sympathetic understanding. When psychological junk is handled in this way, it leaves me freer to choose to love.
Another test I use seeks answers to the following questions: Who is my neighbor? How far does love extend? The goal is to be open to everyone in love. Jesus lived that way. He was fully inclusive, open to all in love. For me, it’s an ego problem. The point is to move beyond self and toward others. I keep working at it. The teachings in Matthew inspire me.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Matthew's New Moses
Moses received God’s Law, and saved his people. Matthew’s Jesus will perform the same functions. The author of Matthew selects and creates his stories to make this point about the identity of Jesus. Here’s the evidence.
The virgin birth story in Matthew is patterned after the birth of Moses as described in Exodus (see Exodus 1:15-2:10). Herod in the Matthew story is seen as the Egyptian Pharaoh. The two infants are saved from an evil king bent on killing them. Both babies have to flee for their lives with the family of Jesus escaping to Egypt. Both families return after the death of the king.
Like the virgin birth, the story of the Sermon of the Mount is a work of fiction. The teachings most probably come from Jesus. What the author of Matthew does is to collect these teachings, and then create a story to present them. Moses received God’s Law on a mountain. Jesus delivers his reform of this Law on a mountain. Notice how Jesus introduces his new standards for Jewish Law: “You have learned how it was said to our ancestors: You must not kill” (one of the Ten Commandments), “But I say this to you…(Matthew 5:21-22).” The reference to Moses is unmistakable. Matthew’s point is that Jesus is the new Moses, the one sent by God to reform Jewish legalism.
Compare the transfiguration stories in Matthew (17:1-8), Mark (9:2-8), and Luke (9:28-36). One noticeable difference is Matthew’s addition of the phrase, “his face shone like the sun.” Now read the story in Exodus (34:29-35) where Moses comes down from the mountain after receiving the Ten Commandments. The skin on his face shone like the sun. First century Jews would not miss the allusion to Moses here. What appears at first blush as a minor editorial change has great significance in the larger picture of the author’s intentions. This is creative writing, not history, the stuff of ancient biography.
The resurrection story is unique to Matthew (see chapter 28). As I will point out in two weeks, the resurrection stories in the four gospels differ considerably from each other. In Matthew’s story, Jesus meets his disciples on a mountain top in Galilee. Mountain tops play a central role in the story of Moses. Jesus concludes his final instructions to his disciples with, “and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you (28:20).” These words appear only in Matthew, the addition of an editor, where Jewish Law is a central focus (see next week’s blog). In making this statement, Jesus is acting as the new Moses.
Moses was also a savior of his nation. Matthew’s Jesus has also come to save, but his precise role in this work is unclear. There are hints in Matthew that salvation involves a renewed Israel, the establishment of a kingdom on earth. At the Last Supper, Jesus tells the disciples that the next time he drinks wine it will be with them in God’s kingdom (26:29). Jesus gives Peter the keys to that kingdom (16:19), and he tells the disciples that each one will judge a tribe of Israel in the new kingdom (19:28). There is no ascension in Matthew. Heaven is the abode of an apocalyptic kingdom. The work of establishing a renewed Israel will be accomplished by God. The role of Jesus is to announce its imminent coming.
There is also plenty of evidence that the kingdom will result from an apocalypse that destroys the world. This kingdom will be ushered in by a Son of Man who will return to earth as divine judge. In this scenario, the kingdom will be for a select few who are judged to be righteous, and will exist in heaven. Jesus is frequently pictured in Matthew’s gospel as the Son of Man. Read the eschatological sermon in Matthew 24:1-25:46. See also Matthew 10:23, 12:41, 13: 24-30, 13:41, 16: 27-28, 17:10, 20:78, 21: 23-27, and 26: 2.
As I argued with the blogs in Mark, I find these two views of the kingdom to be incompatible, the product of two different voices that echo through the gospel. The voice of the early church was certainly not uniform, and yet there is evidence that some early congregations had apocalyptic views. I cannot picture the historical Jesus espousing apocalyptic views involving an end to the world that will lead to intense suffering for those left behind, and a kingdom for a select few who are judged as righteous. I also cannot picture Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man. The spiteful nature of an apocalyptic kingdom which seeks revenge against enemies (see Matthew 10: 11-16) contradicts the beauty of his teachings on love and forgiveness. Thus, I attribute all this Son of Man stuff to the early church, but this is nothing but speculation on my part. The New Testament provides little clarity in deciding this matter.
It is clear, however, that Matthew’s Jesus expected this kingdom to be imminent, that it would come within the generation of his followers. Matthew makes this point again, and again, and again. There are no contradictory statements. See Matthew 4:17, 10:23, 16: 27-28, and the eschatological sermon (24:1-25:46).
In addition to these passages, Matthew makes this point in three different but interesting ways. After arguing with the Pharisees over the nature of evil, Jesus concludes that his casting out devils is a sign that the kingdom is imminent (12:28). This lends support to a key point about Jesus’ work as a healer that was made in my earlier blog entitled “Mark’s Jesus and Jewish Eschatology.” When Jesus performs several cures near a lake, the crowds are amazed to see the dumb speaking, the cripples whole again, the lame walking, and the blind with sight. The prophet Isaiah predicted that when such things happened the kingdom was here. Finally, Jesus tells his disciples that Elijah has come in the person of John the Baptist (17: 9-13). The Jews believed that the kingdom would follow once Elijah returned.
Christians today ignore the unambiguous position of the New Testament that the kingdom of God would come in the first century. I do a statistical study of this question in my book on Evangelical Christianity. The results are interesting and fully support this point. Christians believe that salvation in God’s kingdom will come to them as a matter of grace, a gift from God. This idea comes from the apostle Paul, but it is not Matthew’s idea. According to Matthew, salvation was earned. It resulted from obedience to Jewish Law which is the topic of next week’s blog.
The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke end with Jesus’ last words of instructions to his disciples. Matthew’s instructions (see Matthew 28: 16-20) are different from the other gospels in two significant ways. The setting is a mountain top, and Jesus concludes with the words, “and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you.” Matthew’s Jesus is the New Moses, the man sent by God to reform Jewish law and to save a nation.
The virgin birth story in Matthew is patterned after the birth of Moses as described in Exodus (see Exodus 1:15-2:10). Herod in the Matthew story is seen as the Egyptian Pharaoh. The two infants are saved from an evil king bent on killing them. Both babies have to flee for their lives with the family of Jesus escaping to Egypt. Both families return after the death of the king.
Like the virgin birth, the story of the Sermon of the Mount is a work of fiction. The teachings most probably come from Jesus. What the author of Matthew does is to collect these teachings, and then create a story to present them. Moses received God’s Law on a mountain. Jesus delivers his reform of this Law on a mountain. Notice how Jesus introduces his new standards for Jewish Law: “You have learned how it was said to our ancestors: You must not kill” (one of the Ten Commandments), “But I say this to you…(Matthew 5:21-22).” The reference to Moses is unmistakable. Matthew’s point is that Jesus is the new Moses, the one sent by God to reform Jewish legalism.
Compare the transfiguration stories in Matthew (17:1-8), Mark (9:2-8), and Luke (9:28-36). One noticeable difference is Matthew’s addition of the phrase, “his face shone like the sun.” Now read the story in Exodus (34:29-35) where Moses comes down from the mountain after receiving the Ten Commandments. The skin on his face shone like the sun. First century Jews would not miss the allusion to Moses here. What appears at first blush as a minor editorial change has great significance in the larger picture of the author’s intentions. This is creative writing, not history, the stuff of ancient biography.
The resurrection story is unique to Matthew (see chapter 28). As I will point out in two weeks, the resurrection stories in the four gospels differ considerably from each other. In Matthew’s story, Jesus meets his disciples on a mountain top in Galilee. Mountain tops play a central role in the story of Moses. Jesus concludes his final instructions to his disciples with, “and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you (28:20).” These words appear only in Matthew, the addition of an editor, where Jewish Law is a central focus (see next week’s blog). In making this statement, Jesus is acting as the new Moses.
Moses was also a savior of his nation. Matthew’s Jesus has also come to save, but his precise role in this work is unclear. There are hints in Matthew that salvation involves a renewed Israel, the establishment of a kingdom on earth. At the Last Supper, Jesus tells the disciples that the next time he drinks wine it will be with them in God’s kingdom (26:29). Jesus gives Peter the keys to that kingdom (16:19), and he tells the disciples that each one will judge a tribe of Israel in the new kingdom (19:28). There is no ascension in Matthew. Heaven is the abode of an apocalyptic kingdom. The work of establishing a renewed Israel will be accomplished by God. The role of Jesus is to announce its imminent coming.
There is also plenty of evidence that the kingdom will result from an apocalypse that destroys the world. This kingdom will be ushered in by a Son of Man who will return to earth as divine judge. In this scenario, the kingdom will be for a select few who are judged to be righteous, and will exist in heaven. Jesus is frequently pictured in Matthew’s gospel as the Son of Man. Read the eschatological sermon in Matthew 24:1-25:46. See also Matthew 10:23, 12:41, 13: 24-30, 13:41, 16: 27-28, 17:10, 20:78, 21: 23-27, and 26: 2.
As I argued with the blogs in Mark, I find these two views of the kingdom to be incompatible, the product of two different voices that echo through the gospel. The voice of the early church was certainly not uniform, and yet there is evidence that some early congregations had apocalyptic views. I cannot picture the historical Jesus espousing apocalyptic views involving an end to the world that will lead to intense suffering for those left behind, and a kingdom for a select few who are judged as righteous. I also cannot picture Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man. The spiteful nature of an apocalyptic kingdom which seeks revenge against enemies (see Matthew 10: 11-16) contradicts the beauty of his teachings on love and forgiveness. Thus, I attribute all this Son of Man stuff to the early church, but this is nothing but speculation on my part. The New Testament provides little clarity in deciding this matter.
It is clear, however, that Matthew’s Jesus expected this kingdom to be imminent, that it would come within the generation of his followers. Matthew makes this point again, and again, and again. There are no contradictory statements. See Matthew 4:17, 10:23, 16: 27-28, and the eschatological sermon (24:1-25:46).
In addition to these passages, Matthew makes this point in three different but interesting ways. After arguing with the Pharisees over the nature of evil, Jesus concludes that his casting out devils is a sign that the kingdom is imminent (12:28). This lends support to a key point about Jesus’ work as a healer that was made in my earlier blog entitled “Mark’s Jesus and Jewish Eschatology.” When Jesus performs several cures near a lake, the crowds are amazed to see the dumb speaking, the cripples whole again, the lame walking, and the blind with sight. The prophet Isaiah predicted that when such things happened the kingdom was here. Finally, Jesus tells his disciples that Elijah has come in the person of John the Baptist (17: 9-13). The Jews believed that the kingdom would follow once Elijah returned.
Christians today ignore the unambiguous position of the New Testament that the kingdom of God would come in the first century. I do a statistical study of this question in my book on Evangelical Christianity. The results are interesting and fully support this point. Christians believe that salvation in God’s kingdom will come to them as a matter of grace, a gift from God. This idea comes from the apostle Paul, but it is not Matthew’s idea. According to Matthew, salvation was earned. It resulted from obedience to Jewish Law which is the topic of next week’s blog.
The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke end with Jesus’ last words of instructions to his disciples. Matthew’s instructions (see Matthew 28: 16-20) are different from the other gospels in two significant ways. The setting is a mountain top, and Jesus concludes with the words, “and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you.” Matthew’s Jesus is the New Moses, the man sent by God to reform Jewish law and to save a nation.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Virgin Birth Story in Matthew
Christian ministers all over the world will soon be retelling the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. It is an incredible and a beautiful story. It is told in the first two chapters of Matthew, and in Luke 1:5 through 2:40. Please read the versions in both gospels. Comparing them provides important insights.
The story in Matthew makes the assumption that Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem, that Bethlehem was their only residence. The couple is engaged in the story, but before they are married Mary somehow becomes impregnated by the Holy Spirit. After Jesus is born, a special star rises in the east to lead wise men to the birthplace so that they can pay homage to Jesus. This star wanders around the universe.
Rumors of the birth of a Jewish king deeply worries Herod. He in fact becomes so threatened by these rumors that he orders all male children within the Bethlehem area to be killed. To escape this danger, an angel instructs Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Eventually the family leaves Egypt for Nazareth in Galilee, refusing to return to Bethlehem because of fear of Herod’s successor.
There are several historical problems with this story. The first is that it only appears in Matthew. If the gospels really were eyewitness accounts, I can’t believe that the other writers, eyewitnesses, would have missed these incredible events—wandering stars, visits by wise men, and the death of all those children. It is also important to note that Roman and Palestinian historians of the period missed these events.
The second problem is that Matthew’s story differs from Luke’s. There are in fact no similarities between the stories except for the characters. The Luke story begins by linking together the births of Jesus and John the Baptist. No similar attempt is made in Matthew. In Luke, Mary and Joseph reside in Nazareth; but, due to a worldwide census ordered by Caesar Augustus, they travel to Bethlehem because Joseph was born there. While there, Jesus is born in a stable and visited by shepherds. After the birth and Jesus’ consecration in the Temple, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus return to Nazareth. There is no mention of a wandering star, the visit of wise men, a trip to Egypt, or the murder of all those children. At minimum, one story must be wrong.
Also troubling, these stories only appear in Matthew and Luke. Paul sells the Christian story to the Gentile world, and makes no reference to a virgin birth. Can you imagine a great salesman ignoring one of the most powerful weapons in his arsenal? If God was the biological father of Jesus, Paul would have made that claim in every letter he wrote.
In addition, Mark and John do not contain virgin birth stories. John in fact strongly implies that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus (see John 6: 42-43). The same implication is found in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Joseph is listed in each one as the father of Jesus. It is through the bloodline of Joseph that Jesus is linked to the house of David.
Most historians of the first century Christian period agree that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Why then do Matthew and Luke put this birth in Bethlehem? Simply because the prophet Micah predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2). The Jews believed that the Jewish scriptures were far more than an historical record of God’s involvement with the people of Israel. They were also a blueprint for the future. In this sense, these scriptures were about the coming Messiah. If Jesus was indeed the long awaited Jewish Messiah, he would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke invented stories to solve this problem.
The authors of Matthew and Luke also use these fictional stories to describe the identity of Jesus. That is what ancient biographies do. The genealogy in Matthew (1:1) points out that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, descending from David and Abraham to whom the messianic promises were made. Matthew also uses his virgin birth story to introduce the idea that Jesus can best be understood as the new Moses, which is the subject of next week’s blog. In a future blog, I will demonstrate how Luke uses his virgin birth story to introduce his ideas about the identity of Jesus.
The story in Matthew makes the assumption that Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem, that Bethlehem was their only residence. The couple is engaged in the story, but before they are married Mary somehow becomes impregnated by the Holy Spirit. After Jesus is born, a special star rises in the east to lead wise men to the birthplace so that they can pay homage to Jesus. This star wanders around the universe.
Rumors of the birth of a Jewish king deeply worries Herod. He in fact becomes so threatened by these rumors that he orders all male children within the Bethlehem area to be killed. To escape this danger, an angel instructs Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Eventually the family leaves Egypt for Nazareth in Galilee, refusing to return to Bethlehem because of fear of Herod’s successor.
There are several historical problems with this story. The first is that it only appears in Matthew. If the gospels really were eyewitness accounts, I can’t believe that the other writers, eyewitnesses, would have missed these incredible events—wandering stars, visits by wise men, and the death of all those children. It is also important to note that Roman and Palestinian historians of the period missed these events.
The second problem is that Matthew’s story differs from Luke’s. There are in fact no similarities between the stories except for the characters. The Luke story begins by linking together the births of Jesus and John the Baptist. No similar attempt is made in Matthew. In Luke, Mary and Joseph reside in Nazareth; but, due to a worldwide census ordered by Caesar Augustus, they travel to Bethlehem because Joseph was born there. While there, Jesus is born in a stable and visited by shepherds. After the birth and Jesus’ consecration in the Temple, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus return to Nazareth. There is no mention of a wandering star, the visit of wise men, a trip to Egypt, or the murder of all those children. At minimum, one story must be wrong.
Also troubling, these stories only appear in Matthew and Luke. Paul sells the Christian story to the Gentile world, and makes no reference to a virgin birth. Can you imagine a great salesman ignoring one of the most powerful weapons in his arsenal? If God was the biological father of Jesus, Paul would have made that claim in every letter he wrote.
In addition, Mark and John do not contain virgin birth stories. John in fact strongly implies that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus (see John 6: 42-43). The same implication is found in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Joseph is listed in each one as the father of Jesus. It is through the bloodline of Joseph that Jesus is linked to the house of David.
Most historians of the first century Christian period agree that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Why then do Matthew and Luke put this birth in Bethlehem? Simply because the prophet Micah predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2). The Jews believed that the Jewish scriptures were far more than an historical record of God’s involvement with the people of Israel. They were also a blueprint for the future. In this sense, these scriptures were about the coming Messiah. If Jesus was indeed the long awaited Jewish Messiah, he would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke invented stories to solve this problem.
The authors of Matthew and Luke also use these fictional stories to describe the identity of Jesus. That is what ancient biographies do. The genealogy in Matthew (1:1) points out that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, descending from David and Abraham to whom the messianic promises were made. Matthew also uses his virgin birth story to introduce the idea that Jesus can best be understood as the new Moses, which is the subject of next week’s blog. In a future blog, I will demonstrate how Luke uses his virgin birth story to introduce his ideas about the identity of Jesus.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
An Introduction to Matthew
Although Mark was the first gospel written, the gospel of Matthew is first in the hearts of most Christians. The virgin birth story and the Sermon on the Mount are two indelible elements of the Christian tradition. The Lord’s Prayer is without doubt the most repeated petition made to God. All three of these Christian treasures come from Matthew.
The gospel of Matthew is the most Jewish account of Jesus in the New Testament. The author was most probably a Jewish Christian living in the Hellenistic world. The earliest manuscripts of the gospel are written in Greek. Because 85% of Mark appears in Matthew, it is unlikely that Matthew was written by an eyewitness. Eyewitnesses do not copy the work of others. If the author had been an eyewitness, you would also expect statements such as I was with him when… Such statements do not occur.
There is a general consensus among most New Testament scholars that Matthew was written between 80 and 90 CE. This dating range is based on the idea that Matthew is dependent on Mark, which was written around 70CE. The intense hostility toward the Pharisees in the gospel of Matthew only makes sense if the gospel was written after 70CE when the Pharisees became the dominant party in Judaism. It has also been noted that the gospel contains no debates concerning circumcision or dietary laws, issues that raged in the 50s during the ministry of Paul. The Church was now firmly centered in the Hellenistic world where such issues were no longer of great concern.
The gospel of Matthew is composed from three sources—Mark represents 50% of the material while Q and sources unique to Matthew make up the rest. I want to talk about each of these three sources in some detail.
We covered many issues related to the writing of Mark in the previous series of blogs. One issue that we conspicuously avoided was the oral tradition. All the stories about Jesus in the New Testament come to us from the oral tradition. I learned important lessons about the oral tradition from an usual set of experiences.
I was a member of a fraternity forty years ago. It was one of the highlights of my college experience. Five years ago I went to a college reunion, my first since graduating, and we told stories. The religious scientist in me perked up instantly.
I remembered some of the stories differently from my friends. Oftentimes, we remembered the punch line, but some of the details had been lost over time. To relate a seamless story, the lost details were invented. Old friends not present at the reunion were described in legendary terms. I was one of the worst offenders.
Memory is a fascinating thing. First, we remember what we want to remember. Second, we remember the gist of a story, the general outline, but not the precise details. Story telling weaves together fact, fantasy, and imagination.
The gospels are based on an oral tradition passed down among the followers of Jesus for forty years. What is amazing is the number of stories that have survived. Jesus obviously made a lasting impression on his contemporaries. And yet these stories were told and retold by human beings for forty years. After the stories were told and retold, they were placed into a gospel by an editor, a flesh and blood human being with definite ideas about Jesus.
Compare the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew (22:1-14) and Luke (14: 15-24). The point of the story is the same: God has given up on the Jews and the kingdom will be for Gentiles. But note that many of the details are different. The excuses made by the invited guests are different in each story. The voice of the editor is also inserted. Matthew’s gospel is concerned with obedience to religious law as a condition of entering the kingdom. Matthew concludes the story with, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Luke’s gospel focuses on the poor, the downtrodden, the crippled, and the blind. These are the new guests invited to the banquet.
As I indicated earlier, half of Matthew’s gospel comes from stories taken from Mark. These stories are all products of the oral tradition. Another 25% of Matthew comes from the Q gospel. The Q hypothesis was first suggested by Johannes Weiss, a German biblical scholar. Q refers to the German word for source.
Q is classified as a sayings gospel, which means that it contains a collection of sayings from Jesus with no story line. These sayings include teachings of Jesus and parables, all of which contain a strong eschatological flavor. There is no birth story, Passion Narrative, or attempt to link stories into a coherent narrative. Q is believed to be one of the earliest sources of stories about Jesus. The problem is that a Q manuscript has never been found.
Compare Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3: 7-9. You will note that after slightly different introductions, the two stories proceed word for word. This story is found only in Matthew and Luke. The best explanation for the identical versions of the story is that the authors of Matthew and Luke took the story from the same source. Sadly, as I indicated above, we have never been able to locate Q. Finally, it is interesting to note how the Q material was integrated into the text. The editor in each case takes the Q material and places it among other stories (different in each gospel) as if he was weaving a patchwork quilt.
The last source of material for the gospel of Matthew are stories that are unique to Matthew. These stories include the virgin birth and the Sermon on the Mount. My next blog focuses entirely on Matthew’s famous story of the miraculous birth of Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount is our topic for three weeks hence.
The gospel of Matthew is the most Jewish account of Jesus in the New Testament. The author was most probably a Jewish Christian living in the Hellenistic world. The earliest manuscripts of the gospel are written in Greek. Because 85% of Mark appears in Matthew, it is unlikely that Matthew was written by an eyewitness. Eyewitnesses do not copy the work of others. If the author had been an eyewitness, you would also expect statements such as I was with him when… Such statements do not occur.
There is a general consensus among most New Testament scholars that Matthew was written between 80 and 90 CE. This dating range is based on the idea that Matthew is dependent on Mark, which was written around 70CE. The intense hostility toward the Pharisees in the gospel of Matthew only makes sense if the gospel was written after 70CE when the Pharisees became the dominant party in Judaism. It has also been noted that the gospel contains no debates concerning circumcision or dietary laws, issues that raged in the 50s during the ministry of Paul. The Church was now firmly centered in the Hellenistic world where such issues were no longer of great concern.
The gospel of Matthew is composed from three sources—Mark represents 50% of the material while Q and sources unique to Matthew make up the rest. I want to talk about each of these three sources in some detail.
We covered many issues related to the writing of Mark in the previous series of blogs. One issue that we conspicuously avoided was the oral tradition. All the stories about Jesus in the New Testament come to us from the oral tradition. I learned important lessons about the oral tradition from an usual set of experiences.
I was a member of a fraternity forty years ago. It was one of the highlights of my college experience. Five years ago I went to a college reunion, my first since graduating, and we told stories. The religious scientist in me perked up instantly.
I remembered some of the stories differently from my friends. Oftentimes, we remembered the punch line, but some of the details had been lost over time. To relate a seamless story, the lost details were invented. Old friends not present at the reunion were described in legendary terms. I was one of the worst offenders.
Memory is a fascinating thing. First, we remember what we want to remember. Second, we remember the gist of a story, the general outline, but not the precise details. Story telling weaves together fact, fantasy, and imagination.
The gospels are based on an oral tradition passed down among the followers of Jesus for forty years. What is amazing is the number of stories that have survived. Jesus obviously made a lasting impression on his contemporaries. And yet these stories were told and retold by human beings for forty years. After the stories were told and retold, they were placed into a gospel by an editor, a flesh and blood human being with definite ideas about Jesus.
Compare the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew (22:1-14) and Luke (14: 15-24). The point of the story is the same: God has given up on the Jews and the kingdom will be for Gentiles. But note that many of the details are different. The excuses made by the invited guests are different in each story. The voice of the editor is also inserted. Matthew’s gospel is concerned with obedience to religious law as a condition of entering the kingdom. Matthew concludes the story with, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Luke’s gospel focuses on the poor, the downtrodden, the crippled, and the blind. These are the new guests invited to the banquet.
As I indicated earlier, half of Matthew’s gospel comes from stories taken from Mark. These stories are all products of the oral tradition. Another 25% of Matthew comes from the Q gospel. The Q hypothesis was first suggested by Johannes Weiss, a German biblical scholar. Q refers to the German word for source.
Q is classified as a sayings gospel, which means that it contains a collection of sayings from Jesus with no story line. These sayings include teachings of Jesus and parables, all of which contain a strong eschatological flavor. There is no birth story, Passion Narrative, or attempt to link stories into a coherent narrative. Q is believed to be one of the earliest sources of stories about Jesus. The problem is that a Q manuscript has never been found.
Compare Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3: 7-9. You will note that after slightly different introductions, the two stories proceed word for word. This story is found only in Matthew and Luke. The best explanation for the identical versions of the story is that the authors of Matthew and Luke took the story from the same source. Sadly, as I indicated above, we have never been able to locate Q. Finally, it is interesting to note how the Q material was integrated into the text. The editor in each case takes the Q material and places it among other stories (different in each gospel) as if he was weaving a patchwork quilt.
The last source of material for the gospel of Matthew are stories that are unique to Matthew. These stories include the virgin birth and the Sermon on the Mount. My next blog focuses entirely on Matthew’s famous story of the miraculous birth of Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount is our topic for three weeks hence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
