We continue to look at the book of Matthew.
*In chapter 15 of Matthew, we read a repetition of the story found in Mark of the non-jewish woman who had a daughter possessed by a demon/evil spirit. In Mark the woman was a Greek. In Matthew she was a Canaanite. In Matthew, Jesus significantly tells the woman,"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." He did not say that in Mark. Also, in Mark, Jesus admires the woman's reply to his implication that non Jews are dogs. In Matthew, he admires her faith.
*At the very end of Matthew, we read another version of the "great commission." There
Jesus tells the remaining eleven disciples to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit." This passage seems to clearly indicate that the disciple should have been out teaching gentiles after Jesus's ascension. However, we saw in Galatians and Acts that both Peter and Paul had to explain their ministries to the Gentiles and approval was sought from the jerusalem council of Jewish christians. Why weren't all the disciples out teaching and baptising "all nations?" There are traditions that this happened, such as Thomas in India, but there is no evidence.
Now let's take a look at Luke.
*In chapter 7, we have repetition of Jesus healing the centurian's servant, also found in Matthew 8. Here we are told people pleaded with Jesus that the centurian deserved the consideration of Jesus because "he loves our nation and has built our synogogue." In Matthew, the Centurian speaks directly to Jesus. In Luke, they communicate through friends.
*In Luke 8, we have a repetition of the story of the demon possessed man and the pigs, also found in Mark and Matthew. This version is more like Mark's.
*I didn't notice anything else until Luke 24, where, instead of the great commission, Jesus tells the disciples, "This is what is written: The christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations (presumably including Gentiles), beginning at Jerusalem." First of all there is no OT scripture that actually says this. It is cobbled together from various passages in Psalms and Isaiah, which most likely were not originally intended to refer to Jesus. My study bible gives these references: Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Psalm 16:8-11, Isaiah 49. There are references to suffering and passages that coincide with the NT descriptions of Jesus's death. We are told "All the families of the nations will bow down before him" (him being Yahweh). We are told Israel will be made a light to the gentiles. We are told a suffering servant will bear the sins/iniquities of many. But... We are not told all these things clearly in one place. We are definitely not told that a particular person called the christ will rise on the third day and people will preach in his name. That is something the (unknown) author of Luke made up.
So, I did some more looking into the "third day" claim. I found Hosea 6:2 that says, "After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence." The study bible does not claim this has any relationship to Jesus rising on the third day, good for them. There are numerous references to things happening on third days, a number of days that is very popular in the OT. But none of them seem to suggest the resurrection of a christ in any way. So why have Jesus raised on the third day? Well, the story of Yahweh appearing on Mount Sinai in Exodus 19 may be the inspiration. After a period of three days, god appears with thunder and lightening and a loud trumpet blast. It doesn't really fit, but that's all I have.
No comments:
Post a Comment