The Beatitudes

Last week and this week in Come Follow Me we are studying the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain. I again struggled to think of what to write since so much has already been said about the Sermon on the Mount. For my primary lesson and for this blog, I decided to focus on the Beatitudes.

When I was younger, the beatitudes bothered me a bit. They felt like such a heavy burden. I felt like I had to be all the things listed to be acceptable to God. I could see being a peacemaker, meek, and hungering and thirsting after righteousness, but did God really want me to be poor in spirit, mourn and be persecuted? I think I was in my late 30's or early 40's when I realized that Jesus was talking to a crowd that probably were mourning, felt poor in spirit, and had been persecuted. His words were meant to comfort, not admonish. That helped me feel better about the sermon.

Something that is still a challenge for me is understanding some of the terms. What does it mean to be poor in spirit, meek, and pure in heart. I decided to use my Greek skills and my cool Bible Vocab app to see if I could gain any insight on the words.

So here are the beatitudes in English, from Matthew 5 JKV

[3] Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
[4] Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
[5] Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
[6] Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
[7] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
[8] Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
[9] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
[10] Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
[11] Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
[12] Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

First of all, the term Beatitudes comes from Latin not Greek. The first word of each verse is Beati, which really does mean blessed. The word in Greek is "Μακάριοι" and I think it probably is better to call them "beatitudes" instead of "makaritudes". The "to be" word ('are' in English) is absent in Latin and Greek. It is just understood, but it is not unusual to leave it out in either language after an adjectival verb form. As for the things we are "blessed" for, I decided to do a word search in Greek to see where each word is used again in Matthew to try to get a sense of what they mean.

3. Poor in Spirit: The word for poor is πτωχοὶ and is used in Matthew 11:5, Matthew 19:21, Matthew 26:9, &11. In each case it describes a person who is in poverty physically. I think we need to think about how someone in poverty feels and somehow apply that to our spiritual wellbeing. I think it describes spirit lacking and want.
4. Mourn: πενθοῦντες It is a participle, suggesting: those who are mourning now. It is used only once more in Matthew, Matt 9:15, when Jesus says the guests at the wedding can't mourn when the bridegroom is with them. It is used again in Mark 16:10 when Mary goes to the apostles who are mourning to tell them Jesus had appeared to her. (not sure why this is double spaced.)
5. The meek: πραεῖς, It is used in Matthew 11:29, and Matthew 21:5. I think that second passage is illuminating because it is when Jesus was entering Jerusalem on the donkey during the triumphal entry. He was being praised by all around him, but he was staying humble, knowing what was ahead of him.
6. Hunger and thirst: πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες. Again, these are participles: they are hungering and thirsting right now. The hunger word comes up in Matt 4:2, Matt 12:1,&3, Matt 21:18, and both appear in Matt 25:35-44. That parable is the only place in Matthew where the thirst word appears. It makes you think that when Jesus said, "I was hungry, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me drink" he might not have been talking only about physical food and water.
8. Pure in heart: καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ the word for heart is one we recognize, cardia, like cardiac arrest. The word for "pure" shows up in Matt 23:26, Matt 27:59, and also Luke 11:41. It seems to represent a ritualistic cleanliness. The heart is washed clean, like Jesus washed the feet of the apostles.
9. Peacemakers: εἰρηνοποιοί interestingly, this doesn't appear anywhere else in the New Testament.
10-12 Persecuted δεδιωγμένοι It shows up in the next three verses, and the later in the chapter in verse 44. It is also in Matt 10:23, and Matt 23:34. Each time, Jesus is warning the apostles that they will be persecuted. I guess it is clear the Jesus saw persecution in the apostles' future and wanted to give them solace in advance.


I hope this was helpful. I think I gained a couple of insights from it.

The Marriage at Cana

Before I get started on The Marriage at Cana, I want to give a plug for Tim Mackie's five part series about the Book of John on Youtube. It is taken from a conference he gave for pastors about how to teach the Gospel of John.  He has crazy good insights about the structure of the book as a whole, and how different themes propagate through the narrative.  

So, the marriage at Cana.  This story has always been a little problematic for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  All our lives we are taught that drinking alcohol is a no-no.  In church artwork, especially in that created for children, you can always tell the "bad guy" because they are the one with a wine glass in their hand. So understanding that creating 150 gallons of wine and serving it at a wedding--after the guests are already drunk--is a good thing takes a little bit of mental and moral acrobatics.  

Even if you are not a "Mormon" it is easy to question why this miracle is as important or impactful as healing a blind person, or raising the dead. Whom does it help?  What lasting impact does it have to make sure a wedding is well supplied with good wine? If you believe, as I do, that John wrote his gospel to specifically mention certain meaningful events that the other gospel writers left out, then you have to ask the question, why did John see this miracle as particularly meaningful?

Another issue with the story that is enigmatic is Jesus' short interchange with his mother.  She states, "They have no wine," and he replies, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come." And Mary takes this as an offer to help, and orders the servants to do anything that Jesus asks.  (John 2:3-5).  What is up with that?

This is where Tim Mackie came in for me this week.  He related this whole story to a passage in Isaiah 25:6. 

"And in the mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all the people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. "...

Then vs. 8 "He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth; for the Lord hath spoken it."  

This is clearly a messianic prophecy.  If you think about what this prophecy is saying, that Jesus will make a feast where there is very good wine, and then he will end up dying to save his people, isn't that basically the book ends of the gospel of John?  Why is not this reference in the footnotes?  I think by including this story here at the beginning of his narrative, John is clearly referencing this Isaiah passage.  It is his first argument in his case that Jesus is the promised Messiah. He suggests as much in vs 11: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory."  He goes on with each of the stories he includes, to show how Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy again and again.  

What does this have to do with his conversation with Mary?  So, here's a question.  If an angel came to you as a teenager and told you that you were going to be the mother of the Son of God, the Messiah, and then you did, having, "known no man", and there were angels and shepherds, and wise men etc., do think, after all that, you might be motivated to learn all you could about what the Messiah was going to do? Do you think that each time in synagogue when they read a messianic passage, you might sit up and pay close attention?  Assume Mary was familiar with this passage from Isaiah.  She finds herself a feast and there is an issue with the wine. Of course, Jesus is familiar with this passage as well, (he quotes Isaiah more often than any other prophet).  Do you think there might have been some little gesture going on between mother and son, like, "Ok, son, we are at a feast, and, you know, the whole 'feast of wine on the lees' thing?"  

Jesus is maybe smiling indulgently, "you know it isn't time for that yet. right'  Then the mother's eyebrow goes up, and the son sighs and nods, and the mother delightedly commands the servants to do whatever he asks.

Of course, there are many more symbolic interpretations of this.  This is foreshadowing the crucifixion, where Jesus sweat blood instead of water (Luke 22:44), and where water gushed out of his side along with blood when they pierced him (John 19:34). This is also a symbol of the Atonement, in that the jars that were filled with water were "after the manner of the purifying of the Jews," (John 2: 6) In other words, the jars were supposed to contain water that a Jew would use to wash their hands and feet to become ritualistically pure before eating, or after they had touched something that was unclean.  The story suggests that it isn't the water of the Mosaic law that would make one clean, but "my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt 26:28).  

There is much more here and, again, my post is getting long. I just want to make another comment from Tim Mackie that I think is insightful.  In the Old testament, prophets like Jeremiah, and Ezekiel perform public "signs" or, like, street plays, that are symbols of things to come.  I think John sees this miracle at the marriage at Cana (and other miracles he is going to recount later in his narrative) as one of these signs that are meant to be symbols of things to come in Jesus' story.  Seeing Jesus' actions in that Old Testament style framework I think will be instructive as we move forward in John. 

 

The Temptation of Jesus

 In some ways it is harder to decide what to post on the New Testament sections we have been reading than it was for the Old Testament.  I was discovering so many new things last year as I went through the Old Testament, but I have studied the New Testament closely before, that I am not getting as many "new" insights.  

Plus, so many other people have written about the Temptations of Christ.  I feel like it is common knowledge that the three temptations represent three general kinds of temptations all people face: the temptation to gratify physical desires, the temptation to seek worldly fame and wealth, and the temptation to misuse power to assuage your own insecurity. Always the point it made that Jesus quotes scripture to resist each temptation as an example of how we can also resist temptation.

I guess the question I want to explore today is what is this passage doing in the whole text.  More specifically, what reference does it make to the Old Testament narrative that the people of Jesus' time would have recognized. We have already seen that Matthew, in particular, is trying to show Jews that Jesus fulfills Old Testament types.  So where in the Old Testament do we see a person (or group of people) going into the wilderness to be tempted?  The most obvious answer is the Children Of Israel. Let's look at the parallels.

The Children of Israel leave Egypt by passing through the Read Sea
        Jesus goes through baptism 
The Children of Israel enter the wilderness where they are tested
        Jesus goes into the desert to be tempted
The Children of Israel are in the wilderness 40 years
        Jesus fasts for 40 days
The Children of Israel face a food trial, and are given miraculous "bread" or manna
        Jesus is tempted to make bread from stone miraculously 

Moses leads the Children of Israel to the mountain to meet God

        Jesus is taken to the mountain and promised he could rule as God over all the earth

Moses builds a tabernacle which becomes the symbol that God is with them

        Jesus is taken to the temple and tempted to prove that God is with him. 

I think that the pattern of being lead to the wilderness to be tried and tempted is one that Jews would have recognized.  The Exodus narrative was one of the most important stories in Jewish tradition.  The house of Israel left the wilderness purified and ready to spread Jehovah worship throughout the promised land.  Jesus leaves his wilderness experience ready to spread the gospel to the Jews, and ultimately to the whole world.

The Baptism of Jesus

 This week for Come Follow Me we read three accounts of the ministry of John the Baptist and the Baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3, Mark 1, and Luke 3.  I think one of my main themes this year will be how New Testament writers purposely referenced the Old Testament in their writings.  This is never more evident than in the story of John the Baptist.  There are so many references, (and it is already 9:00 pm) that I won't go into a lot of details about each one.  I will just mention some I found or heard of this week. 

John is like Elijah: John's mode of clothing, in camel hair and leather, reminds ancient readers of Elijah in the Old Testament.  (Kings 1:8).  Elijah also had a connection with the Jordan River, where John was baptizing, because he parted the river by smiting it with his mantle.  They both lived in the wilderness and ate wild food. Elijah, like John, was a great prophet who cried repentance, and both men were followed by an even greater prophet who did more miracles.(Elijah-Elisha, John-Jesus)

The River Jordan: When the children of Israel fled Egypt, the wandered in the wilderness for 40 years and then entered into the promised land by crossing the river Jordan. After they crossed the river they entered the Promised Land and became a great nation. Egypt is often the symbol for both captivity and sinfulness. I think the gospel writers here are using the location of the story to show that forsaking sin and entering the waters of the Jordan (in baptism) marked the beginning of the establishment of the Kingdom of God, just as the house of Israel's escaping Egypt and crossing the Jordan signaled the beginning of the Kingdom of Israel.

Baptism in the Old Testament: Jews didn't have to be baptized to be considered part of the house of Israel.  They were part of the house of Israel because they were descendants of Abraham.  The reason people would have been baptized in ancient Israel was because they were Gentiles converting to Judaism, or if they had committed a serious sin and needed to go through ritualistic cleansing. (e.g. Lev 15:16-18 or 16:15) John knew that Jesus was already Jewish, so he didn't need to be baptized as a convert, and John knew Jesus was free from any serious sin.  That is why John asked Jesus why he had come to be baptized.  By being baptized Jesus was establishing a new law.  According to the new law,  someone could come into the Kingdom of heaven by being obedient and making a covenant to keep the commandments, whether or not they were a descendant of Abraham. 

The Sign of the Dove: A Dove first appears in the story of Noah.  Noah sent a dove to see if the waters of the flood had withdrawn. Later, doves were mentioned as acceptable offerings when a petitioner couldn't afford to offer a larger animal as a sacrifice.  In the first story, the Dove represented the hope of salvation after a long time of destruction and being "adrift".  Jesus was the hope of salvation after Israel had been adrift after the Babylonian captivity.  Doves were considered clean and were sacrificed (e.g. Lev 12:6) as sin offerings to make people clean.  Jesus was like a sinless dove that would be sacrificed as a sin offering. 

One more thing I mentioned to my primary class.  It has always seemed strange to me that God would send a dove as the sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost. It just seemed random...a bird flying down and landing on Jesus. Then last Friday as I was doing ordinance work in the temple, I put my hands on someone's head to give the initiatory prayers, and I thought of how my hands were kind of in the shape of birds wings, landing on the head of the person receiving the ordinances.  If you have your eyes closed, hands landing on your head, and a bird landing gently on your head... it doesn't feel that different. As a priesthood holder gently lays their hands on someone's head to give them the gift of the Holy Ghost, is it reminiscent of the dove descending on Jesus as a sign that he had received the gift of the Holy Ghost?

John 1: The Word

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 

I wonder if this verse, John 1:1, has perhaps been more debated than any other verse in the whole New Testament, maybe even in the whole Bible. The main debate is what the writer means when he calls Jesus "ὁ λόγος" or The Word. The word, "logos" has about as many meanings in Greek as the word "word" does in English.  Think about all the ways we might use the word "word". 

    I wrote a word on a page.
    I gave my word that I would do it.
    When you are ready, give me word.
    Oh my word! What have you done now?
     etc, etc.

A good ancient Greek dictionary will give a page of definitions for the word "logos."  So, which one is the author using here? 

 I think the writer is giving clues in the text to let you know which definition he means.  The first clue is the first two words. "ἐν ἀρχῇ" or "in the beginning".  Those two words automatically conjure up Genesis 1:1, even for people who never read the Old Testament.  We are clearly meant to remember the creation of the world here, and how did God create the world?  He used words. "And God* said, Let there be light." (Gen1:3) John seems to be suggesting that, just as words were the creative instrument God used to create the world, Jesus was God's instrument for creating the world. "All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:3) 

This was a startling assertion for the time. Greeks and Romans were used to stories of demigods, men or women who had one divine parent and one mortal parent.  Hercules, Perseus, Theseus, were all the result of a god mating with a mortal.  Jews were used to stories about prophets who were the result of miraculous births, like Isaac, and Samuel. The difference here is that John isn’t suggesting that Jesus was like Hercules or Samuel.  He is asserting that he is like Zeus or indeed, יהוה. He is not the offspring or creation of the creator god, he IS the creator god that has condescended to take on human form.  I think it was a hard idea for people to wrap their minds around, even the Jews.

The other gospel writers recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the "anointed one" who was sent to save Israel, and as the "Son of God," the result of a mystical union between God, through the Holy Spirit, and Mary that resulted in a virgin giving birth.  But I am not sure that Peter, during Jesus’ earthly ministry or maybe even afterward, would have thought of Jesus as the same being who created the Earth, sent the flood in the time of Noah, spoke to Moses from the burning bush, and appeared as a pillar of fire over the tabernacle. I wonder if in Peter’s mind, Jesus was Hercules instead of Zeus.  I think Paul understood it, I think John came to understand it, but I am not so sure about the rest of the apostles.  As I read through the New Testament again, I will watch for indications that I am wrong.

__________________________________

*It is interesting to note, that during the creation narrative God is called "אֱלֹהִים" or Elohim, not "יהוה" or Yahweh.  The tetragrammaton name doesn't show up until Genesis 2 .  

Matthew 2 and Luke 2

 I was the one teaching my 9-year-olds Sunday School class today about Matthew 2 and Luke 2.  It was a little awkward because we just had Christmas three weeks and now we are talking about Christmas again.  I decided to teach my class the same principles I used in the "Christmas Week" activities I did with my kids when they were little. The main premise is that each item in the nativity as described in Luke and Matthew was specifically chosen and included because it is a symbol of Jesus' mission on the earth.  As I went back through the scriptures, I realized that, after doing a deeper dive into the Old Testament last year, I could update my Nativity program a little to make it more accurate.

Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels about 40 years after Jesus' death.  They had plenty of time to think about what details were important and which were unimportant in the nativity.  In my last post I said that Luke may have never even met Mary, but in the podcasts I listened to this week, they said that many scholars believe that Luke and Mary may have lived in the same town on Ephesus late in Mary's life, and she probably told him the story of Jesus' birth (though I still think the poetic form of the Magnificat was Luke's invention.)  She must have told the story many times in her life to interested followers of Jesus.  Over time specific details would have come together in symbolic significance in her mind, and in the minds of the Christian community. As I have stated before, Matthew was particularly concerned with showing similarities between Jesus' life and the lives of Moses and David.  This desire would have motivated which details he decided to include.  So, here are the main details mentioned by Luke and Matthew, and scriptures that reflect the symbolism I see there.

Shepherds: John 10:11, Psalm 23: 1-4, Alma 5:38, and also the shepherd imagery throughout the Old Testament.  David was a shepherd before he became king.  Also, if the shepherds in Bethlehem were raising sheep for the temple, they would have had the responsibility to verify which sheep were the first born, without blemish, and worthy of the temple rituals. Who better to testify of the birth of the Lamb of God?

Angel (heavenly hosts): Isaiah 8:15, Jesus is the Lord of Hosts. Also 2 Kings 6:15-17.  The sudden appearance of the heavenly hosts would have reminded Jewish people of the story of Elisha as recorded in 2 Kings 6, suggesting that the new baby would be the spiritual heir of Elijah and Elisha. 

Lamb of God: John 1: 29, 1 Nephi, 12:6. Also the Passover in Exodus 12:5

Star: Jesus is the light of the world: John 12:46, Helaman 14.  There is no prediction of a new star arriving at the birth of the Messiah in the Old Testament, yet one of King David's symbols was the six pointed star, the same star that is on the flag of Israel today.  It is made of two triangles, one pointing up and one pointing down.  It represents the connection between man and heaven. Including the star in the narrative would have suggested that Jesus was the heir of David, and, as such, would be the intermediary between heaven and earth. 

Another way to look at the star is as a echo of the pillar of fire that appeared over the tabernacle when the God was present. As such, the star signaled to Jews that, after centuries of worshiping at a temple with an empty Holy of Holies, (the Arch of the Covenant having been lost centuries before at the Babylonian captivity) the Lord had once more returned to earth, not in the temple, but in a stable. 

Wise men: Psalm 72: 10-11, 1 Kings 10:1-3 These are both refences to the fact that King Solomon, David's son and the only king of a united Israel, was so wise that people would come from distant lands to see him and seek his wisdom.  By telling the story of the wise men coming to see Jesus, the authors were implicitly comparing Jesus to the wisest of Israelite prophet-kings.

Bethlehem: Means House of Bread: John 6: 35  Also Malachi 5:2.  

Manger: John 19: 39-42 The podcasters pointed out that the manger would have most likely been made out of stone rather than wood, since wood was scarce in the region.  So the beginning of Jesus' life, as a small infant wrapped in cloth and lying in a stone manger, would have looked a lot like the end of Jesus' mortal life, with Jesus wrapped in a shroud and laid in a stone sepulcher. 

So there is a more "grown up" version of the Christmas symbols we taught our kids when they were small.

Welcome to the New Testament

 This year in Come Follow Me (the scripture study program for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) we are studying the New Testament.  I enjoyed this week listening to podcasts about the intertestamental period, i.e. the time between Malachi and Matthew.  I especially enjoyed hearing about the Maccabees.  Jared Halverson's podcast on "Unshaken" as especially good on this topic. 

We also covered Matthew 1 and Luke 1.  Matthew 1 starts with Joseph's genealogy.   One of Matthew's main purposes is to show the Jews that Jesus is the Christ by connecting Jesus' life to prophecies from the Old Testament.  Matthew shows that Joseph was descended from both Abraham and King David.  He also states that there were 14 generations between Abraham and David, and from David to the Captivity and from the Captivity to Joseph.  Scholars don't have to study too hard to discover that this is very unlikely.  They believe that Matthew uses the number 14 because the numbers associated with the letters in David's name in Hebrew דוד add up to 14. 

ד=4
6=ו

But why do we care about Joseph's genealogy? He wasn't Jesus' biological parent anyway.  You have to remember that, in the Jewish culture, status as a Jew was established through the mother, but status as an heir to kingship comes through the male line.  One podcaster mentioned that by taking Jesus to the temple for his Briss at 8 days old, Joseph was officially adopting Jesus. As Joseph's adopted son, Jesus took on Joseph's kingly lineage as a descendant and heir of King David. 

In Luke 1, we get the story of Zacharias and Elisabeth. Here, clearly, the reader is supposed to draw comparisons between John's miraculous birth and the stories of other miraculous births from barren couples: Sarai and Abraham, Rachel and Jacob, Hannah and Elkanah for example. Clearly John is to be a great prophet by Jewish standards.  

We also get the story of the annunciation and Mary's visit to Elizabeth. One thing I thought that was interesting in the podcasts is that they talked as if Mary really did say the Magnificat when talking with Elizabeth.  I think that the chance the Mary actually said those exact words recorded in Matthew 1:46-56 in is pretty low.  They are written in refined Greek poetry. How would Luke have even known what Mary said or did ?  Would a young Galilean girl, talking with an older relative, suddenly start spouting Greek poetry? 

Luke was a gentile who traveled with Paul and was a physician.  He may have met Mary on a visit to Israel at some point, but it is unlikely.  My guess is that he was raised as an educated Roman and that in the Greco-Roman world interactions related to divine occurrences happen in poetry. The Iliad and the Odyssey are written in poetry, as are all the Greek plays that deal with divine manifestations.  Just as we might expect divine messengers to talk in Old English, with "thee's" and "thou's," Mark would have felt funny writing a dialog between these two women with divinely appointed pregnancies in anything less than poetry. He probably captured the main thoughts and feelings of Mary's encounter, but he probably composed the poetry himself.  I am glad he did, because is is really lovely verse that has inspired women for generations.