|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 20:47:16 GMT -8
12/05:
Is there something significant about John's clothes and food?? Is that to show that he was of a certain class or from certain town?? It just seems a weird tidbit for Matthew to write. "John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey."
Can someone give insight to John's rant about the Pharisees? I'm guessing there is some historical context about them and it seems like they were not liked.
Talk about an amazing honor John had. Can you imagine being the one to baptize God Himself?? I can't even begin to wrap my brain around that.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:22:51 GMT -8
12/05:
A couple things: Matthew uses "kingdom of heaven" to remove unnecessary offense to Jews who did not usually verbalize the word God. This is, therefor, probably more accurately what John said- Luke translates it to God so his Gentile audience will understand better. John's clothes and habits indentify him with the prophet Elijah (he is concerned to be the new Elijah, or the return of Elijah symbolically). See 2 Kings 1:8 and Malachi 4:5. Both had 'stern' ministries and critiqued worldly pleasures for obstructing the way to God.
The problem with the Pharisees is that they have built up an outward system of righteousness but inwardly are prideful. In a socio-political sense, John here is identifying with the poor and lower-class Israelites who aren't wealthy collaboraters with Rome, such as the Pharisees.
As far as the honor bestowed on John, check out:
Luke 7:28 28 I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
So, he is considered to be the greatest of the OT prophets, yet just a taste of what God will do with the people of His New Kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:23:26 GMT -8
12/05:
Note this section:
Matthew 3:7-12 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Remember that all this talk about the coming wrath and the ax and the burning isn't primarily warnings of hell- it is mostly concerned with and prophetic of the national judgment and destruction that would befall Jerusalem in 70 AD. God would decisively end the old temple cult and set up his glorious New Covenant/ Kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 21:24:57 GMT -8
12/05:
"Remember that all this talk about the coming wrath and the ax and the burning isn't primarily warnings of hell- it is mostly concerned with and prophetic of the national judgment and destruction that would befall Jerusalem in 70 AD. God would decisively end the old temple cult and set up his glorious New Covenant/ Kingdom."
Please elaborate. I'm not sure that I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:26:57 GMT -8
12/05:
Sure... we're going to see the theme of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem cropping up again and again in Matthew. Now, I'm not saying he wasn't warning them of their eternal destiny- but what I'm saying is that he is serving them notice of the impending national judgment about to fall on them- just as the earlier prophets did. In fact, note the last line of the OT in Malachi:
5 “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.â€
John the Baptist fulfills this passage (he is the new Elijah). Jesus fulfills both the turning of the hearts AND predicts the curse that befalls Israel in 70 AD.
back to Matthew 3: 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
This wrath is described in Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD:
Luke 21:23 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.
This wrath also relates to eternal punishment, as well.
8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
This part closely parellels what Paul says in Romans 11:13-24: God is about to show who is true servants are: not just physical Jews but Jews and Gentiles alike who serve him in spirit. This is not something that will happen in the distant future or primarily at the Judgment, it something that was about to happen in history through Jesus resurrection and the destruction of the Temple (the old way of approaching God).
11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.â€
This part, again, deals with the destruction of Jerusalem as well as eternal fire. We'll see this later on in the parable of Wedding Banquet, Matthew 22:1-14 where these kind of judgment metaphors are linked with the destruction of the city as well as eternal judgment in the world to come.
Remember that the Pharisess were all about worshipping in the Temple and only in the Temple. Jesus is proclaiming that that method of accessing God is soon passing in a very manifest physical way (it will be destroyed) and something new and better is coming: the Kingdom of God (the Church) in which mankind will have direct access to God. The Jews in fact, should have known this destruction was coming, for it was clearly fortold by the prophets:
Daniel 9:26 The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
and Zechariah 13: 7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!" declares the LORD Almighty. "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones. 8 In the whole land," declares the LORD, "two-thirds will be struck down and perish; yet one-third will be left in it. 9 This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, "They are my people," and they will say, "The LORD is our God."
14 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you. 2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
So, it's not so much a either/ or, it's a both and. But I think since modern Christians may not be too in tune with the history, we might easily miss the historical import Jesus words were having. He wasn't just telling the smug Pharisees that they would get their 'come-uppance' in the world to come-- he was saying they were going to see all their false hopes dashed literally within their lifetime.
Did that help?
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 21:27:48 GMT -8
12/05:
I'm still chewing on it...Don't worry, I will get back to you about it because I find myself quite interested in the interpretation of scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:28:35 GMT -8
12/05:
Sounds great. You know, I've found that each time I study the bible I usually am looking for a certain thread. Like maybe one time I'm reading the gospels and just trying to pick up on all the obvious and more subtle points about a certain topic, say, the Kingdom of God, or Repentence or something.
Well, in the last few years I've come to see the significance of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. And I've come to see a lot of related themes in the OT. It was a little difficult to answer your question because I see direct and indirect references to this event ALL OVER the New Testament, but just like anything, that was a realization I made over time. One passage or even a few isn't going to cinch it. So, maybe just file what I've said away and each time I think it comes up in the text, I'll mention it, and then eventually you'll understand what I'm getting at better and then you can make a call on it.
I know it might seem like a small issue, but I"ve found it (the Temple's destruction) to be quite informative and important in interpreting the New Testament. The event in AD 70 casts its shadow backwards on the whole NT story, kinda flavoring the whole thing, so to speak. It would be the equivalent of reading newspapers from 1938 and not looking for hints of WWII.
It's also tricky to discuss without going into what the Prophets say about the Temple/ Jerusalem, which is a massive undertaking we'll eventually get to. That's part of the reason I'm so excited to start studying the OT: because the more we know it, the better we 'get' the New.
Re-reading this I hope it doesn't sound cocky. If it does come off that way, I beg your indulgence. I have not 'arrived' in Bible Study-- I just have learned, as I'm sure you have, that each time I study the Bible something new pops out. I think we're all eager to relate to each other the things that pop out for us.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 21:29:20 GMT -8
12/05:
I don't think it sounds cocky at all, so please don't think that. I guess that the writings of the NT are similar to JS writing the Book of Mormon in that I doubt the NT authors would have had enough forethought to talk about something that may not be happening for a couple millenia so it would make sense that they would be prophesying something to happen much sooner. It's just not a settled thought yet and it's making me more interested in the process of how not only you, but other Biblical scholars come to the conclusions they come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:30:16 GMT -8
12/05:
Another argument I'd put forth for this interpretation is what some call 'time texts': texts that indicate on some level when prophesied events are to take place. We see one in this passage: "The ax is already at the root of the trees". It implies that the action is about ready to happen- in fact, the beginning part of it is currently happening.
One could say that such texts just mean that the event has 'been about to happen' for the last 2,000 years. I'm not a big fan of that interpretation. It feels like a cheap way out. I do think some things in Scripture can be said to be "now and not yet"-- like the Kingdom of God is now and will find an even fuller expression in the future. And, yes, there was a temporal judgment on Israel in AD 70, but there will be a universal judgment in the future, "now and not yet", but I guess I feel like, let's not miss the 'now' part when examining the texts.
This "ax" verse is one of several "time texts" in Matthew, but certainly not the most convincing. We'll soon be getting to the others, however.
I'm going to shut up now.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 21:31:05 GMT -8
12/05:
Please don't shut up!!! You are a great source of knowledge that I really enjoy tapping into. I think part of what I need to look into (and maybe you would have some great insight into where to look) is the destruction of the temple. I'm deficient of the history of that and that might be where I'm being hung up. Got any great books/articles I can read??
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:32:05 GMT -8
12/05:
Well, the Jewish historian Josephus (who fought in the Jewish war from 66-70), first on the side of the Jews and then on the side of the Romans, gives us the complete tale, and also a great history of Palestine spanning the time period from Herod the Great (40 BC) to the Destruction of the Temple (70 AD). I have the complete works of Josephus and also an abridged version called Thrones of Blood. If you'd like to check them out, please do. The only drawback is that they make a fairly lengthy read. They are, however, our best source of non-Christian information about the whole New Testament period.
Let me look around, especially for a website that covers the material.
I don't think you and I have talked a lot about eschatology before, however, I did have a lengthy discussion on this topic in two threads earlier on the message board.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 21:32:55 GMT -8
12/05:
Thanks for your input. I will definitely look into your suggestions. I'm not sure if I want to check out the Josephus book yet since I have so many things I am trying to read right now.
No, you and I have never had a discussion about eschatology and I'm not sure there ever will be a discussion about that. I used to have at length conversations about it when I was in college and I saw some really bad things happen as a result of the differing opinions. I decided a long time ago that it is an issue that I want to leave laid to rest.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:34:07 GMT -8
12/05:
Understandable, yet about 1/3 of the Bible is related to eschatological themes, so it's hard to avoid. I think it's nice to apply the value we were discussing on Sunday to the topic of eschatology: interested to learn about and discuss, willing to engage in HEALTHY RESPECTFUL debate, tolerating a diversity of perspectives, etc.. Those two capitalized words are usually the first things to be forgotten in theological debates, unfortunately. But it doesn't have to be that way, Lord willing.
Perhaps, just a suggestion, it was the people and not so much the topic that was the problem
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:34:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 21:35:18 GMT -8
2/12/06:
I was just reading in a book by Jaroslav Pelikan about this passage in Matthew 3:
8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
It turns out that it wasn't until someone translated the Greek of Matthew into Aramaic (the actual spoken language of Jesus and the Disciples) that it became clear that John the baptist was using an interesting pun here.
In Aramaic, not Greek, 'son' plural is "banim" and 'stones' is "ebanim", so he's saying God was able to make banim out of ebanim.
This is cool because it gives us good reason to think that the Gospel writers were actually remembering read things Jesus said. Those writers had to translate it into Greek, thereby losing some of the original potency (puns like this), but they were remembering real things that were quite witty in Aramaic.
|
|