Author Archives: aanders6

Team 1, Question 1

Posted on by under matthew

This week, we saw Matthew making some decisive shifts from the Gospel of Mark. Where Mark’s core themes were misunderstanding and secrecy, with Jesus’ value being placed almost solely on the crucifixion, Matthew’s gospel focuses on Jesus’ role as a teacher, with, “…themes of following and discipleship…”(White 301) being at the core of his words and deeds. Probably one of the most noticeable examples of this new role is Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

Towards the beginning of the Sermon, Jesus takes a strong position on the Jewish law, which was based on the Ten Commandments given by God to Moses for Israel. He says that the law is a good thing that He was sent to uphold and fulfill, rather than eradicate (Mt. 5:17-19). In fact, Jesus “extends” the ruling of the law by saying that those who are guilty of anger or insulting someone else is accountable to the law, just as they are for murder, which essentially equates the misdeeds (5:21-26). Putting it simply, instead of saying, “Thou shalt not murder,” like Moses, he is saying, “thou shalt not murder, insult, or anger (because they’re basically the same!).” He treats lust and adultery in the same fashion, again drawing a strict parallel (5:27-30), and saying that divorce causes adultery through the remarriage of spouses (5:31-32). Going further, Jesus speaks out against the social norms of the day, especially with his words against revenge and hatred (5:38-48). With this section, Matthew has Jesus essentially “re-giving” Moses’ Ten Commandments to strengthen the connection between the two that our author first established during the birth narrative (2:1-23) by drawing distinct parallels (especially with the slaughter of the children by King Herod and travel to/from Egypt). Matthew seeks to reframe Jesus as a “new Moses”, set to lead Israel out of their current situation, just as Moses led Israel out of Egypt.

After renovating the Jewish Law, Jesus teaches on the behavior of true disciples/ followers. First, Jesus’ followers should be pious, never seeking attention by being loud or flashy when they are tithing, praying, or fasting (6:2-18). Jesus then teaches that His followers should live in a different way—faithfully. Followers should devote their lives to one master, God, (6:24) not stock up on material wealth (6:19-21), and avoid worrying about even the minute details of life (6:25-34). Jesus is essentially telling his followers to not protect themselves financially, spiritually, etc. in the way that was common even today. Instead, He preaches that those Earthly protections are nothing when compared to faith in God’s generous and providing nature. Jesus asks His follower’s to kick more social norms to the curb when he teaches to not judge (7:1-5), communicate with and ask God for what you want/need to receive instead of going through a priest, as was common in the Jewish faith (7:7-11), and: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you…” live by the Golden Rule (7:12)!

The blessings section (5:3-12) serves to align Jesus with the side of those who are kicked by society—those who are, “…poor in spirit…those who mourn…meek…hunger and thirst…persecuted…reviled…” For all of these people whom Jesus describes through circumstances of suffering, their reward is high; they will see and receive God and heaven and will be given blessings from God while on Earth. In closing warnings/exhortations, Jesus continues this theme, saying, “…the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction….For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life…” (7:13-14). Jesus is saying here that the wrong gate is easy to pass through. Keep in mind that those He is siding with live REALLY HARD lives; they get life in the end!

This all makes sense when given the information that Matthew wrote his gospel in a time of revolt, when Jews were aligning themselves with the stricter laws that governed the Jewish leaders and, “…the followers of Jesus [were] being marginalized” (White 304). Matthew is basically pleading with the followers of the Jesus movement, saying, “Don’t switch sides! We win in the end!” That would explain why Matthew was so concerned with framing the image of the Jesus follower as one who suffers.

RoJ 4/26 Team 1, Question 1

Posted on by under miracles

In ancient understanding, demon-possession was equated with the modern-day virus, with the demon making its home in a host and wreaking havoc therein. White says that, “Demons were the ‘germs’ of the ancient world” (170). This phrasing makes it seem as though demon-possession was a common occurrence/diagnoses and nothing to be feared under normal circumstances. This attitude contrasts with death, which was widely feared. The death itself wasn’t the object of fear, it was the idea of being trapped by death or the appearance of death and the subsequent mistaken burial/burning alive.

Miracle stories, which would more likely be attributed to medical knowledge and know-how in modern understanding, followed a simple format outlined by White. In its simplest form, the writer would (1) describe the situation, including how the healer came upon the dead/ill person, what was happening to them, and the alleged cause of the event; (2) outline the course of action/healing by the miracle worker, usually including “magic words” and a touch of some sort, though that was not always required, and the result of the action on the newly healed individual; and finally (3) the amazed reactions of the community gathered (White, 175). It’s important to remember that the purpose of telling a miraculous healing story is not to bring attention to the healing itself, but to exalt the status of the miracle worker as someone with otherworldly power and/or authority.

Stories of healing via exorcism in the Gospels and in Apollonius of Tyana follow similar story lines as outlined by White. In the reading of Apollonius and the Jesus’ healings of the “unclean spirits” in Mark, it appears that the situation came upon the healer unexpectedly. Apollonius was: “…lecturing on the subject of libations and there happened to be present at the talk a [demon possessed youth]” (Philostratus 361); in Capernaum, Jesus was also teaching when, “Just then, there was…a man with an unclean spirit” (Mk. 1:23); finally, in Gerasenes, Jesus had just stepped out of a boat when he was met by the demon-possessed (Mk. 5:2). Some backstory on the condition of the demon-possessed subject is given in Apollonius 4.2 (361) and in Jesus’ healing at Gerasenes (Mk. 5:3-5), though not in the healing in the synagogue of Capernaum. In all three occasions of exorcism, the demon acknowledged the power of the miracle worker prior to the exorcism itself—in Apollonius the demon did so with, “…sounds of fear and fury…” (361) while in both Markan instances, the demon did so with intelligible words and attesting to the divine nature and power of Jesus (Mk. 5:6-7, 1:24). To excise the unclean spirit, both Apollonius and Jesus speak to the demon in a way that brooks no refusal (Philostratus 361; Mk. 5:8, 1:25). With the exorcism itself, there is proof of its occurrence in Philostratus’ account of Apollonius (363) and in the Markan accounts (Mk. 5:11-13, 1:26). Each account ends with the amazed reactions of the crowd or witnesses (Philostratus, 363; Mk. 5:14-17, 1:27). We can see though, that not all reactions are positive; in Jesus’ healing at Gerasenes in chapter 5, the townspeople beg Jesus to leave after the exorcism is completed with the death of 2000 pigs.

The resurrection stories in Apollonius 4.45 and in Jesus’ healing of the young girl in Mark 5:21-43 are incredibly similar. Both women died at unfortunate times in their lives, with the girl in Apollonius’ story dying on or near her wedding day, before the honeymoon, and the girl in Jesus’ story dying incredibly young. In each story, the parents of the “deceased” play a role, with those in Mark taking the initiative to call on Jesus to heal their daughter and those in Apollonius offering a large reward, which is refused. The healer in both instances seems to heal the girl in question with a simple touch and a command or words (Philostratus 419; Mark 5:41). The wording in each story makes it seem as though the girl were sleeping rather than really dead; Apollonius: “…woke the bride from her apparent death” (Philostratus 419), while Jesus: “…said to her…’Little girl, get up!’” (Mark 5:41).

After reading each story, we can see that both resuscitation/resurrection and exorcism miracles follow the outline that White presents. I think that each author, Philostratus and Mark, seeks to raise the status of his respective character in the eyes of his readers. They want to align each man with the divine man tradition by fulfilling the requirement of otherworldly “deeds” in the aretalogy.

RoJ 4/5: Team 1, Question 1

Posted on by under messiah

Biblical texts were written in living languages.  Over time, certain connotations, meanings of words, and phrases change to fit new contexts. It would follow, then, that how one reads and understands Biblical scriptures in the modern age differs from the age it was cast in. The word “Messiah”, especially, has grown to encompass much more following the rise of apocalyptic thinking around 200 BCE- 100 CE than some authors originally intended.

In the context of early Israelite authors, the term “Messiah” meant “anointed one,” especially in reference to an earthly king. The anointing of a king with oil was a symbol of that king’s calling to be set apart in the service of God.  This service was carried out as God’s adopted son the Father’s Spirit upon him and, by extension, the kingdom (White, 25). By no means did reflect views that the king was a divine being on Earth, but it definitely set the king above the average man.  That the anointing took place was considered a blessing and the fulfillment of God’s promise of the continuation of the Davidic kingdom.  The job of the newly anointed son was to protect the Lord’s temple and dwelling place on Mount Zion (25).

The text itself reflects these notions and expectations of early messianic views in several sections, regarding several aspects of the job description.  In several writings of the Bible, God promises the continuation of the Davidic kingdom (2 Samuel 7:12-13, 16; Isaiah 11:1) and His Spirit to be upon the anointed Israeli king (2 Samuel 7:14-15; Isaiah 11:2).  God also affirms his adoption of the messianic king (2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7), and the king’s calling to build, maintain, and protect the Temple of God (2 Samuel 7:13; Psalm 2:6).

The rise of apocalypticism in Jewish thought changed the expectations surrounding the title of “Messiah”. Even the term “apocalypse” has changed, originally referring to the end of the present time, assuming a radical shift (socially, politically, etc.) that would bring about a new, better, era (White, 28).  This post-apocalyptic age would supposedly be brought in by a messianic, conquering king who would bring about peace by, “…forcefully [purging] the nation of internal corruption and foreign influences.” (31)  This conquering ruler, though, is not the ultimate victor in the battle between good and evil; that role is reserved for a prophetic or priestly messianic figure (31).  Historically, though led by The Spirit and bringing about God’s will, neither figure is considered divine.  These figures are similar to the traditional messiahs in that they serve and rule the kingdom of Israel with God’s blessing and Spirit, but differ in the extent to which they are called to do so. Rather than simply leading Israel, they are sent to save it from the context of critical times.

Looking specifically at the scene of Jesus’ baptism by his cousin, John the Baptist, the author of the gospel of Mark makes several claims about Jesus in his style of writing that bears the weight of pre and post-apocalyptic thinking.  As Jesus completed the symbolic act of baptism, the text says that, “…he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’” (Mark 1:10-11).  This clearly reflects the view that Jesus was, in fact, the anointed Messiah, in the way that the messianic king was viewed before the rise of apocalypticism by the literal descent of God’s Spirit and what is assumed to be His voice.  God goes further to claim Jesus is His son.  In Jewish thought, this would mean that the end times had drawn nearer with the sending of Jesus as the messianic king and deliverer of the nation of Israel.  This, in no way, claims Jesus’ divinity, congruent with later messianic thinking, but it does set him up as being a part of God’s plan.

Skip to toolbar