It's interesting that Matthew started his Gospel with the genealogy of Jesus, one wonders why he might have done so.
It's generally believed that Matthew is primarily aimed at a Jewish audience, so it's reasonable to conclude that if one was making a case for Jesus as Messiah that starting with a genealogy that shows Him as descending from Abraham and David would be crucial to making that case. It would also be crucial to making the case that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies.
"5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give."
Strange that when He sent His disciples out that he never mentioned that they should do anything but proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven, heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and drive out demons. Not one mention of giving food to the hungry or jobs to the poor. Quite the opposite, in that He expected the people to give food TO the disciples, how strange.
"25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do."
Interesting, Jesus is pretty clear that He is hiding the things of the Father from some people.
"27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
Again Jesus is clear that he only ones who will know The Son and The Father are those who The father chooses.
" 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus."
Oh, look. The pharisees started plotting to kill Jesus relatively early and did so for religious reasons.
"
15 Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. A large crowd followed him, and he healed all who were ill. 16 He warned them not to tell others about him. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
18 “Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
the one I love, in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
19 He will not quarrel or cry out;
no one will hear his voice in the streets.
20 A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out,
till he has brought justice through to victory.
21 In his name the nations will put their hope.”
Again Jesus warns people not to tell others about Him.
" 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."
If demons was some sort of secret code for mental illness, why would Jesus not correct the misunderstandings of the Jews, instead of reinforcing His command over the demons?
That's enough for now. Just pointing out that Dan's cursory eisegesis of Matthew skipped over the parts that don't support his hunches.
9 comments:
If demons was some sort of secret code for mental illness, why would Jesus not correct the misunderstandings of the Jews, instead of reinforcing His command over the demons?
For the same reasons Jesus didn't talk about an earth that is billions of years old, or about automobiles, or about the great evil of slavery or the advantages/moral good of a free republic and human rights.
Jesus literally didn't talk about ANYTHING that was beyond the understanding of first century people.
So, you think that "demons" exist and sometimes "get inside" people and "possess" them? Where is your data for that? The ancient world was the ancient world and I don't think that Jesus spoke of human rights or the rights of women or LGBTQ folks or mental illness because it was simply not anything in their realm of thought.
Why do you think that Jesus didn't condemn slavery or forced marriages or the rights of people in general or women specifically? Because none of those things are clearly correct or because they ARE correct but just too much for the understanding/culture of the time?
If demons was some sort of secret code for mental illness, why would Jesus not correct the misunderstandings of the Jews, instead of reinforcing His command over the demons?
If slavery is a clear and great evil, why would Jesus not correct the bad understanding of humans back then?
Strange that when He sent His disciples out that he never mentioned that they should do anything but proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven
This is where I think you're perhaps failing to understand what Jesus meant when he said he'd come to preach the good news literally and specifically to the poor and marginalized about the Realm of Heaven;
a place where the poor and marginalized are welcomed;
where the rich are warned that it's nearly impossible for them to enter the realm of God;
for the rich to give up their wealth and to share with the poor;
etc.
The Realm of God, as Jesus literally spoke of it, is a realm where God is concerned specifically for the poor and marginalized, where the poor and marginalized are welcomed and affirmed. It's right there in Jesus' words, over and over.
Why, then, do you think that Jesus is NOT speaking of the Good News for the poor and marginalized that Jesus literally and specifically cited, when he encouraged them to preach the good news of the realm of God?
Are you reading INTO that line, "he never mentioned that they should do anything but proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven" that by "kingdom of heaven," he was speaking of PSA? If so, why didn't he take the time to mention it? Anywhere in ANY of his sermons/teachings?
Craig...
Jesus is pretty clear that He is hiding the things of the Father from some people.
But WHAT is he hiding and from WHOM? Is it random people... this person but not THAT person...? OR is it some specific group?
What Jesus said, in context, in Matt 11:
“Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor."
This is what Jesus said to John who was imprisoned by the rich and powerful and soon to be killed by the rich and powerful... the legalists.
Continuing...
From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it.
Who WERE these violent people Jesus is referring to? I really want to know what your guess is.
Jesus helps make it clear:
To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
“‘We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not mourn.’
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”
Hm. WHO was it who hated Jesus and John for what they preached... for their good news to specifically the poor and marginalized? Do you know, contextually, who Jesus is referring to here? It's not hard.
Continuing...
Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent...
For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
And what WAS the sin of Sodom? That they were rich and unconcerned about the plight of the poor and marginalized?
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
Given all that, contextually speaking, WHO were the "wise and learned" that Jesus mocked and brought low? WHO were the "little children" Jesus spoke of, contextually?
It's not hard, look at the textual and contextual clues.
"Jesus literally didn't talk about ANYTHING that was beyond the understanding of first century people."
So, Jesus lied to the people because they were too stupid to understand that mental illness wasn't caused by demons. Jesus intentionally chose to be misleading (He could have healed them without telling them it was demons), as a way to reinforce His claim that He was The Truth. What a bizarre hunch.
"So, you think that "demons" exist and sometimes "get inside" people and "possess" them? Where is your data for that? The ancient world was the ancient world and I don't think that Jesus spoke of human rights or the rights of women or LGBTQ folks or mental illness because it was simply not anything in their realm of thought."
I believe that Jesus' was The Truth, and that Truth was very important to Him. Therefore I believe that He was not likely to lie as He was advocating for The Truth. But if you choose to believe that Jesus lied, go right ahead. I take this course of offense with a grain of salt, as you've always been dismissive of any of the supernatural elements from Scripture.
"Why do you think that Jesus didn't condemn slavery or forced marriages or the rights of people in general or women specifically?"
1. Because He wasn't a social justice savior. Because His Kingdom isn't of the earth. Because He wasn't focused on those things. Because those things aren't always objectively wrong. Although, in practice His treatment of women was the complete opposite of how women were treated in the 1st century Roman empire. But the problem with this tactic, is that not addressing your pet issues isn't the same as addressing them and then lying about it.
"Because none of those things are clearly correct or because they ARE correct but just too much for the understanding/culture of the time?"
Again, He might not have addressed them to the satisfaction of a 21st century ultra liberal, but He also didn't lie about them. Not addressing something isn't the same thing as addressing something and lying about it.
"If slavery is a clear and great evil, why would Jesus not correct the bad understanding of humans back then?"
This endless stream of irrelevant questions is a spectacularly annoying way of avoiding the point being made.
1. Maybe you are wrong and Jesus was right about the level of "evil" inherent in the 1st century practice of slavery among His primary audience.
2. Him not addressing something is not the same as Him lying about something.
It's like a hypothetical where Jesus freed all of the slaves, then lied about what He did.
"This is where I think you're perhaps failing to understand what Jesus meant when he said he'd come to preach the good news literally and specifically to the poor and marginalized about the Realm of Heaven;
a place where the poor and marginalized are welcomed;
where the rich are warned that it's nearly impossible for them to enter the realm of God;
for the rich to give up their wealth and to share with the poor;
etc."
This is where I think that you're perhaps failing to comprehend the reality that your personal philosophy on this topic might not be objectively True or be supported by the full context of Jesus' teachings or of the Apostles. It's interesting that you posit a system where "the rich" can only enter the "realm of God" if they perform certain works first. Or a system where YHWH shows partiality to one group over another group, a practice He condemned. Or a system which is based almost entirely on the economic position of groups of people, rather than on the sinfulness of individuals. In any case, I fail to see why I should take your fantasies to be objectively True.
"The Realm of God, as Jesus literally spoke of it, is a realm where God is concerned specifically for the poor and marginalized, where the poor and marginalized are welcomed and affirmed. It's right there in Jesus' words, over and over."
1. If you're going to talk about what Jesus' "literally spoke of", then put words in Jesus' mouth, I see no reason to indulge your personal hunches with a serious response.
2. As long as your ignore, minimize, rationalize, or dismiss the words of Jesus to don't limit His Kingdom the way you choose to.
"Why, then, do you think that Jesus is NOT speaking of the Good News for the poor and marginalized that Jesus literally and specifically cited, when he encouraged them to preach the good news of the realm of God?"
I think that the problem here is that I read Jesus' words, in the context of scripture and I see that the "Good News" was not limited by 1st century economic status. I see Jesus' words pointing towards the reconciliation of ALL of creation with YHWH, not just parts. I see you assuming that your hunches are True in the way you form your question, without actually proving the objective Truth of your hunches.
"Are you reading INTO that line, "he never mentioned that they should do anything but proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven" that by "kingdom of heaven," he was speaking of PSA?"
No.
"If so, why didn't he take the time to mention it? Anywhere in ANY of his sermons/teachings?"
1. I didn't.
2. His teachings are rife with Him and others speaking about His position as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world.
3. His sacrifice is what allows His people to partake in His Kingdom, it's not His Kingdom.
"But WHAT is he hiding and from WHOM? Is it random people... this person but not THAT person...? OR is it some specific group?"
In the absence of specifics, it's hard to answer.
"This is what Jesus said to John who was imprisoned by the rich and powerful and soon to be killed by the rich and powerful... the legalists."
Irrelevant, unless you demand that your hunch about the "rich and powerful" must be imposed on everything Jesus said.
"Who WERE these violent people Jesus is referring to?"
You tell me.
"Hm. WHO was it who hated Jesus and John for what they preached... for their good news to specifically the poor and marginalized?"
Again, your imposing of your hunches on the text makes answering you impossible because I do not accept the unproven premise that the question assumes. Obviously, the Jewish leaders hated Jesus because He, claimed to be Messiah and He exposed how they had corrupted the law given by YHWH. He was messing with their livelihood, their (limited) power and their status. The Romans hated Him because He claimed to be God and wouldn't acknowledge Caesar as god. The Romans were also concerned about a political rebellion, which was not what Jesus came to do. To try to limit those who hated Jesus based on your hunches seems problematic.
"Do you know, contextually, who Jesus is referring to here? It's not hard."
I'm sure you're going to provide some unequivocal, objective proof soon.
"Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent..."
Yes, because they "DID NOT REPENT". Not a word about the "poor/marginalized".
"And what WAS the sin of Sodom? That they were rich and unconcerned about the plight of the poor and marginalized?"
Wow, that's quite the leap there. But we've left the realm of anything outside of your imagination at this point.
"Given all that, contextually speaking, WHO were the "wise and learned" that Jesus mocked and brought low? WHO were the "little children" Jesus spoke of, contextually?"
Well, contextually, it doesn't say specifically. Although we could take Jesus' teachings about the way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is to have the faith of a child and the like as a place to start. We could conclude that He might have been speaking of those who place more reliance on their own wisdom, learning, rationality, and Reason. Unfortunately there is nothing in the text that demands that we limit the "wise and learned" to one specific group or economic class.
"It's not hard, look at the textual and contextual clues."
Look at them, eiesgete them, and overlay some 21st century political liberal dogma on top of them, and minimize or ignore any contextual clues that point in any other direction than the one you started with.
It's fascinating that you've managed to take Jesus, who was the epitome of interacting with people in incredibly personal ways and who almost always dealt with people as individuals, and made Him someone who only focuses on groups of people.
I'll simply note that Dan's post on the Atonement in Matthew is an excellent example of his tactic of cherry picking proof texts.
1. He chooses to pluck Matthew out of the context of the other gospels, let alone the NT or the entirety of scripture.
2. He mostly paraphrases the text until he needs a particular snippet of text to support his unproven assumptions.
3. When the text does prove problematic, he simply pulls out one of his stock reasons why that passage can be dismissed or minimized, or that he can tell us what it "really means".
Post a Comment